This study of Romans 9–11 focuses on three prominent questions that Paul asks in relation to God's faithfulness to Israel: 1) Is God unjust in reference to his election?; 2) Why does God find fault, for who has resisted his will? and 3) Has God rejected his people? The article examines Paul's answers to these questions in light of an intertextual study related to the catchwords the apostle develops from the ancient Jewish sources that he echoes.

This article compares a discursive analysis of 2 Thess 2 and Giorgio Agamben's use of the same passage in his political philosophy (in at least three of his books). On the one hand, 2 Thess 2 is a complex and detailed eschatological scenario, but ultimately elliptical – with a self-referential enunciative device centred on a ‘super blank’, the κατέχον/κατέχων, which it is preferable not to identify. On the other hand, despite some shortcuts, Agamben aligns with the main intuitions of 2 Thess 2, which finally returns the reader to his/her own present where a conflict is played out between, on one front, the Messiah and his community, and, on the other front, the anti-messiah and his anti-messianic community. According to Agamben, the κατέχον/κατέχων is a negative figure, the legal facade that prevents unmasking the anomie of current political systems and delays the establishment of a messianic community beyond the law.

Part of the Syriac textual tradition of Matthew 16. 18c attests the reading mukleē, ‘bars’, instead of πúλαι.1 The word mukleē is transparently loaned from Greek (μοχλóς). What is the exact significance of this interesting textual variant, which surely represents the wording of Tatian's Diatessaron and which may well be even older? One interpretation is that the mukleē are the bars which are part of, or stand for the sluice gates restraining the waters of the deep2.

Dans la première édition de La structure littéraire de l' Epître aux Hébreux (Paris, 1962), A. Vanhoye notait au terme de son étude d'Héb 3, 1–6: ‘Nous n'oserions pas prétendre que cette interprétation s'impose en tout point avec la clarté de l'éVidence’ (p. 91), et dans la deuxième édition (Paris, 1976) il ajoute: ‘Cette discussion reste fort problématique. Le raisonnement de l'auteur n'est pas assez explicite pour qu'on puisse en saisir avec certitude toutes les étapes’ (p. 265). Cette dernière affirmation nous semble contestable, et c'est ce que le présent travail voudrait s'efforcer de montrer. Sans revenir sur les critiques adressées à juste titre par Vanhoye (pp. 88–9) aux lectures de C. Spicq, O. Michel, J. Héring et J. Moffatt, et sans négliger l'apport des deux éditions du livre, mais non plus celui de l'article de J. Swetnam, ‘Form and Content in Hebrews 1–6’,1 nous proposerons d'abord une traduction servile du texte, puis nous en étudierons la structure littéraire, et enfin nous essaierons de saisir les étapes du raisonnement de l'auteur. L'étude du rapport aux premiers chapitres sera notre conclusion.

Recent discussion of the genre of Q suggests that a consensus is not yet emerging. On the one hand there is the view of John Kloppenborg that the stages in the development of Q were, firstly, the assembling of a number of wisdom speeches followed by, secondly, an expansion by various groups of sayings, many formed as chriae, and then, thirdly, a move in the direction of a bios by means of an historicizing tendency and the addition of the temptation story (Q 4.1–13).1 Within this approach traditions which seem prima facie to exhibit prophetic form or content are strictly subordinated to, or at least controlled by, their setting in a wisdom collection. That is, the wisdom Makrogattung determines how any prophetic Mikrogattungen are to be viewed. On the other hand there is the view of Migaku Sato that Q should be compared with prophetic books, and that it grew in several redactional stages, each of which was informed by the prophetic tradition and conditioned by prophetic mission.2 On this view the prophetic Makrogattung determines how any sapiential Mikrogattungen are to be viewed.

Certainly since the groundbreaking work of Ferdinand de Saus-sure, the social character of language has been axiomatic for most linguists. Saussure writes: ‘The structure of a language is a social product of our language faculty. At the same time, it is also a body of necessary conventions adopted by society to enable members of society to use their language faculty.’ Eugene Nida and Johannes Louw, writing in the supplement to their New Testament lexicon, acknowledge the connection between their treatment of semantics and sociology, but they refrain from specifying what they think the relationship between language and society to be. Nida is somewhat more forthcoming in his study of componential analysis when he writes:

There are analogies between the structure of a culture and the semantic structure of a corresponding language, but there is no set of one-to-one correspondences. A language must be free to describe a variety of possibilities, including those which have not as yet entered the culture. Nevertheless, the language does reflect in certain aspects of its semantic structure those aspects of the culture which for one reason or another have become salient in the lexical contrasts.

In several NT passages an audience is urged to be ready for the parousia of Christ, which will come upon them ‘like a thief in the night’. This image plays upon a common stock of cultural lore regarding the nocturnal activities of house burglars. A review of the evidence suggests that poor people and women had the most to fear from burglars. For them, the idea of Jesus coming ‘like a thief in the night’ might have induced feelings of fear rather than anticipation. In the case of women, the image may have functioned as a means of social control.

Acts 13.6–12 has been viewed as highly significant in the debate about the historicity of Acts, since the beginnings of the Pauline mission among the Gentiles are supposed to be rooted here, and the story illustrates Paul's self-understanding as an apostle. On the other hand, signs of literary creativity of the author with regard to the overall theological concept and the controversy about miracles, magic and apocalyptic traditions are clearly seen in this section that seem to contradict the description of the beginnings of the Pauline mission. This paper explores the apparent contradiction in the debate about the historicity of Luke-Acts in general and Acts 13.6–12 in particular, and shows that magic and apocalypticism can be incorporated within the ancient understanding of historical verification.

This article argues that the double negative form of the ‘disclosure formula’ in 2 Cor 1.8 (οὐ … θέλομεν ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν) is not merely a stylistic variation on θέλομεν ὑμᾶς γινώσκειν but performs the additional rhetorical function of disavowing any attempt on Paul's part to hide the story of his sufferings from the church in Corinth. The transition from 1.8–11 to 1.12–14 (which many commentators struggle to explain) thus becomes a smooth and obvious one, suggesting a close interconnection between Paul's defence of his transparency and integrity in 1.12–2.13 and his apology for his sufferings in 2.14–7.4.

The Sahidic Coptic is one of the earliest and most important versions of the New Testament. Thus, it is essential that its witness be related to the Greek tradition with adequate methodological precision. This article attempts to pave the way for such an undertaking in the Epistle to the Hebrews, a New Testament book which, currently, lacks a major critical edition of its Greek text or an edition of its Sahidic version. Firstly, the present study offers methodological reflections on citing the Sahidic version, with a particular focus on transmissional, editorial, linguistic and translation-technical issues. And secondly, a selection of the most significant variant units in Hebrews is examined with a view to relating the Sahidic evidence to the Greek variant spectrum at each point.

Matthew's Gospel is known for its long, flowing discourses. The speeches in Luke, by contrast, are shorter and scattered throughout his narrative. Some believe this difference is evidence against the so-called ‘Farrer hypothesis’ – the view that Luke used both Mark and Matthew as sources. One response, however, is that Luke wanted to bring his speech lengths into closer conformity with the literary standards of Greco-Roman bioi. An analysis of seventeen representative bioi suggests that Matthew's speeches were exceptionally long for medium-sized biographies such as his own. This fact provides a plausible literary motivation for Luke to abbreviate Matthew's discourses.

Despite this renewed attention, scholars have avoided situating their analyses of this pericope within the major debates about Papias' work. The question of whether Papias employed the methods of Greek rhetoric sits as the most relevant issue for this discussion. Though many scholars champion rhetorical readings of Papias, detractors contend that they overstate his ostensibly technical vocabulary (e.g., τάξις, συντάσσω, χρεία, διάλεκτος, ἑρμηνευτής in Frag. 2). They generally construe these as Papias' colloquial or historical characterizations of Gospel narratives. Whether and how Papias testifies to source-critical concerns for Synoptic studies—such as the Sayings Gospel Q, a proto-Matthew, and the oral transmission of Jesus' life—depends on their interpretation. Opposition primarily disputes the meaning of individual words in the context Papias provides them, so that his rhetorical forms and flourishes remain relatively unscathed from criticism. Papias' death of Judas has never figured into this discussion, but it nonetheless points in favor of a rhetorical backdrop.

Paul seems neither to know anything about rhetoric nor to appreciate it. On the one hand he calls himself an ‘amateur in speech’ (2 Cor 11.6). On the other hand he rejects rhetoric as part of the wisdom of the world (1 Cor 1–4). Such statements could, however, be a rhetorical strategy, which belongs to dissimulatio artis (‘concealment of (rhetorical) art’). Thus, while Paul seems to dissociate himself from rhetoric, he might in some way declare himself for rhetoric. This article gives a survey of the realisation of dissimulatio and of its functions in pagan literature of antiquity and deals with the question whether this rhetorical means is to be found in Paul's letters.