Quel est le genre rhétorique du discours devant l'Aréopage (Ac 17.22–31)? Après avoir examiné et évalué les propositions précédentes en la matière, on est amené à y reconnaître le genre démonstratif, et particulièrement celui de l'éloge divin, dont ce discours partage les traits essentiels. Une lecture détaillée du discours selon les élements de sa dispositio permet alors de comprendre la portée des arguments et la pertinence d'un tel genre en un tel lieu.

This essay argues that the attempts of John Kloppenborg and several others to explain Paul's neologism θεοδιδακτος in 1 Thess 4.9 are unsuccessful. An alternative explanation is offered by taking into consideration available evidence regarding compound neologisms in Koine Greek and by drawing upon Emmanuel Tov's work on LXX translation tendencies. It is suggested that Paul draws upon Isa 54.13 in forming his neologism in a manner analogous to the ‘reverse and combine’ pattern of LXX compound-word formation noted by Tov. Paul creates a new word as part of his larger epistolary strategy of strengthening the communal identity of the troubled Thessalonian community.

Galatians 4.21-31 opens with a brief allusion to events recounted in Genesis 16-17, to which Paul aptly appends the following comment: ατινα εστιν αλληγορουμενα (4.24). Through a re-evaluation of the meaning of the verb αλληγορεω in the context of Hellenistic rhetoric and by setting Paul's own hermeneutic in the context of Jewish hermeneutical norms of the first century, this paper argues that Paul's allegory of the two covenants is more reflective of Jewish reading practices which sought to eschatologize the Torah, such as Paul's reading of Gen 16.1 through its haftarah, Isa 54.1, rather than Christian typology.

While Pontius Pilate is often seen as agnostic, in modern terms, the material evidence of his coinage and the Pilate inscription from Caesarea indicate a prefect determined to promote a form of Roman religion in Judaea. Unlike his predecessors, in the coinage Pilate used peculiarly Roman iconographic elements appropriate to the imperial cult. In the inscription Pilate was evidently responsible for dedicating a Tiberieum to the Dis Augustis. This material evidence may be placed alongside the report in Philo Legatio ad Gaium (299–305) where Pilate sets up shields – likewise associated with the Roman imperial cult –honouring Tiberius in Jerusalem.

A close comparison with Plutarch's De amore prolis and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics shows the author of 4 Maccabees to have used common topics from Greek ethical reflection on love for offspring as a means of commending Torah-observance as the means by which one is enabled to secure one's children's eternal well-being, fulfilling the natural goal of love for offspring more completely. The author shows how trust in God's future enables the mother to view even the death of her children as the fulfillment rather than the negation of her maternal investment, as in the laments of Euripides's heroines in Trojan Women and Hecuba, from which the author explicitly distances her, enabling her exemplary courage.

L'épître de Jacques montre clairement comment la vie chrétienne doit et peut être sage. À partir d'une perspective enracinée dans le Premier Testament, mais tout à fait renovée par l'incarnation du Fils de Dieu, Jacques donne un fresque des caractères fondamentaux de la vie selon l'évangile de Jésus Christ. La perspective sapientielle paraît la clef de lecture du portrait de l'existence humaine offert par cette épître du Nouveau Testament. Jacques présente la sagesse de Jésus sans offrir des considerations elévées sous un point de vue strictement intellectuel ou esthétique. Il invite ses lecteurs à un choix éthique directe. Savoir pour aimer, aimer pour savoir: celui-ci est le sens de la vie chrétienne selon Jacques.

Vom ‘Sehen des Herrn’ vor Damaskus durch Paulus ist sowohl in Apg 9.1–9; 22.4–11 und 26.9–18 als auch in Gal 1.13–15 und 1 Kor 9.1; 15.8–9 die Rede. Was bedeutet die Aussage: Jesus erschien Paulus? Das Resultat der Untersuchung der angeführten Textstellen unter Berücksichtigung der Wortfeldanalyse der drei Worte von Sehen – βλεπω = ‘Ansicht’ in Apg 9.8c, 9a; θεωρεω = ‘Durchsicht’ in Apg 9.7e oder οραω = ‘Einsicht’ in Apg 22.15; 26.16 – und die Notiz von der ‘Stimme’ aus dem Himmel lassen eine Steigerung der Darstellung des so genannten Damaskusereignisses in der Apg feststellen. Auf der Grundlage dieser Vision bzw. Erscheinung ist die Missionstätigkeit des ‘Zeugen’ respektive ‘Apostel’ Paulus aus der Sicht von Apg 26 und Gal 1.13–15 eine von Gott selbst gewollte.

Two Middle Egyptian Coptic texts of Matthew, published by the late Professor Hans-Martin Schenke, namely the Scheide Codex and the Schøjen Codex, are of great interest, not only for Coptisants but also for New Testament textual critics. These manuscripts probably belong, respectively, to the fifth and fourth century. So they may tell us something about form and character of the Greek text in the fourth or perhaps even third century in Egypt, at least if we assume that these manuscripts were copies of older Coptic texts. Moreover, the two texts are also important for our knowledge of the language technique and competence of early Coptic translators. This knowledge may be significant for the question of which form of the Greek text might ‘shine through’ in Coptic texts. In a review of Schenke's magnificent edition of the Schøjen text I have dared to criticize his attempt to give a reconstruction of the Greek text that underlies this Coptic text. The history of such ‘retranslations’ teaches us that they are sometimes utter failures, which might easily mislead those who use them without any knowledge of the languages of these versions.

According to the natural sense of the Greek, Phil 1.3 should be translated something like, ‘I give thanks to my God for every remembrance of you’. Scholars have rejected this interpretation without explanation, presumably because the thought of Paul thanking God for pleasant memories seems too odd even to be considered. Philippians, however, is a letter of consolation, and pleasant memories were a common source of consolation in Hellenistic–Roman antiquity. Read in the context of ancient consolation, from which there compelling parallels, the natural sense of 1.3 makes excellent sense. Accepting this interpretation solves other outstanding exegetical problems in Phil 1.3–11.

In the story of the rich man and the poor Lazarus in Luke 16, the usual translation of v. 22 is: ‘The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham’, or ‘he was carried by the angels to the bosom of Abraham’ (εγενετο δε αποθανειν τον πτωχον και απενεχθηναι αυτον υπο των αγγελων εις τον κολπον Αβρααμ). None of the dozens of existing translations of Luke and commentaries on his Gospel that I have consulted offer anything other than this. There is nothing wrong with this translation, except that the verb used here for carrying away, αποϕερειν, can have a semantic aspect that is not captured in this rendering, an aspect which I strongly suspect is present here. I submit as a translation of the verse the following free rendition: ‘The poor man died and the angels carried him away to the bosom of Abraham, the place where he belonged (or: his well-deserved place)’.

Is Rom 12.4–8 to be read as one sentence or as two sentences – do verses 12.6–8 form a different sentence from Rom 12.4–5, or does the sentence begun in v. 4 continue all the way through to the end of v. 8? One initial difficulty when considering this problem is that grammarians and commentators discussing this issue usually comment on one or two (or none) of the seven or so pertinent issues in the passage and then offer their opinion as to whether this is one sentence or two. Romans 12.4–8, however, features a number of difficult issues that must be held together in order to arrive at an adequate understanding of what Paul intends. The goal of this short study is to consider each of these issues and to argue that a one-sentence reading is the most satisfying option.