Old and new testament

Die Psalmen sind bei vielen Menschen beliebt und gelten als ermutigende Lieder- und Gebetssammlung der Bibel. Wenn in diesen Gebeten aber von „Feinden“ die Rede ist, finden sich heftige Aussagen der Vergeltung: Wie gehen wir damit um und was haben uns diese „Rachepsalmen“ heute noch zu sagen? (Gekürzter und überarbeiteter Auszug aus: Werkbuch Psalmen III: Theologie und Spiritualität des Psalters und seiner Psalmen, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010, 122–126).

The Book of Psalms is beloved by many people and is considered to be a collection of inspiring songs and prayers in the Bible. However, when “enemies” are mentioned in these prayers, one sometimes encounters violent statements about retribution. How do we respond to this and what have these “psalms of revenge” to say to us in our age? (Abridged and revised excerpt from: Werkbuch Psalmen III: Theologie und Spiritualität des Psalters und seiner Psalmen, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010, 122-126).

"This special issue of Comparative Literature Studies brings together talks, some extensively revised, others virtually unchanged, that were delivered at a conference entitled "What is Philology?" The gathering took place on Saturday, March 19, 1988 at Harvard University under the aegis of the Center for Literary and Cultural Studies. The depth and breadth of interest in the conference was deeply gratifying. I had not experienced another occasion when so many scholars from different language and literature departments gathered at Harvard, and I hope that publishing the proceedings will benefit a larger community outside the University.

By way of introduction I will describe how the event originated. My description will explore a few of the reasons why an interdisciplinary conference of a dozen speakers and respondents attracted an audience of more than two hundred, and why a topic that 'may sound rarefied drew participants whose main fields of research and teaching interests ran the gamut from the most ancient Indo-European languages to the most recent African American literature. In short, I will offer tentative explanations for the urgency of the topic to students, professors, and independent scholars who engage in philology, linguistics, literary history, literary criticism, and literary theory."

Tujuan penulisan sripsi ini adalah untuk menemukan sejauh mana peran kepemimpinan  gembala terhadap kehidupan rohani jemaat di Gereja Bethel Tabernakel Getsemani Makassar. Adapun hasil penelitian adalah sebagai berikut: Pertama, kepemimpinan gembala merupakan suatu tindakan yang dilakukan untuk mempengaruhi anggota jemaat atau semua orang percaya, sehingga mereka mempunyai beban dan keinginan untuk melakukan tugas atau pelayanan yang diberikan, sesuai denga panggilan dan karunia yang Allah berikan kepadanya. Kedua, adapun prinsip-prinsip dalam kepemimpinan gembala ialah, harus memiliki visi agar mendorong pemimpin untuk melangkah maju menuju sasaran yang dapat dicapainya. Dalam kepemimpinan gembala juga harus mempunyai motivasi yang benar dalam menjalankan tugas dan tanggug jawab yang di percayakan kepadanya, dalam hal kepemimpinan gereja, motivasi yang harus menjadi landasan bagi setiap pemimpin adalah: harus memuliakan Allah serta dapat mendewasakan umat percaya yaitu jemaat yang dipimpinnya serta dapat menjadi teladan bagi jemaat. Ketiga, kualitas kepemimpinan gembala sangat diperlukan dalam kemajuan pengembangan suatu organisasi dalam gereja, dan kualitas mental spiritual yang dimaksud menyangkut kehidupan kerohanian yang dikuasai oleh Roh Kudus dalam menjalankan setiap tugas dan tanggung jawab yang dipercayakan, serta kualitas intelektual yang dimaksudkan disini ialah menyangkut pengetahuan dan pendidikan yang ada pada pemimpin itu sendiri dan dalam hal ini dapat menjadikan kepemimpinan gembala menjadi arif, dan bijaksana. Keempat, dalam hal ini komuniksi seorang pemimpin gembala sangat diperlukan untuk memberikan motivasi dan dorongan kepada orang lain dalam mengikuti kepemimpinannya. Sebagai pemimpin gereja, hendaknya komunikasi lemah lembut menjadi hal yang mendominasi kehidupan pemimpin sehinga dapat menciptakan satu nilai tambah bagi kehidupan pribadi dan kepemimpinannya. Otoritas juga diperlukan dalam kepemimpinan gembala, seorang pemimpin gereja harus memiliki otoritas yang didasari oleh kuasa dan kasih Allah, dan ia sendiri harus tunduk kepada otoritas itu, sehingga para pengikutnya pun tunduk kepada otoritas yang dimiliki sebagai pemimpin gereja. Strategi juga sangat diperlukan dalam kepemimpinan gembala untuk mencapai visi yang diperolehnya. Kelima, kehidupan rohani adalah suatu keadaan hidup seorang yang sungguh-sungguh memiliki gaya hidup yang dipimpin, dipenuhi, dan dikuasai oleh Roh Kudus dalam kehidupan setiap hari serta meneladani Yesus dalam kehidupannya. Keenam, adapun cici-ciri dari kehidupan rohani adalah hidup dalam pertobatan jemaat yang mempunyai kehidupan rohani yang baik pasti hidup dalam pertobatan serta hidup dalam doa karena bagi orang percaya doa adalah cara kita berkomunikasi dengan Allah, dan melalui ibadah pertumbuhan kerohanian jemaat dapat bertumbuh ke arah Kristus. Ketujuh, kualitas kehidupan rohani jemaat antara lain memiliki hubungan yang dekat dengan Allah merupakan bagian dari tindakan iman orang percaya serta aplikasinya dalam kehidupan kerohanian yang dijalani. Memiliki hubungan yang dekat dengan Allah adalah bagian dari bukti orang percaya mengasihi Allah, sedangkan bukti bahwa jemaat atau orang percaya mengasihi Allah ialah dengan cara ia mengasihi sesama, dan dapat menghasilkan buah kebenaran yaitu dapat menjadi garam dan terang, baik orang percaya maupun orang yang belum percaya. Kedelapan, peran kepimpinan gembala terhadap kehidupan rohani jemaat antara lain dapat membimbing jemaat kepada kedewasaan rohani, dan menjadi teladan dalam hal kerohanian, serta menjaga dan melindungi jemaat dari bahaya ajaran sesat yang ada pada saat ini.

Of hitherto proposed interpretations of the sign at Cana the one according to which Jesus’ changing of water into wine should be seen as a symbol of the coming of the Messianic age is the most dominant. The author of the article argues, based on intra- and inter-textual evidence, that the meaning of this sign is first and foremost soteriological.

CLICK AUDIO LINK BELOW (under "Files") TO HEAR THIS DISCUSSION. THERE IS NO PAPER COPY. "Christ through Four Gospel Portraits" is an exploration of the the distinct historical, literary, and theological contributions of each Evangelist to the question of the identity and mission of Jesus for its earliest Christian readership.

Josephus nailed Solomon's ff969/968 accession!: Hiram's Solomonic Temple contract in ff969/968 by Josephus' Tyrian, Greek, & Roman dating, confirms Thiele's 2005-2015 corrected chronology


Valerius Coucke's 1928-published near-dating of Tyrian King Hiram's fall-to-fall (ff) 969/968 12th year Solomonic Temple construction contract was one year late (ff968/967) only due to his misreckoning as May (sic.) 1207 BC the Parian Marble's correct ca. June 1208 BC fall of Troy. This latter was by Justin quoting Trogus (18.3) 1 year after the ca. June 1209 founding of Tyre, which in turn by Josephus quoting Meander (Ag. Ap. I.18) was 241 years before Hiram's 12th year 1 Kings 5:1 contract with Solomon to build his Temple ca. June 1209 - 241 = spring/summer 968 BC (ff969/968). Just here David died by my 2005-2015 correction of the Coucke/Thiele/McFall/Young chronology by its wholesale 3 years later offset up to Uzziah's death. Thus: {[June 1208 fall of Troy] - 1 = June 1209 refoundation of Tyre} + 241 years until Hiram's 12th year Temple contract = June 968 = spring/summer ff969/968 1 Kgs. 5:1 accession of Solomon.

The Fig. 1 Tyrian kings chronology based on Josephus' copy of Meander's Tyrian King List using only Athenian, Tyrian, and Roman records, validates Coucke's method and confirms its result by use of my chronology: Hiram's certain ff969/988 12th year start of Solomon's Temple project invalidates the Coucke/Thiele/McFall/Young version of Thiele's chronology because by it Hiram was 2 years dead when required to receive Solomon's 1 Kgs. 9:10-14 20th year construction bonus (E, 8/19). By the Thiele chronology's unavoidable 1 Kgs. 6:1 Temple assembly start, that bonus fell in Solomon's 24th year, while by my chronology's 1 Kgs. 5:1 start, it fell 2 years before Hiram's death in Solomon's 20th (sec. 2.3). A tiny wrinkle in Assyrian chronology (701 BC, E 11/19) misled Thiele to corrupt his internal biblical chronology to make it absolute.

Coucke failed to follow through in developing his near-solution to its full potential for unlocking the entire Dead Sea Scrolls-based Masoretic Text's chronology, or at least its Hebrew kings foundation as Thiele nearly did by 1943, independently of Coucke. But Coucke provided corroborating independent results anticipating Thiele's better work, further refined by Leslie McFall (1991) and R. C. Young (2003).

Dating Hiram's Temple contract with Solomon
Tyrian kings chronology synchronized to & confirming my correction of Thiele in 20 pages:

Valerius Coucke's 1928-published near-dating of Tyrian King Hiram's fall-to-fall (ff) 969/968 12th year Solomonic Temple construction contract was one year late (ff968/967) only due to his misreckoning as May (sic.) 1207 BC the Parian Marble's correct ca. June 1208 BC fall of Troy. This latter was by Justin quoting Trogus (18.3) 1 year after the ca. June 1209 founding of Tyre, which in turn by Josephus quoting Meander (Ag. Ap. I.18) was 241 years before Hiram's 12th year 1 Kings 5:1 contract with Solomon to build his Temple ca. June 1209 - 241 = spring/summer 968 BC (ff969/968). Just here David died by my 2005-2015 correction of the Coucke/Thiele/McFall/Young chronology by its wholesale 3 years later offset up to Uzziah's death. Thus: {[June 1208 fall of Troy] - 1 = June 1209 refoundation of Tyre} + 241 years until Hiram's 12th year Temple contract = June 968 = spring/summer ff969/968 1 Kgs. 5:1 accession of Solomon.

The Fig. 1 Tyrian kings chronology based on Josephus' copy of Meander's Tyrian King List using only Athenian, Tyrian, and Roman records, validates Coucke's method and confirms its result by use of my chronology: Hiram's certain ff969/988 12th year start of Solomon's Temple project invalidates the Coucke/Thiele/McFall/Young version of Thiele's chronology because by it Hiram was 2 years dead when required to receive Solomon's 1 Kgs. 9:10-14 20th year construction bonus (E, 8/19). By the Thiele chronology's unavoidable 1 Kgs. 6:1 Temple assembly start, that bonus fell in Solomon's 24th year, while by my chronology's 1 Kgs. 5:1 start, it fell 2 years before Hiram's death in Solomon's 20th (sec. 2.3). A tiny wrinkle in Assyrian chronology (701 BC, E 11/19) misled Thiele to corrupt his internal biblical chronology to make it absolute.

Coucke failed to follow through in developing his near-solution to its full potential for unlocking the entire Dead Sea Scrolls-based Masoretic Text's chronology, or at least its Hebrew kings foundation as Thiele nearly did by 1943, independently of Coucke. But Coucke provided corroborating independent results anticipating Thiele's better work, further refined by Leslie McFall (1991) and R. C. Young (2003).

Resumo O estudo da Bíblia como produção literária tem sido bastante prolífico, tendo como uma de suas vertentes a intertextualidade e recepção dos textos. Nesse artigo será analisada a intertextualidade entre o Livro de Provérbios e os escritos do Novo Testamento, procurando perceber de que forma os autores utilizaram o livro sapiencial. Esse estudo faz parte de um processo maior, que analisa a relação do Novo Testamento com o Antigo. Como abordagem metodológica, adotaremos o método comparativo, para perceber tais usos, por meio de quadros sinóticos que ajudem a observar o fenômeno da intertextualidade. O Livro de Provérbios é um marco na literatura sapiencial pela sua diversidade de fontes e possibilidades de aplicação, e se tornou parte da rica tradição judaica para a humanidade. Como resultado, esperamos demonstrar que as comunidades cristãs primitivas tinham viva em sua memória os ensinamentos apreendidos pela tradição judaica, seja pela pessoa de Jesus e seu estilo sapiencial, seja pelos apóstolos, considerando uma espiritualidade sapiencial. Palavras-chave: Intertextualidade. Livro de Provérbios. Recepção. Literatura

My correction of Thiele's at first perfected but by afterthought marred biblical chronology builds upon its foundational part I, correcting the chronology of Sennacherib's first five years, which revealed 702 BC as the true date of Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, enabling correction of Dr. Edwin Thiele's error in his widely accepted chronology of the Hebrew kings. Part I proved that Sennacherib's third campaign, biblically recorded in king Hezekiah of Judah's 14th regnal year, did not take place in 701 BC as Thiele had trusted for the cornerstone of his chronology, but rather in 702 BC, vindicating and perfecting his work. The lion's share of credit for my having discovered the ultimate biblical chronology belongs to Thiele (1943) as given improvement and correction by his indirectly participating colleagues Valerius Coucke (1928), Leslie McFall (1991), and Rodger C. Young (2003) who advanced Thiele's work without essentially modifying its chronological structure (CTMY). CTMY made possible my solution (solved in 2005, perfected and first published in 2015). My results validate not only their work, but the Masoretic Text (MT) as confirmed by its majority Dead Sea Scrolls representation, on which this chronology is exclusively based, and into which this chronology was imperceptibly (indeed mystifyingly according to over 2 millennia of effort since the 3rd century BC LXX futile effort to make sense of it) woven into the MT as a watermark or hologram of its authenticity.

By his Assyrian cornerstone thus out of place, no other Assyrian synchronism would fit Thiele's at first perfect internal biblical chronology, "IBC", (my solution has 8). So he emended it in Jotham's reign (2 Kgs. 15:30-33), adding 4 years to Jotham to shift Ahab's disastrous 853 Battle of Qarqar (Shalmaneser III's 6th year) immediately before Ahab's 1 Kgs. 22 fatal battle against his Qarqar ally Benhadad. Thus Shalmaneser's 18th year receipt of Jehu's tribute in 841, 12 (= 18 - 6) years after Qarqar by IBC, harmonized Jehu's 841 accession with his 14th year of Hezekiah set in 701! But Thiele failed to notice that annihilation of Ahab's powerful military at Qarqar per Shalmaneser's 6th year annals, made impossible his 1 Kgs. 22 participation in his fatal war with Benhadad. Likewise Shalmaneser's 18th year annals report of Hazael's total incapacitation for his 2 Kgs. 9:15-16 wounding of Israel's Joram in battle, discredited Jehu's having killed both Joram and his sickbed visitor Judah's king Ahaziah in 841 (Appx. H, chart 2/19), stripping Thiele of all Assyrian synchronisms.

The Chronology Comparison Chart Fig. 3 exposing the difference between my and Thiele's chronologies, shows my two simple structural corrections: First Thiele's 701 BC synchronism with Hezekiah's year 14 is corrected to 702 BC. Second, Thiele's 4 fabricated years by which he (I believe honestly) found a self-deceptive pretext to lengthen Jotham's reign in order to contrive a specious but futile 853 BC Battle of Qarqar synchronism in Ahab's year of death in battle against his Qarqar ally Benhadad, are removed: Jotham's 2 Kgs. 15:30 actuarial 20th year (4 years after Jotham's death) used to synchronize Pekah's death in his official chronicle, in my chronology properly observes Jotham's official 2 Kgs. 15:33 16th regnal year of death.

One of the earliest and ultimately most fruitful clues in not only exposing Thiele's error, but confirming my entire resulting Bible chronology, was the common but hitherto unproven observation that the two fallow years in succession of 2 Kings 19:29 in Hezekiah's 14th year (Sabbatical years 7 & 1 in Fig. 3) suggested the Lev. 25:2-13 49th year of a jubilee cycle (fallow), followed in the next year by its figurative 49 + 1 = “50th” in the post-Sabbatical 7 + 1 = “8th” per Lev. 25:20-22, namely Hezekiah's 15th calendrical year (also fallow), observed on its Tishri 10 by celebration of the 49-year jubilee cycle just completed in the first year of its next sabbatical cycle, whose purpose was to establish and regulate perpetual and inalienable land ownership in ancient Israel on a jubilee cyclical ceremonial basis. This exposed the purpose of the Ezra 7:7 mission from Babylon to Jerusalem on the same 49 year cycle as that of 2 Kgs. 19:29 (arguably prophesied in Daniel 9:25 dating the start of its 70 Lev. 25 Sabbatical weeks of years, namely 10 Jubilee cycles), and likewise that of the first 2 years of Bar-Kokhba's revolt against Hadrian (introducing Appx. A), thus triply confirming Moses' jubilee cycle in synchronism with Benedict Zuckermann's sabbatical cycles.

Appendix C shows the 4 structural charts for my chronology. Appendix D offers scholarly confirmation of Thiele's biblical chronological method. Appendix E examines Sennacherib's 702 BC 3rd campaign synchronism with Hezekiah' 14th year. Appendix F discovers my 21 April 1443 Exodus date shown in Fig. 7 in proper synchronism with Amenhotep II's short and final military campaign begun on 11 November 1444 (the “Amenophis” of Mantheo, clearly the Exodus pharaoh as preserved in Josephus' “Contra Apion”). Appendix G concisely details all 25 of my extrabiblical synchronisms validating the breakthrough nature of my discovery. And Appendix H presents the complete set of my 19 key chronology charts, where my correction of Thiele in a span of 40 years is illustrated in my Chronology Comparison Chart “CCC,” shown as Fig. 11/19, also shown as Fig. [fig:Chronology-Comparison-Chart].

Appendix [sec:25-Extrabiblical-Synchronisms], “Synchronisms for Thiele's & my chronologies” lists and locates expositions of its 2 Egyptian, 8 Assyrian, 6 Babylonian, 1 Tyrian, 3 Persian, 1 Sabbatical, and two pairs = 4 of Jubilee synchronisms (49th & 50th year Jubilee pairs, extrabiblically anchored to Bar Kokhba's spring-summer of 132 AD 49th Jubilee cycle year launching his revolt against Hadrian) totalling 25. These include synchronism of the Exodus with Amenhotep II's year 10, a Tyrian and Sabbatical year synchronism with Solomon's accession, Assyrian and Jubilee synchronisms in Hezekiah's 14th and 15th years, and Persian and Jubilee synchronisms of Ezra 7:7; exposing 3 historical Jubilee years in synchronism with Benedict Zuckermann's 1857 Sabbatical cycle.

My correction of Thiele's at first perfected but by afterthought marred biblical chronology builds upon its foundational part I, correcting the chronology of Sennacherib's first five years, which revealed 702 BC as the true date of Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, enabling correction of Dr. Edwin Thiele's error in his widely accepted chronology of the Hebrew kings. Part I proved that Sennacherib's third campaign, biblically recorded in king Hezekiah of Judah's 14th regnal year, did not take place in 701 BC as Thiele had trusted for the cornerstone of his chronology, but rather in 702 BC, vindicating and perfecting his work. The lion's share of credit for my having discovered the ultimate biblical chronology belongs to Thiele (1943) as given improvement and correction by his indirectly participating colleagues Valerius Coucke (1928), Leslie McFall (1991), and Rodger C. Young (2003) who advanced Thiele's work without essentially modifying its chronological structure (CTMY). CTMY made possible my solution (solved in 2005, perfected and first published in 2015). My results validate not only their work, but the Masoretic Text (MT) as confirmed by its majority Dead Sea Scrolls representation, on which this chronology is exclusively based, and into which this chronology was imperceptibly (indeed mystifyingly according to over 2 millennia of effort since the 3rd century BC LXX futile effort to make sense of it) woven into the MT as a watermark or hologram of its authenticity.

By his Assyrian cornerstone thus out of place, no other Assyrian synchronism would fit Thiele's at first perfect internal biblical chronology, "IBC", (my solution has 8). So he emended it in Jotham's reign (2 Kgs. 15:30-33), adding 4 years to Jotham to shift Ahab's disastrous 853 Battle of Qarqar (Shalmaneser III's 6th year) immediately before Ahab's 1 Kgs. 22 fatal battle against his Qarqar ally Benhadad. Thus Shalmaneser's 18th year receipt of Jehu's tribute in 841, 12 (= 18 - 6) years after Qarqar by IBC, harmonized Jehu's 841 accession with his 14th year of Hezekiah set in 701! But Thiele failed to notice that annihilation of Ahab's powerful military at Qarqar per Shalmaneser's 6th year annals, made impossible his 1 Kgs. 22 participation in his fatal war with Benhadad. Likewise Shalmaneser's 18th year annals report of Hazael's total incapacitation for his 2 Kgs. 9:15-16 wounding of Israel's Joram in battle, discredited Jehu's having killed both Joram and his sickbed visitor Judah's king Ahaziah in 841 (Appx. H, chart 2/19), stripping Thiele of all Assyrian synchronisms.

The Chronology Comparison Chart Fig. 3 exposing the difference between my and Thiele's chronologies, shows my two simple structural corrections: First Thiele's 701 BC synchronism with Hezekiah's year 14 is corrected to 702 BC. Second, Thiele's 4 fabricated years by which he (I believe honestly) found a self-deceptive pretext to lengthen Jotham's reign in order to contrive a specious but futile 853 BC Battle of Qarqar synchronism in Ahab's year of death in battle against his Qarqar ally Benhadad, are removed: Jotham's 2 Kgs. 15:30 actuarial 20th year (4 years after Jotham's death) used to synchronize Pekah's death in his official chronicle, in my chronology properly observes Jotham's official 2 Kgs. 15:33 16th regnal year of death.

One of the earliest and ultimately most fruitful clues in not only exposing Thiele's error, but confirming my entire resulting Bible chronology, was the common but hitherto unproven observation that the two fallow years in succession of 2 Kings 19:29 in Hezekiah's 14th year (Sabbatical years 7 & 1 in Fig. 3) suggested the Lev. 25:2-13 49th year of a jubilee cycle (fallow), followed in the next year by its figurative 49 + 1 = “50th” in the post-Sabbatical 7 + 1 = “8th” per Lev. 25:20-22, namely Hezekiah's 15th calendrical year (also fallow), observed on its Tishri 10 by celebration of the 49-year jubilee cycle just completed in the first year of its next sabbatical cycle, whose purpose was to establish and regulate perpetual and inalienable land ownership in ancient Israel on a jubilee cyclical ceremonial basis. This exposed the purpose of the Ezra 7:7 mission from Babylon to Jerusalem on the same 49 year cycle as that of 2 Kgs. 19:29 (arguably prophesied in Daniel 9:25 dating the start of its 70 Lev. 25 Sabbatical weeks of years, namely 10 Jubilee cycles), and likewise that of the first 2 years of Bar-Kokhba's revolt against Hadrian (introducing Appx. A), thus triply confirming Moses' jubilee cycle in synchronism with Benedict Zuckermann's sabbatical cycles.

Appendix C shows the 4 structural charts for my chronology. Appendix D offers scholarly confirmation of Thiele's biblical chronological method. Appendix E examines Sennacherib's 702 BC 3rd campaign synchronism with Hezekiah' 14th year. Appendix F discovers my 21 April 1443 Exodus date shown in Fig. 7 in proper synchronism with Amenhotep II's short and final military campaign begun on 11 November 1444 (the “Amenophis” of Mantheo, clearly the Exodus pharaoh as preserved in Josephus' “Contra Apion”). Appendix G concisely details all 25 of my extrabiblical synchronisms validating the breakthrough nature of my discovery. And Appendix H presents the complete set of my 19 key chronology charts, where my correction of Thiele in a span of 40 years is illustrated in my Chronology Comparison Chart “CCC,” shown as Fig. 11/19, also shown as Fig. 3.

Appendix G, “Synchronisms for Thiele's & my chronologies” lists and locates expositions of its 2 Egyptian, 8 Assyrian, 6 Babylonian, 1 Tyrian, 3 Persian, 1 Sabbatical, and two pairs = 4 of Jubilee synchronisms (49th & 50th year Jubilee pairs, extrabiblically anchored to Bar Kokhba's spring-summer of 132 AD 49th Jubilee cycle year launching his revolt against Hadrian) totalling 25. These include synchronism of the Exodus with Amenhotep II's year 10, a Tyrian and Sabbatical year synchronism with Solomon's accession, Assyrian and Jubilee synchronisms in Hezekiah's 14th and 15th years, and Persian and Jubilee synchronisms of Ezra 7:7; exposing 3 historical Jubilee years in synchronism with Benedict Zuckermann's 1857 Sabbatical cycle.

Il lavoro svolto prende in esame le reminiscenze di storia ellenistica presenti nel libro biblico di Daniele (del quale si adopera la versione dei Settanta), che permettono di datare detta opera al II sec. A. C., anziché al VI, nel quale è ambientata la vicenda del profeta. La tesi si sofferma, in particolare, sulle “profezie a posteriori” che alludono alle vicende dei Seleucidi di Siria. Nell’indagine, Erica Gazzoldi si è valsa delle opere di autori moderni quali Arnaldo Momigliano, Elias J. Bickerman, Jan Alberto Soggin, Chiara de Filippis Cappai e Giulio Firpo, nonché di autori antichi come Diodoro Siculo, Giuseppe Flavio, Appiano, Polibio, Plutarco e Porfirio di Tiro, che fu tra i primi a sollevare la questione, a causa delle proprie competenze in cronologia e dell’avversione per i cristiani.

In this book Steve Johnstone brings together the Reformed doctrines of Covenant Theology and the subject of evangelism. How should the covenants of Scripture, and their insights into God's single plan of redemption throughout history, inform the actual content of an evangelist's Gospel today? And how can our preaching as evangelists be enriched by the covenants of Scripture?

While the traditional vowels of YHWH are dummy vowels (as per almost universal consensus among Hebrew scholars), "Yehowah" has regained popularity in recent years as the alleged true pronunciation. The paper gives evidence against the erroneous notion.

The prophet Micah was a farmer or landowner from Moresheth-Gath which

was 35 kms. southwest of Jerusalem.  He prophesied between 735 – 700 B.C. (estimate

only).  His name means 'Who is like Yahweh'.  1  Moresheth-Gath in Shephelah (Micah

1:14) is present-day Tell el-Judeideh, about 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem and 20 miles

west of the Mediterranean coast.  It sits 1000 feet above sea level, overlooking the coastal

highway on which numerous armies and trade caravans had traveled between Egypt and

Mesopotamia (Iraq).  2

James Luther Mays may be right in his assumption Micah got his name-type (with place

of origin) because he prophesied in Jerusalem which is far from his hometown of

Moresheth.  3  Or maybe the later redactors added the place-name for clarity or perhaps

Micah was a rich landowner.  Anyway, May's suggestion suits me.

Micah was a younger contemporary of Isaiah, and G.L. Robinson gathered a few

comparisons between the two:  Isaiah – courtier in Jerusalem, statesman and concerned

with political issues;  Micah – from obscure village, evangelist/sociologist, concerned

with personal religion and social morality, sensitive to the social maladies affecting small

towns and villages.  4

To further contrast the two prophets, Isaiah was a first cousin of Uzziah (king of Judah

bet. 792-740 B.C., his son was Jotham) and he suffered  no royal persecution.  5

Jeremiah reiterated Micah's prediction of Jerusalem's fall (3:12) a hundred years later

(Jer. 26:6. 9, 11) and the priests and false prophets were itching to kill him and his

message.  But certain sane elders defended Jeremiah with Micah's prophecy and with

King Hezekiah's repentance.  The Lord then protected Jerusalem from Sennacherib's

hordes and Jeremiah's life was spared (Jer 26:24)  6

Date of writing – The written time frame in Micah's book is between the reigns of Jotham

and Hezekiah thus, the maximum period of his prophetic career was between 750 – 686

B.C.  The shortest time would be 735 – 715 B.C.  Most scholars opinions are between

these two extremes.  Micah's activities overlapped with Isaiah's (circa 740 – 681 B.C.)

and Hosea's ( circa 750 – 715) but it appears Micah's ministry was closer with Isaiah's

because of the similarity between Isaiah's word on Judah and Jerusalem (Isa 2:24) and

Micah 4: 1-5.  7 

Some scholars say Micah prophesied orally first (725 – 710 B.C.) then wrote his

manuscript sometime around 700 B.C.  If a later redactor edited Micah's manuscript, the

edited version would still be sometime early in the seventh century to have enough time

elapsed before his Jerusalem fall prophecy to occur and be mentioned in Jeremiah's 26:18

(circa 608 B.C.)  8

Thus, my conclusion on the writing's date and his prophetic career is this:  It is reasonable

to assume Micah prophesied and wrote between 740 – 695 B.C. ( between the years just

before Jotham's reign ended and a few years after Hezekiah's repentance).  695 B.C.  is a

few years short of a century when compared to 608 B.C. of Jeremiah's 26:18, which is

fine for me considering these dates are all estimates.  This timeframe is comparable with

735 – 700.  9

I presume Micah was in his late twenties at the start of his 40-year prophetic ministry.

Perhaps Micah wrote the whole book because I am not fully convinced that later

redactors or his disciples ( if there were any) edited such a short book.  The evidences are

inconclusive or ambiguous at best.

The purpose of this paper is to show that sonship in the NT served as a metaphor for the OT concept of corporate solidarity. Part 1 explains the corporate anthropology of the OT authors and provides a definition of corporate solidarity. (The section also draws a distinction between corporate solidarity and other related concepts, such as corporate personality and corporate responsibility.) Part 2 surveys the relevance of corporate solidarity to NT interpretation generally and to passages about sonship specifically. Part 3 establishes that sonship in the NT served as a metaphor for likeness (or solidarity). Part 4 demonstrates through comparative study that NT sonship was a metaphor for corporate solidarity.

This essay contributes to the relevance and use of the enemy, revenge and curse psalms today. According to biblical hermeneutic and current attitudes, the passages of the Psalms 12 and 137 are worked out as examples. Thereafter, the use of such statements in today's context is taken into consideration, taking into account considerations of Zenger, Levenson, Volf and LeMon.

This paper deals with the issue of the correct interpretation of τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, an obscure expression which appears in the Prologue of the Gospel of Luke. Several scholars read this passage as a reference to the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies, considering the rare verb πληροφορεῖν a synonym of πληροῦν and συμπληροῦν, with the meaning of ‘fulfill’. However, an overview of the Lukan passages in which these two verbs indicate the fulfillment of something pre-established by God shows a strong connection between this fulfillment and the place where it is meant to happen, namely the city of Jerusalem. Thus, in the expression τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, the words ἐν ἡμῖν can be interpreted as a reference to the first Christian community, who lived in Jerusalem, had the good fortune to witness the most important events in the Economy of Salvation, and first saw in them the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.

Jerome compares Old Testament quotations in the New Testament with the Hebrew text and LXX in seven texts, for example in Ep. 57, written c.395. He adopts different opinions when the LXX disagrees with the Hebrew text and when the quotations disagree with the Hebrew text. In the first case, he demands a strict rendering of words, whereas in the second, he considers the quotations and the Hebrew text to have the same meaning even if their wordings differ. In other words, Jerome attributes more authority to the Evangelists and Paul than to the LXX translators. In this paper, I will explain two reasons—one negative and the other positive—for this dichotomy in Jerome’s approach.

Introduction
I.  The Quotations and Jerome's "Conversion" to Hebrew
II.  Seven Texts on the Quotations
III. Analysis of Ep. 57
    1. The Quot. agrees with the Hebrew Text but disagrees with the LXX
    2. The Quot., Hebrew Text and LXX all disagrees with one another
    3. The Hebrew Text agrees with the LXX, but the Quot. disagrees with both of them
IV. Reasons behind Jerome's Preferences
V.  Other Cases: Acts 28:26 and John 7:38
Conclusion

This paper assesses the possibilities and limitations of a Theological Lexicon of the Septuagint in the light of the current state of Septuagint lexicography and the opportunities offered by the new digital tools, such as the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri, the Hewlett-Packard on-line searchable Greek inscriptions, Perseus, Demetrios, Trismegistos, TLG online etc. that allow for a complete search of attestations of a Greek lexeme in Antiquity. As a sample for such a study and entry for the intended Theological Lexicon of the Septuagint, the Greek word ἀπειθέω is examined. The word occurs regularly in the Septuagint as equivalent for a variety of Hebrew expressions and reflects a specific ideological interest of the Greek translators of the Pentateuch and their followers (Greek Joshua, Greek Isaiah). A study of the attestations of the word in contemporary papyri makes clear that the usage of the word should not be confused with that of ἀπιστεύω in the way we find it in New Testament writings (Acts, Pauline Epistles).

Produced for the purpose of facilitating the learning of Greek, Johannes Crastonus’s Greek and Latin edition of the Psalms was printed in Milan in 1481. This article is a first investigation into Crastonus’s methods. On the basis of Psalm 1 and some additional examples, it explores how he employed the layout and changed the Latin text in order to achieve his goal. Furthermore, this article argues that the combination of works produced by Crastonus and his publisher Bonus Accursius were designed to provide a complete corpus for self-instruction in Greek.

For the last 2,000 years, the Bible has often been used as tool to justify political domination of women from the level of the nation state to the realities of marriage and home. The idea of women’s second-class status has allowed men to dominate their lives socially, politically, economically, religiously, and culturally. Until modern times and in the last half-century, the only place where women have dominated is in the home, and not always there.
Thanks to the work of modern feminist biblical scholars, this second creation story has been understood in a new and unique perspective reflecting the changes in contemporary society.  Carol Meyers asks: “What would Eve look like without the overlay of later perspectives? How different would she be?”  As modern people, we know the answer. She can be a wife, mother, synagogue president, corporate executive, physician, scientist, engineer, and even rabbi. Soon, even a United States president.  Today, Judaism needs a modern midrash that replaces the old idea of woman’s inferiority to men and that reinstates her as, at least, his equal.
I will maintain that this “new” woman can be seen in the existing text, but that male commentators and exegetes did not, could not see her.

Martin Visser revealed that in Thailand only three out of one  hundred lay Christians bring someone to faith in their lifetime; in other  words, only 3.4% of all lay Christians. Although it might be expected that the four major Pentecostal denominations would have a somewhat higher percentage than other churches, their conversion growth rate was only slightly higher than the general Thai conversion growth rate of  4.2%. Pentecostal churches reflect similar numbers to the nonPentecostal groups. This small conversion growth is an obvious  impediment for the Thai church.