The near consensus opinion that the author of Hebrews was not directly influenced by Philo needs to be reevaluated. Even though there are no obvious cases of borrowing, the cumulative weight of the evidence indicates a more linear relationship than what may be accounted for by situating them both within Hellenistic Judaism. A number of parallels are sufficiently detailed to suggest direct dependence. These parallels are of a formal character, such as the metaphor of the dagger and the particular use of the terms ὑπόστασις, ἀρχηγός, τελειόω, ἄθλησις, τεχνίτης, and δημιουργός, as well of a material nature, concerning the development of key ideas, such as the eternal nature of the Son, his Melchizedekian high-priesthood, and the perception of the heavenly sanctuary.
A consensus of opinion exists among scholars that Paul appears to contradict himself in 1 Cor 10:17–22: on the one hand, he makes clear that idols have no existence beyond the material objects themselves ; on the other hand, he appears to warn the Corinthians that they are exposing themselves to a dangerous metaphysical reality, namely demons (i.e., evil supernatural beings), by taking part in pagan cults. This supposed non sequitur is generally resolved by claiming that Paul adheres to two Jewish traditions simultaneously. The Jewish witnesses, however, do not support such a conclusion. In fact, the Jewish sources offer an alternative solution to this supposed problem, namely that Paul uses the word δαιμόνια to designate foreign gods to which he attributes no metaphysical reality. In short, there are no demons involved. As such, he maintains a biblical position : even if the idols are nothing but wood and stone, idolatry is forbidden.
Pauline scholars have long analysed the Jerusalem collection described in 1 Cor 16:1–4, 2 Cor 8–9 and Rom 15:25–29 to unveil Paul’s motivations, but only recently have they considered the economic implications and ramifications of the long-distance gift. Some have tried to associate the long-distance gift with several socio-economic contexts, such as economic inequality, prevalent poverty, patronage and/or gift exchange. This article, however, brings economic fluctuations to the fore to explicate 2 Cor 8:1–15 (esp. vv. 10–15), arguing that Paul’s chief rhetorical inducement to the Corinthians is the practical benefit of increasing their long-term resilience and survivability against the mutable economies facing most ordinary people through balanced exchanges among those of various economic statuses.
This article explores the usage of plural νόμοι versus singular νόμος throughout the whole corpus of the Greek Bible. Obviously, the singular is predominant. If we put aside later variants and textual traditions, the rare passages where the plural νόμοι is used (in Proverbs, Jeremiah, Esther, and 2 Maccabees) mutually elucidate each other: the plural occurs where the translators wanted to stress that the law(s) in question should be distinguished from the Torah. With respect to Jer 31:31–34 (LXX 38:31–34) and the quotations from it in Hebrews, the article demonstrates that the plural νόμοι in the LXX cannot be explained by the Vorlage, as many modern researchers suggest, but was a conscious device used by the LXX translator. The aim of the translator, followed by the author of Hebrews, was to stress the distinction between the Law of Moses and the Laws of the New Covenant.
In this contribution the author will proceed in three steps. First, he will raise questions about the various rhetorical approaches one might follow in order to study the argumentative development of Galatians, considering the different methodological options. Second, he will offer a survey of existing rhetorical research on Galatians. Then he will seek to outline the argumentative structure and development of Galatians, in order to understand what is really at stake in this Pauline letter. At the end it will be proven that the literary rhetorical approach in studying Galatians is highly useful for a deep understanding of the text of the letter and its aim: Paul wants to re-evangelise the addressees.