NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion - Volume 42, Issue 2, 1988

Joel 2:1-11 shows the structure of concentric symmetry; the theme of the Day of YHWH forms the inclusion (vs. 1, 2a; 10, 11) and the centre (vs. 6) of the pericope. In between one finds the description of a plague of locusts, beginning and ending with theophanic motifs. These motifs as well as those of the Day of YHWH do not indicate that Joel 2:1-11 is meant as a description of (apocalyptic) enemies threatening Juda and Jerusalem, they are merely due to Joel’s conviction that the plague of locusts represented a portent of the approach of the terrifying Day of YHWH.

This contribution deals with the peculiar addition (§ 2, 1-2) in Matth. 17, 26, found in ‘Codex Algerinae Peckover’ (Scr. 561, Sod. ε 351, Greg. 713) now preserved in Selly Oak College, Birmingham. This medieval cursive (§ 3, 1-3), which betrays not a few affinities with the Ferrar group of minuscels, has undergone the influence of Syriac and Tatianic tradition. The addition of 713 is also found in the Diatessaron (§ 4,1), as appears from the testimonies of Ephraem’s commentary on this work (T^E: § 4, 2-5) and from the Arabic version of the harmony (T^A: § 4, 6-7). The place of the addition is between vs. 26 and vs. 27 (so T^A and 713), which is not contradicted by the place of the reference in T^E (§ 5, 2-5). A residue of the addition is found in early Latin tradition (§ 5, 6). The origin of the addition in 713 is to be sought in the Diatessaron (§ 6, 1-3), and may be explained either as a dualistic gloss to the text made by Tatian (§ 6, 4) or rather as an example of Tatian’s use of other sources, most probably the Gospel according to the Hebrews (§6.5).

The habit of naming children after (grand)parents can hardly be traced in the O.T. and is not corroborated by pre-exilic epigraphical data, in contrast with neighbouring countries like Egypt or Phoenicia. Its first appearance among Jews is at Elephantine c. 500 B.C. In Palestine it emerges only after Alexander, no doubt in imitation of the Ptolemies and Seleucids. Instances are given from the aristocracy and the ‘Goliath family’. Another habit, re-using patriarchal names, is attested since Ezrah. The two genealogies are now analysed according to both habits. It is indicated which parts of them are historical and which are not, or cannot be judged. An endeavour is made to account for the difference between the two.

The Teachings of Silvanus (NHC VII, 4) show some influence of the Greek gnomic tradition. NHC VII, 102, 16-22, contains a combination of Sentences of Sextus, 352 and 22, which is also found in Origen (apud Epiphanius, Panarion 64, 7, 3). Both Origen and Silvanus reflect a later stage in the tradition of the Sextine sentences, in which originally independent maxims had been put together. The same phenomenon can be observed in a second passage of Silvanus, NHC VII, 108, 16-109, 9, and in Porphyry, Ad Marcellam, 15 and 16. Both authors prove to have made use of a source which had combined sentences which were still separated in Sextus (4, 376a, 381 (44), 402) and only partly united in the Pythagorean Sentences (40, 4, 102). In his Ad Marcellam, Porphyry is apparently more dependent on earlier (still unknown) gnomic sources than is assumed by his modern commentators.

This article surveys the evidence, both literary and archaeological, for a Samaritan diaspora from the third century B.C.E. till the seventh century C.E. It stresses the importance of distinguishing between Samarians (inhabitants of Samaria) and Samaritans (members of the Samaritan religious community) and concludes that there must have been a very considerable Samaritan diaspora in late antiquity, in spite of the fact that many pieces of evidence that have been adduced by other scholars can no longer be used as such in view of the necessary distinction between Samarians and Samaritans.