Explore the vast range of titles available.

The ending of Mark, ‘And they (the women) said nothing to anyone for they were afraid’ (16.8) is one of the most famous cruxes in the New Testament. Could the author really have intended to complete the gospel in such a way? Building on a suggestion made by Joel Marcus and Benoit Standaert, this article defends the hypothesis that Mark is deliberately making a reference to Genesis 18.15 LXX. The same rare expression ἐφοβήθη γάρ which has the verb ‘to be afraid’ followed by the preposition γάρ, appears in a comparable context. In both cases, one or more women are presented by God or his messengers with what could appear to be an unlikely promise and a radical impossibility: the birth of a child in old age or the resurrection of a dead person. While presenting a critique of S. Hultgren's recent proposal that Dn 10 is the background of Mark, the approach here is to add an argument based on a scriptural allusion, which Mark was perfectly capable of making, in support of the now predominant view, but still with many critics, that the writer fully intended to end his gospel with 16.8b.

Building on the works of Richard Bauckham and Tal Ilan, this paper argues that the name Cleophas in Luke 24.18 (Gk Κλεοπᾶς) and Clopas (Gk Κλωπᾶς) in John 19.25 points to the same historical person, the father of a key leader of the Jerusalem church at the end of the first century. By making anew this assumption we have a possible access to Luke's redactional and theological work in the Emmaus narrative. Even if the whole passage is governed by Luke's literary skills and theological interests, it does have traditional support in the legitimation story that Jesus had indeed appeared to Cleophas. Luke's choice of that name is doubly smart: it highlights the respect the Pauline churches have for the Judean churches in the spirit of Rom 9–11 and establishes the legitimacy of his own sophisticated narrative through a known Judean Christian.

In 1593, the Society of Jesus adopted the Spanish statutes of purity of blood which Saint Ignatius and his successors had opposed since the foundation of the Society. European nationalism was on the rise and is partly responsible for the decision. How and why the Society did changed its policy on such a delicate matter? And why on that particular year? In France, opposition to Spain was a big argument of the party supporting Henri IV and it was a common slur that Spaniards were «all Jews». In 1590, graffiti was found written on Paris wall: ‘Pereat Societas Iudaica cum gente ibera’. In Spanish ruled Portugal, it was very convenient to foster anti-converso feelings in order to oppose Spain. In Spain itself, the party pushing for discrimination felt it got top political support. In Italy moreover, there had been for over twenty years a growing dissatisfaction against Spanish superiors. Father General Acquaviva used this heterogeneous coalition to secure his grip on power. The old trick did it again: anti-Judaism was used to crush opposition, ironically, however, in Portugal, Spain and France, Jews were officially outlaws. Nel 1593 la Compagnia di Gesù adottò le leggi spagnole di purezza di razza a cui Sant’Ignazio e i suoi successori si erano opposti sin dalla fondazione della Compagnia. Il nazionalismo europeo, allora in aumento, fu in parte responsabile della decisione. Come e perché la Compagnia di Gesù cambiò la sua politica su una questione così delicata? E perché in quell’anno in particolare? In Francia l’opposizione alla Spagna era un punto fondamentale del partito che sosteneva Enrico IV, tanto che si insultavano gli spagnoli definendoli “tutti ebrei”. Nel 1590 furono trovati alcuni graffiti su alcuni muri di Parigi: “Alla rovina il popolo ebreo e con esso il popolo spagnolo”. Nel Portogallo dominato dalla Spagna era molto vantaggioso promuovere sentimenti anti-converso per contrastare la Spagna. Nella stessa Spagna, il partito che spingeva per la discriminazione sentiva di avere il massimo sostegno politico. Inoltre, da oltre venti anni, in Italia si riscontrava una crescente insoddisfazione nei confronti dei superiori spagnoli. Il Padre Generale Acquaviva, che aveva sfruttato questa eterogenea coalizione per assicurarsi la sua presa al potere, usò nuovamente il vecchio stratagemma: l’antigiudaismo fu usato per schiacciare l’opposizione, ma ironicamente in paesi (Portogallo, Spagna e Francia) dove gli Ebrei erano ufficialmente fuorilegge.

La finale de l’évangile de Marc en 16,8 - « les femmes ne dirent rien à personne car elles avaient peur » - est une des crux interpretum les plus célèbres du Nouveau Testament. Est-il possible que l'auteur ait pu vouloir finir ainsi un évangile ? S'appuyant sur une intuition mentionnée par Joel Marcus et Benoît Standaert, l'article défend l'hypothèse selon laquelle Marc veut faire discrètement allusion à Genèse 18,15 LXX. La même expression rare ἐφοβήθη γάρ, soit le verbe ‘avoir peur’ suivi de la préposition γάρ, intervient dans un contexte analogue. Dans les deux cas, une ou des femmes sont confrontées par Dieu ou ses messagers à ce qui parait être une promesse invraisemblable et une impossibilité radicale : la naissance d'un fils dans la vieillesse ou la résurrection d'un mort.La proposition ajoute un argument de type scripturaire, bien dans les possibilités de Marc, pour défendre l'idée actuellement majoritaire mais contestée, que Marc entendait bien achever son évangile avec 16,8b.

The logion of Matt 11.27 (// Luke 10.22) – ‘All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’ – has long been considered a ‘Johannine meteorite in the Synoptic sky’ and, after fierce exegetical battles, a sort of ‘foreign body’ in both Matthean and Lukan theological projects. This paper intends to question this assumption on the basis of recent works both on the historical Jesus and on Synoptic theology. It suggests that this verse not only fits very well with the theological and literary project of the Synoptics’ authors but can also shed some light on Jesus’ theology of creation. The way Jesus articulates his own special relationship to ‘his father’ with the human relationship of God's children to ‘their father’ is coherent with the theology implied by this logion. French abstract: Le logion transmis par Mt 11,27 (// Lc 10,22) – « Tout m'a été remis par mon Père et nul ne connait le Fils si ce n'est le Père comme nul ne connait le Père si ce n'est le Fils et celui à qui le Fils veut bien le révéler » – a longtemps été considéré comme « un météore johannique dans le ciel synoptique » et vu comme un corps étranger dans le projet théologique matthéen (et lucanien). Cet article entend contester cette perception classique tant à partir des développements de la recherche sur le Jésus historique que de celle sur les évangiles synoptiques. Ce verset s'intègre fort bien dans le projet théologique des évangélistes et est parfaitement en phase avec ce que nous savons de la théologie de la création de Jésus lui-même. La façon dont Jésus conçoit sa relation spéciale au Père est inséparable de la conviction centrale qui est la sienne que tous les êtres humains sont fils de Dieu.

S’appuyant notamment sur les travaux de Richard Bauckham et Tal Ilan, cet article défend la thèse selon laquelle le nom Cléophas en Lc , (gr. Κλεοπᾶς) ainsi que Clophas (gr. Κλωπᾶς) en Jn , font référence à la même personne, le père d’un chef de la communauté de Jérusalem à la fin du er siècle. Faire cette hypothèse à nouveaux frais nous permet un accès au travail rédactionnel et théologique de Luc dans le récit d’Emmaüs. Même si l’ensemble du passage témoigne abondamment des talents littéraires et des intérêts théologiques de Luc, il dispose ainsi d’un appui dans un récit traditionnel narrant l’apparition de Jésus à ce Cléophas. Le choix par Luc de ce nom est doublement astucieux : il lui permet d’honorer le respect que les églises pauliniennes doivent avoir pour les églises de Judée dans l’esprit de Rm – et établit la légitimité propre de sa construction littéraire et théologique en l’adossant au nom d’un judéo-chrétien respecté et connu

Paul displays his rhetoric and cultural mastery in Galatians 4:1-2. With a few plain words, he is able to allude both to one of the most profound aspirations of Greek culture and philosophy – that is the thirst for true freedom – and to the most important experience of the Jewish faith, the core of Biblical tradition, the Exodus or the creation of a people of sons called to freedom. The two cultural backgrounds, Roman-Greek and biblical-Jewish, should not be opposed but rather taken together. En Ga 4,1-2, Paul fait montre de sa maîtrise rhétorique et culturelle. En quelques mots, il est capable de faire allusion à la fois à l'une des plus profondes aspirations de la philosophie grecque, le désir d'une vraie liberté, et à l'expérience la plus importante de la foi juive : l'Exode comme accession à la liberté, la création d'un peuple de fils appelés à la liberté. Les deux arrièreplans culturels, gréco-romain et juif-biblique, ne doivent pas être opposés mais bien plutôt considérés ensemble.

The parable of the prodigal son is considered by most commentators to be part of Luke's special tradition (L). Nevertheless some exegetes, struck by its strongly Lucan character, consider it Luke's creation. Another option should be considered – that Luke rewrote a parable that was originally analogous to Matthew 21.28–32. Even if this hypothesis cannot be conclusively proven, it helps heuristically to reveal more fully Luke's literary and theological genius. In line with our increasingly clear conviction that the evangelists were not mere compilers of traditions, this suggestion deserves to be discussed afresh. French abstract: La parabole du fils prodigue a longtemps été considérée par la majorité des exégètes comme appartenant à la tradition propre à Luc (L). Néanmoins certains, frappés par son style fortement lucanien tant au plan du style que de la théologie, ont vu en elle une création lucanienne. Une autre option mérite d'être prise en compte, à savoir que Luc a réécrit une parabole qui ressemblait à celle de Mt 21.28–32. Même si cette hypothèse ne peut être définitivement prouvée, elle nous aide heuristiquement à mettre en lumière le génie littéraire et théologique de Luc. Au moment où nous devenons de plus en plus conscients que les évangélistes ne sont pas de simples compilateurs de traditions, cette hypothèse apparaît fructueuse.

En Ac 14,4.14, Luc qualifie Paul et Barnabé d’apôtres. Cet emploi semble s’opposer au critère apostolique donné en Ac 1,22 qui paraît restreindre ce terme aux seuls Douze et crée de ce fait une énigme pour les commentateurs. Aucune des explications traditionnellement proposées – lapsus calami, usage d’une source antiochienne, sens différent du terme – ne s’est imposée. Pourtant, bien situé dans le projet littéraire et théologique de l’ensemble Luc-Actes, cet emploi prend sens dans le cadre de l’ecclésiologie lucanienne. Il constitue une étape majeure dans une construction commencée bien avant et qui vise à défendre le statut apostolique de Paul tout en préservant la position prééminente des Douze. In Acts 14:4.14, Barnabas and Paul are called ‘apostles’. A unique exception in the book, this fact seems to contradict the criterion for apostolicity given in Acts 1:22 and has been an enigma for commentators. None of the traditionally proposed explanations – lapsus calami, a rewriting of an ‘antiochian tradition’, a different meaning for the term ‘apostle’, etc. – has been found convincing. Firmly located in the whole of Luke’s literary and theological project, this qualification makes good sense for his ecclesiology and is a discrete step in the Lucanian design of founding Paul’s apostolic status while preserving the eminent position of the Twelve.

The literary device of the synkrisis, the methodological comparison between two persons or situations, is regularly used in Luke's work, in particular to create links between the Gospel and Acts. A particular synkrisis unites the Emmaus episode (Lk 21,13-33) and the meeting between Paul and Lydia (Acts 16,5-11). In both narratives, the rare verb παραβιάζομαι is employed and, while this has been pointed out by commentators, the theological value of this synkrisis has nevertheless been underestimated. Luke had a deeply theologically inclusive agenda, and the parallels between Cleophas, the Jewish man who meets the Risen One, and Lydia, the pagan woman who meets Paul the Apostle, illustrate this.