Explore the vast range of titles available.

That readers and biblical texts are somehow linked in a mutually transformative relationship is hardly a novel perception, especially in contexts where the Christian Bible has been received as normative Scripture for faithful worship and living. This study focuses on an aspect of this relationship and wrestles with it not only in theory, but also in practice by asking: How may a reader who wishes to read the Christian Bible as Scripture well today be formed; and how may interpretations of Scripture themselves inform such concern?Vincent Ooi begins by showing that such concern is not only contemporary but integral to Christian traditions of reading Scripture, and that it is only recently receiving some renewed scholarly attention. He reviews some of these recent works before setting out his own approach from the perspective of theological interpretation of Scripture. He then demonstrates his approach via close exegetical engagement with three biblical texts, namely Nehemiah 9:6–37, Ezekiel 20:5–32, and Acts 7:2–60, which offer different inner-canonical readings of Scripture in the form of distinctive retellings of Israel’s story. He first considers how these texts portray readers of Scripture and use scriptural traditions in relation to the wider context of the Christian canon; he then discusses what they, individually and in concert, might suggest as significant for shaping readers seeking to faithfully appropriate Scripture today. The posture of prayer, the pulse of liturgy, and the patterning of Christ are among the things proposed as formatively significant.

The prayer of Neh 9:6–37, and particularly its final two verses, presents the imperial monarchy in a very negative light. This portrayal is far different from the depictions of the Achaemenids found everywhere else in Ezra-Nehemiah, where the Persian kings are great benefactors of the Judean assembly. The presence of this anti-imperial language points to the existence of a group that hoped that God would grant them independence from Persia. In Neh 8–13 as a whole, however, the inclusion of the prayer functions not to promote this view but to present it as terribly misguided. The prayer includes a description of the people that is drawn from Achaemenid ideology, a picture used by the Persian kings to contrast the beneficence bestowed on loyal subjects and the tortures inflicted on the disloyal. Nehemiah 8–13 demonstrates that independence from the Achaemenid king, the figure responsible for sending proper leadership to Judah in order to keep the people faithful to the law, would lead to divine destruction of the community. Here as elsewhere in Ezra-Nehemiah, God permits the continued existence of the assembly only because the figures sent by the king force the people to remain loyal to the law. The best possible life is one under Achaemenid rule, and life without it would be a disaster, which is precisely the claim of Achaemenid imperial ideology.

Abstract This article examines a group of confessional prayers found in Second Temple literature uttered by known/identifiable figures that are characterized by an admission of guilt on the part of the speaker and a request for divine deliverance and redemption. In Nehemiah 9, these elements are very obscure, the passage also demonstrating linguistic and historical signs that suggest it does not belong to this group or the same date. On the basis of the disparity between the prayer and its introduction, an analysis of its content, linguistic elements, and the features stressed in the historical review, this paper proposes that the prayer belongs not to the Second Temple period but to the days prior to the Babylonian exile, when the people were under bondage to foreign kings in their own land.

No detailed description available for \"Praying the Tradition\".

This article discusses the references to Abraham in the literature of the sixth century BC (Ez 11,15; 33,23; Isa 41,8; 51,2; 63,16 and Neh 9). First, it addresses the inter-textual relation between the references to Abraham in Ezekiel and in Isaiah 40–55: while the earlier Ezekielian material rejects the Judahites' claim to land through the promise to Abraham, the later Isaianic material, addressing a Judahite audience, affirms it. Secondly, it explores the references to Abraham in the lament in Isa 63,16 and in the penitential prayer in Neh 9,7–8, and notes that these two texts, likely to have been composed in sixth century Judah, single out Abraham from among the patriarchs. Finally, this article reflects upon the fact that these references to Abraham are all found in texts either written by the community in sixth century Judah or attributed to them. Cette étude concerne les références à Abraham dans les textes du VIème siècle av. n.è. (Ez 11,15; 33,23; Isa 41,8; 51,2; 63,16). Elle aborde d'abord la relation intertextuelle entre les références à Abraham dans Ezéchiel et Esaïe 40–55: alors que les premiers textes d'Ezéchiel rejettent la revendication par Juda de la terre promise à Abraham, cette promesse est au contraire confirmée par les textes ésaïens plus tardifs, qui s'adressent à une audience judéenne. Puis sont étudiées les références à Abraham dans la lamentation d'Esaïe. 63,16 et dans la prière de Néh. 9,7–8: on note que les deux textes distinguent Abraham des autres patriarches. Finalement, la réflexion porte sur le fait que les références à Abraham se trouvent toutes dans des textes qui ont été rédigés par la communauté du VIème siècle av. n.è. en Juda, ou bien qui lui sont attribués. In diesem Artikel werden die Referenzen auf Abraham in der Literatur des 6. Jh. v.Chr. diskutiert (Ez 11,15; 33,23; Jes 41,8; 51,2; 63,16 und Neh 9). Als erstes wird die intertextuelle Beziehung zwischen den Referenzen auf Abraham in Ezechiel und in Jesaja 40–55 angesprochen: Während die älteren Textstellen Ezechiels den Anspruch der Judäer auf das dem Abraham verheißene Land zurückweisen, wird diese durch die späteren deuterojesajanischen Texte, die an eine judäische Leserschaft gerichtet sind, bestätigt. Zweitens werden die Referenzen auf Abraham in der Klage von Jes 63,16 und im Bußgebet von Neh 9,7–8 untersucht. Dabei wird vermerkt, dass diese zwei wahrscheinlich im 6. Jh. abgefassten Texte Abraham unter den Erzvätern herausheben. Schließlich wird in dem Artikel die Tatsache reflektiert, dass diese Referenzen auf Abraham nur in Texten zu finden sind, die durch die Gemeinschaft im Juda des 6. Jh. verfasst oder ihr zugeschrieben werden.

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.) DURING THE EXILIC PERIOD, the covenant with Abraham was a theological datum of ever-increasing importance.1 This trend accelerated in the postexilic period.2 It was the Priestly writer who drew attention to the centrality of covenant in Israelite religion, and in a special way to the Abrahamic pact as a key point of reference for covenantal thinking in this period.3 At this time, Jews in large numbers sought an enduring framework within which to explore God's relationship with humanity, and specifically with Israel. Much of the material in this text, notably the references to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 63:18 and 64:9-10, comes from the sixth century b.c.e., and the text's final form is postexilic.12 That is, there is language indicative of preliminary efforts at pentateuchal formation late in the sixth century during the reign of the Persian king Darius (522-486 b.c.e.), when there began efforts to codify the Torah as a fixed written document.13 Although the text does not mention covenant explicitly, commentators have described the text as a prayer grounded in covenantal principles.

In Ezra and Nehemiah (also in the books of Chronicles), the Persian government is regarded very positively. The Achaemenid kings are—like the Davidic dynasty—the custodians of Israel who have been appointed by Yahweh. It is they who have enabled the building of the Second Temple and the city walls of Jerusalem and the reformation of the community by promulgation of the law.¹ Wherever these books (like the rest of the Old Testament) speak of the Achaemenids, the general attitude is so warm and positive that the statements have raised suspicions in the minds of many exegetes. They understand