No abstract

No abstract

this widespread approach to parable theory is that it maintains a tradition of anti-Jewish readings of parables. To be sure, Snodgrass struggles with this anti-Semitism and tries to avoid it. He makes absolutely clear that he does not want to continue this tradition of reading. To resolve this problem, he proposes to make careful distinctions between the kind of thinking characterized by two representative statements: "God rejected Israel because Israel did not accept Jesus and killed him" and "Even though the religious leaders rejected Israel and were condemned by God" other people in Israel still have the option to hear the message of Jesus and about Jesus and be saved. The consequence of Snodgrass's proposal is Christian mission to the Jews. I am convinced that Snodgrass does not want to draw this consequence for today, but he does not prevent it. For teachers and preachers it could be difficult to work with the proposal that Snodgrass offers without facing the problem that people hear the old pattern and take the religious leaders as typical and representative for Judaism and the Jewish people as a whole. My main critique of this book lies with this very problem: Snodgrass's theory of parables is tied to the anti-Jewish reading tradition.The strength of the book-within its given frame-is the theological intensity of its presentation of Jesus. Snodgrass understands Jesus strongly in relation to the coming kingdom of God. It is "present in Jesus' teaching and work. God's longed-for kingdom has begun." The parable of the two lost sons (Luke 15:11-32) is interpreted as an "invitation for the hearers to take the same attitude toward sinners as the father toward the prodigal."This respectable and helpful book can be used as a guide or a survey of the research of generations of scholars. At the same time, it presents an occasion to continue the way of critiquing and overcoming the Christian anti-Semitism that is so deeply engraved in Christian readings of Jesus' parables.

The Odes of Solomon have attracted Jewish scholars and specialists in such diverse fields as the New Testament, Jewish‐Christianity, gnosticism, and Patristics.

Qumran dualism and its possible relation to Johannine ‘dualism’ has been a subject of considerable interest and discussion. In the light of recent studies and with the subsidence of the Qumran fever, the time may be opportune for a fresh assessment of the evidence. In this paper we shall confine ourselves to the crucial passage in IQS iii, 13–iv, 26. After examining the type of dualism reflected there, we shall proceed first to investigate the Johannine ‘dualism’ sepqrately, secondly to draw comparisons and contrasts, and finally to ask whether we are thereby led to any conclusions about the provenance of the Johannine tradition.