Search

The wordscrux interpretumare frequently invoked over the question Paul poses to his Corinthian acquaintances in 1 Cor 15:32: εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐθηριομάχησα ἐν Ἐφεσῳ, τί μοι τὸ ὄφελος; “If with merely human hopes I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it?” Three principal questions have occupied interpreters of this enigmatic verse. First, does the verb ἐθηριομάχησα imply a literal fight with wild beasts, does it allude figuratively to a hostile conflict with human adversaries, or does it refer hypothetically to a literal event (an unreal conditional)? Second, if the verb is meant figuratively, as nearly all today conclude, whom does Paul characterize as “wild beasts”? Third, what is meant by the phrase κατὰ ἄνθρωπον?

According to the prevailing interpretation of 1 Cor 3.15, the phrase διὰ πυρός must be taken in the local sense, and the fire of vv. 13 and 15 plays no soteriological function. This article contests this reading, arguing that Paul's probable allusion to Mal 3 and his reference to the testing function of fire may imply refining as well. More importantly, it demonstrates that whereas the phrase διὰ πυρός is indeterminate and may take either the local or the instrumental sense, nearly every other instance of the construction σῴζω + διά + genitive in the relevant Greek literature has an instrumental sense.

John 9:6 contains a curious reference to Jesus’ use of spittle and clay to heal a man born blind. Beginning with Irenaeus, patristic exegetes saw here an allusion to God’s use of dust to create Adam. Modern commentators, however, are generally skeptical of this interpretation and are content to make note of the belief popular in antiquity that saliva held therapeutic properties. After noting the presence of other allusions to creation in John 9 and elsewhere in John’s Gospel, this article examines several Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient Near Eastern texts that mention spittle and clay alongside more transparent creation motifs. These texts helpfully illumine the role of spittle and clay in John 9:6 and lend substantial support to Irenaeus’s exegesis.

Mark 9.49, with its odd juxtaposition of the images of salt and fire, is a notoriously difficult text, which has mystified many interpreters and engendered numerous conflicting interpretations. In a regrettably disregarded article, T.J. Baarda suggested that the original form of the saying may have been 'For everyone will be baptized in fire'. This study argues that Baarda's proposal is remarkably plausible given its coherence with the preaching of John the Baptist and other aspects of the Jesus tradition. Also considered herein is the previously unobserved possibility that Baarda's reconstruction may offer solutions to problems that have long frustrated interpreters of the Baptist's pronouncement regarding the coming one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (Q 3.16).