10 research outputs found
Zechariah 9-14 as the substructure of 1 Peter’s eschatological program
No full textThe principal aim of this study is to discern what has shaped the author of 1 Peter to regard Christian suffering as a necessary (1.6) and to-be-expected (4.12) component of faithful allegiance to Jesus Christ. Most research regarding suffering in 1 Peter has limited the scope of inquiry to two particular aspects—its cause and nature, and the strategies that the author of 1 Peter employs in order to enable his addressees to respond in faithfulness. There remains, however, the need for a comprehensive explanation for the source that has generated 1 Peter’s theology of Christian suffering. If Jesus truly is the Christ, God’s chosen redemptive agent who has come to restore God’s people, then how can it be that Christian suffering is a necessary part of discipleship after his coming, death and resurrection? What led the author of 1 Peter to such a startling conclusion, which seems to runs against the grain of the eschatological hopes and expectations of Jewish restoration ideology?
This thesis analyzes the appropriation of shepherd and fiery trials imagery,
and argues that the author of 1 Peter is dependent upon Zechariah 9-14 for his
theology of Christian suffering. Said in another way, the eschatological program of
Zechariah 9-14, read through the lens of the Gospel, functions as the substructure
for 1 Peter’s eschatology and thus its theology of Christian suffering.
In support of this hypothesis, this study highlights the fact that Zechariah 9-
14 was available and appropriated in early Christianity, in particular in the Passion
Narrative tradition; that the shepherd imagery of 1 Pet 2.25 is best understood
within the milieu of the Passion Narrative tradition, and that it alludes to the
eschatological program of Zechariah 9-14; that the fiery trials imagery found in 1
Peter 1.6-7 and 1 Pet 4.12 is distinct from that which we find in Greco-Roman and OT
wisdom sources, and that it shares exclusive parallels with some unique features of
the eschatological program of Zechariah 9-14; that Zechariah 9-14 offers a more
satisfying explanation for the modification of Isa 11.2 in 1 Pet 4.14, the transition
from 4.12-19 to 5.1-4, why Peter has oriented his letter with the term διασπορά,
and why he has described his addresses as οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ; and finally that 1 Peter
contains an implicit foundational narrative that shares distinct parallels with the
eschatological program of Zechariah 9-14.
We can conclude that 1 Peter offers a unique vista into the way in which at
least one early Christian witness came to understand and to communicate the fact
that Christian suffering was a necessary feature of faithful allegiance to Jesus Christ
Doeltreffende schoonheid. Adriaan Willem Weissman en Lizzy Cottage (1901-1904)
No full textIn 1892 Adriaan Willem Weissman (1858-1923) designed the Stedelijk Museum at Paulus Potterstraat in Amsterdam. Hardly ten years later he built the detached town house with picture gallery 'LizzyCottage', at the corner of Hobbemastraat and Jan Luijkenstraat. In this short period of time his architecture went through fundamental changes: whereas the main form of the museum was based on Dutch architecture of the early seventeenth century, the appearance of Lizzy Cottage is considerably less historicizing.
In the last decade of the nineteenth century the work of colleague-architects. among whom H.P. Berlage (1856-1934), Ed. Cuypers (1859-1927) and G. van Arkel (1858-1918) went through a similar development: they abandoned the decorations of the Dutch neo-Renaissance and were looking for a new, more contemporary architecture. From the beginning of his career Weissman did not only present himself as a designer, he also had an extremely facile pen.
In the eighties publications started to pour out, which only came to an end with his death in 1923. His articles show that Weissman kept a close track of the architectonic developments and professional literature in Europe and the United States and liked to comment on them. Thanks to his many articles in the journal ‘De Opmerker’ Weissman's quest for a contemporary architectonic form of expression can be followed in detail during the decade 1892-1902.
In succession he took an interest in Dutch architecture of around 1600. Contemporary American architecture (especially H.H. Richardson drew his attention) and contemporary English architecture, notably the Queen Anne Movement. Unmistakably Lizzy Cottage is indebted to English architecture of that period. However, in spite of its name Weissman regarded the house as typically Dutch. For instance, he left out the hall and thus dissociated himself from Ed. Cuypers, who had applied this element in the nearby house Jan Luijkenstraat 2-2A (1898-1899).
According to Weissman the hall was only useful in English society, a view he shared with Hermann Muthesius, who had lived in England for a long time. Weissman considered the German architect a kindred spirit; he introduced his ideas - in translation - in the Netherlands. Just as Muthesius, Weissman belongs to the large group of architects with an eclectic, practical bias who did not design from ideological motives. Efficiency was their motto
Geen stijl: Een rijkere architectuurgeschiedenis
No full textReview of a book written by Sieger VreelingBespreking van een boek van Sieger Vreelin
Theodor Sanders 1847-1927: De Vergeten Compagnon van Berlage
No full textReview of a book written by Arjan den Boer.Review of a book written by Arjan den Boer
Author Correction: Vps3 and Vps8 control integrin trafficking from early to recycling endosomes and regulate integrin-dependent functions
No full textCorrection to: Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03226-8, published online 23 February 2018
Creation and the people of God : creation tradition and the boundaries of the covenant in Second Temple Jewish writings and in Paul's letter to the Galatians.
No full textSIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:DX186858 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo
Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a booster regimen of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against COVID-19 (ENSEMBLE2) : results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial
No full textBackground Despite the availability of effective vaccines against COVID-19, booster vaccinations are needed to maintain vaccine-induced protection against variant strains and breakthrough infections. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen) as primary vaccination plus a booster dose.
Methods ENSEMBLE2 is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial including crossover vaccination after emergency authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines. Adults aged at least 18 years without previous COVID-19 vaccination at public and private medical practices and hospitals in Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the USA were randomly assigned 1:1 via a computer algorithm to receive intramuscularly administered Ad26.COV2.S as a primary dose plus a booster dose at 2 months or two placebo injections 2 months apart. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against the first occurrence of molecularly confirmed moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after booster vaccination, which was assessed in participants who received two doses of vaccine or placebo, were negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at baseline and on serology at baseline and day 71, had no major protocol deviations, and were at risk of COVID-19 (ie, had no PCR-positive result or discontinued the study before day 71). Safety was assessed in all participants; reactogenicity, in terms of solicited local and systemic adverse events, was assessed as a secondary endpoint in a safety subset (approximately 6000 randomly selected participants). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04614948, and is ongoing.
Findings Enrolment began on Nov 16, 2020, and the primary analysis data cutoff was June 25, 2021. From 34 571 participants screened, the double-blind phase enrolled 31 300 participants, 14 492 of whom received two doses (7484 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 7008 in the placebo group) and 11 639 of whom were eligible for inclusion in the assessment of the primary endpoint (6024 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 5615 in the placebo group). The median (IQR) follow-up post-booster vaccination was 36 center dot 0 (15 center dot 0-62 center dot 0) days. Vaccine efficacy was 75 center dot 2% (adjusted 95% CI 54 center dot 6-87 center dot 3) against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 (14 cases in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 52 cases in the placebo group). Most cases were due to the variants alpha (B.1.1.7) and mu (B.1.621); endpoints for the primary analysis accrued from Nov 16, 2020, to June 25, 2021, before the global dominance of delta (B.1.617.2) or omicron (B.1.1.529). The booster vaccine exhibited an acceptable safety profile. The overall frequencies of solicited local and systemic adverse events (evaluated in the safety subset, n=6067) were higher among vaccine recipients than placebo recipients after the primary and booster doses. The frequency of solicited adverse events in the Ad26.COV2.S group were similar following the primary and booster vaccinations (local adverse events, 1676 [55 center dot 6%] of 3015 vs 896 [57 center dot 5%] of 1559, respectively; systemic adverse events, 1764 [58 center dot 5%] of 3015 vs 821 [52 center dot 7%] of 1559, respectively). Solicited adverse events were transient and mostly grade 1-2 in severity.
Interpretation A homologous Ad26.COV2.S booster administered 2 months after primary single-dose vaccination in adults had an acceptable safety profile and was efficacious against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. Studies assessing efficacy against newer variants and with longer follow-up are needed. Funding Janssen Research & Development.
Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd
