PETER’S HALAKHIC NIGHTMARE: THE ‘ANIMAL’ VISION OF ACTS 10:9-16 IN JEWISH AND GRAECO-ROMAN PERSPECTIVE

The purpose of this thesis is to see if better sense can be made of the enigmatic vision of Acts 10:9-16 in which Peter is commanded to eat unclean animals. Although Luke interprets the vision in terms of attitudes to people, a striking problem is why a text apparently asking a Jew to violate the food-laws (and thus Torah as a whole), should feature in a book that does not resolve the Jew–Gentile problem in this way elsewhere. That this was an extraneous abolitionist text that Luke unsuccessfully “softened” is not deemed satisfactory. Peter’s vision is highly unusual, with marked differences from both Cornelius’ angelophany and other NT examples. As a Jewish response to the problem of associating with Gentiles, the account is unique in representing halakhic issues in dream form, but the rather human feel, enigmatic dialogue and oblique application may also suggest Graeco-Roman influences, which if read correctly might help illuminate the vision’s real function. After introductions to the halakha of association and the literary development of dreams in the Mediterranean world, two unusual aspects of the vision are investigated; firstly the connection with Hellenistic anxiety dreams and nightmares, and secondly, with the characteristically enigmatic divine speech of Graeco-Roman religion. These suggest ways in which Luke might want to point to a wider meaning and yet retain the vision’s distressing literal imagery. From a survey of other double dreams, it is concluded that pairing revelations with very different forms and degrees of difficulty is a recognisable pattern and may not imply poor editing . Indeed, that the darker and more enigmatic revelation is received by a character struggling to understand the divine will, is particularly characteristic. This not only explains the transgressive feel of Peter’s vision, but also how the ironic contrast with Cornelius underscores a Lukan apologetic about mission. It is concluded that the difficult even paradoxical questions facing Jewish Christians make a “communal anxiety dream” about contact with Gentiles understandable. The vision does not so much commend the abolition of Torah as expose the illegitimacy of allowing such “nightmares” to impede fellowship with Spirit-filled Gentile followers of Jesus. Part of its rebuke is to plunge the Apostle into a state of aporia until enabled to recognise its meaning in the surprising developments at Cornelius’ house. Besides helping to explain an editorial anomaly, and showing how Luke may be experimenting with more personal and enigmatic forms of “revelation”, this reading may also add plausibility to a consistent “dual-identity” reading of Lukan ecclesiology , as developed by Jervell et al

Neisseria meningitidis GNA2132, a heparin-binding protein that induces protective immunity in humans

GNA2132 is a Neisseria meningitidis antigen of unknown function, discovered by reverse vaccinology, which has been shown to induce bactericidal antibodies in animal models. Here we show that this antigen induces protective immunity in humans and it is recognized by sera of patients after meningococcal disease. The protein binds heparin in vitro through an Arg-rich region and this property correlates with increased survival of the unencapsulated bacterium in human serum. Furthermore, two proteases, the meningococcal NalP and human lactoferrin, cleave the protein upstream and downstream from the Arg-rich region, respectively. We conclude that GNA2132 is an important protective antigen of N. meningitidis and we propose to rename it, Neisserial Heparin Binding Antigen (NHBA)

Impact of question order on prioritisation of outcomes in the development of a core outcome set: A randomised controlled trial

Background: Core outcome set (COS) developers increasingly employ Delphi surveys to elicit stakeholders' opinions of which outcomes to measure and report in trials of a particular condition or intervention. Research outside of Delphi surveys and COS development demonstrates that question order can affect response rates and lead to 'context effects', where prior questions determine an item's meaning and influence responses. This study examined the impact of question order within a Delphi survey for a COS for oesophageal cancer surgery. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was nested within the Delphi survey. Patients and health professionals were randomised to receive a survey including clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the PRO section appeared first or last. Participants rated (1-9) the importance of 68 items for inclusion in a COS (ratings 7-9 considered 'essential'). Analyses considered the impact of question order on: (1) survey response rates; (2) participants' responses; and (3) items retained at end of the survey. Results: In total, 116 patients and 71 professionals returned completed surveys. Question order did not affect response rates among patients, but fewer professionals responded when clinical items appeared first (difference = 31.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.6-48.9%, P = 0.001). Question order led to different context effects within patients and professionals. While patients rated clinical items highly, irrespective of question order, more PROs were rated essential when appearing last rather than first (difference = 23.7%, 95% CI = 10.5-40.8%). Among professionals, the greatest impact was on clinical items; a higher percentage rated essential when appearing last (difference = 11.6%, 95% CI = 0.0-23.3%). An interaction between question order and the percentage of PRO/clinical items rated essential was observed for patients (P = 0.025) but not professionals (P = 0.357). Items retained for further consideration at the end of the survey were dependent on question order, with discordant items (retained by one question order group only) observed in patients (18/68 [26%]) and professionals (20/68 [29%]). Conclusions: In the development of a COS, participants' ratings of potential outcomes within a Delphi survey depend on the context (order) in which the outcomes are asked, consequently impacting on the final COS. Initial piloting is recommended with consideration of the randomisation of items in the survey to reduce potential bias. Trial registration: The randomised controlled trial reported within this paper was nested within the development of a core outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome set development. Outcomes were not health-related and trial registration was not therefore applicable.</p