This article interprets Paul's self-reflections in Phil 1 in light of the most current discourse about the ‘(introspective) self’ in antiquity: it is argued that Paul – in his last letter writing during his final imprisonment (in Rome?) – offers insights into his ‘inner self’ by construing the reflective mode of introspection. Similar to how ancient philosophers – such as Seneca in his letters – develop introspection when dealing/coping with the expectatio mortis, Paul too, in Phil 1–3, has to respond to his expectation of his pending death. While Phil 1.21–6 – which is to be read in the frame of chapters 1–3 – reflects Paul's situation highly individually and autobiographically, ancient philosophical introspective speaking modes in general tend to remain generic. In its ‘autobiographical consolidation’ Phil 1.21–6 is also to be seen in a ‘contrastive analogy’ to Rom 7.

This article argues for a renewal of the discipline of New Testament studies through a focus on the question of truth. To make the argument, the article first engages a recent essay that is highly critical of mainstream NT scholarship and subsequently works with the thought of Søren Kierkegaard, Stanley Cavell, Cora Diamond and Hans-Georg Gadamer to pursue the interpreter's implications in the NT's assertions of truth. The article also briefly exegetes five passages from the NT to illustrate the way the NT makes claims that require judgements about truth. Along the way, the article also engages contemporary NT scholars who argue vociferously against ‘theological’ readings of the NT and others who argue for their inherent necessity.

Weit enfernt davon, einen klaren und eindeutigen Sinn der biblischen Texte zu liefern, hat sich die neuzeitliche Exegese als eine wichtige Wegbereiterin des modernen Pluralismus erwiesen. Die historische Kritik beschränkt sich in ihren Textrekonstruktionen konsequent auf die Vergangenheit und überlässt es dadurch den Leser/innen, die für sie heute gültige Bedeutung der Texte selbst zu bestimmen. Durch die Wendung zur Sprache haben wir gelernt, Texte als sprachliche Konstruktionen von Wirklichkeit zu sehen, deren Sinn von den jeweiligen Leser/innen in höhem Masse mit konstituiert wird. Das Studium der Wirkungsgeschichte macht heutigen Leser/innen die Geprägtheit und zugleich die Partikularität ihrer eigenen Lesungen der Texte deutlich. Die heutige Exegese muss den von ihr selbst mitgeprägten Pluralismus bejahen und versuchen, die Sache ihrer Texte auf dem ‘Marktplatz’ der Weltanschauungen, Meinungen und Deutungen in öffentlichem, rationalem und offenem Diskurs zu vertreten und so auf die Fremdheit der Geschichte Jesu und den von den biblischen Texten bezeugten Gott hinzuweisen.

Les quatre Evangiles canoniques, comme l'on sait, relatent la façon dont Jésus, peu après qu'il eut pénétré pour la première fois dans le Temple de Jérusalem, en chassa les marchands d'animaux et les changeurs, puis commenta cet acte (Marc xi. 15–19; Matt. xxi. 12–17; Luc xix. 45–6; Jean ii. 13–22).Ces quatre récits sont très brefs, même si l'on tient compte de la concision qui caractérise les évangélistes. Rien qui ressemble ici à la relative ampleur des narrations de la Passion ou de certains récits de guèrison. Les évangélistes racontent en passant un épisode auquel ils ne paraissent pas à première vue attribuer une importance exceptionnelle. Mais ils le font sans réticence importante, puisqu'aucun d'eux n'a passé l'événement sous silence ou ne s'est efforcé de présenter une défense du geste de Jésus. Bref, il s'agit apparemment pour eux d'une anecdotesignificative parmi bon nombre d'autres.

The text of Acts 16.12 in the UBS4/NA27 designates Philippi as πρώτηςμερίδος τῆς Μαĸεδονίας πόλις, despite almost negligible manuscript evidence. The most widely attested reading of πρώτη τῆς μερίδος Μαĸεδονίας πόλις, is rejected by most scholars because it is not factually correct. However, an understanding of civic pride in Greco-Roman antiquity provides a context in which to better understand this latter reading, suggesting that it should be retained in the text of Acts 16.12.

The purpose of this paper is to consider four topics which are raised in or by the book of the Revelation and which have received varying degrees of attention in recent scholarly discussion. They are: (i) those features which are prophetic rather than apocalyptic, and their importance in assessing the character of the book; (ii) the identity of the prophets referred to in the book and (if they are Christian prophets) their place in the order of the church; (iii) the relation of prophets and prophecy to the ‘testimony of Jesus’ (ή μαρτυρία l'ησο⋯); and (iv) the evidence which the Revelation provides concerning the activity and contents of Christian prophecy. It is obvious that these topics are all closely interrelated, but for the sake of clarity we shall attempt to treat them separately and in order.

The occurrence and significance of the five women in Jesus' genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew has been a source of continuous scholarly debate. Taking a gender-sensitive approach, this contribution argues for looking at the five women as one group, viewing them as simultaneously accentuating the messianic line that Jesus is part of and vindicating his somewhat irregular birth, as well as substantiating the openness of Israel for Gentiles by adducing precedents from Israel's history.

The single type of writing that Luke's Preface resembles most is the Greek decree. Along with other indications, the structure situates Luke in the tradition of Classical historiography. It also creates important links to the narrative, helping to define: the relationships between Roman power and Christianity and between Classical and Lukan historiography; the character of the Christian politeia; the superiority of Lukan historiography both to Classical and to previous Christian historiography; the superiority of Lukan Christian doctrine; and the superiority of the ‘reward’ from Luke's Christian ‘contract’ to the ‘rewards’ of the Classical historians Thucydides, Livy and Augustus and to those of the Roman politeia.

It is difficult to find a more vigorously debated topic in NT studies today than the issue of anti-Judaism in early Christian documents in general and in Luke–Acts in particular. In regard to Luke–Acts, the range of viewpoints to be found among scholars is truly bewildering. In order to set the context for explicating my own position, I will outline my understanding of the contributions of Jacob Jervell and Jack T. Sanders, whose approaches appear to stand at opposite poles from one another and establish the limits within which other scholars customarily work.

The encounter between Jesus and the woman of Samaria is unique to the fourth gospel. Water symbolism and the true nature of worship constitute two major motifs that are woven into its narration. The meeting at the well touches off a discussion about water, and this discussion leads into one on worship. The connection between the two topics has not received hitherto a satisfactory solution, A. Guilding's work has the merit of recognizing the problem but her structural solution is unsatisfactory because it fails to make any connection in sense between the two.1 A matter that arouses curiosity concerns the subject of water common to the discussion Jesus and the woman have and the preceding section of material about purification and baptism by water as discussed by a Jew,2 the disciples of John the Baptist, and the Baptist himself. The fact that the incidents in question are set down in proximity invites scrutiny. Attention to the above two problems results in an interesting interpretation of the encounter.

Vor fast 100 Jahren setzten B. F. Westcott und F. J. A. Hort in ihrer kritischen Ausgabe des griechischen Neuen Testaments den Text von Luk. xxii. 19b, 20 (τò ὑπ⋯ρ ὑμ⋯ν…⋯κχυννóμενον) in doppelte Klammern, und Hort erklärte im Appendix unmißverständlich und mit guten Gründen, vv. 19b, 20 sei eine Interpolation. Seitdem gibt es die Problematik von Kurztext (vv. 17–19 a) und Langtext (vv. 17–20). Denn diese textkritische Entscheidung für den nur schlecht bezeugten Kurztext und gegen den aus-gezeichnet belegten Langtext war nicht nur die kühne Lösung eines komplizierten Textproblems, sondern zugleich ein tiefer Eingriff in die Überlieferung vom letzten Mahl Jesu..

Homosexualität ist besonders durch die gesellschaftlichen Verän–derungen in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika zunehmend zu einem Thema auch der theologischen Diskussion geworden. Dem exegetischen Befund kommt in dieser Diskussion eine ent–scheidende Bedeutung zu. Da die Ergebnisse in den Humanwissen–schaften es vielen immer schwieriger erscheinen lassen, Homosexualität in den Kategorien von Schuld und Sünde zu denken, dienen häufig die ‘eindeutigen’ biblischen Aussagen als Basis der Argumentation. Es erscheint daher angebracht, die einschlägigen Stellen exegetisch zu untersuchen und den Befund durch her–meneutische Überlegungen für eine umfassendere theologische Diskussion fruchtbar zu machen.

The last chapter of the gospel of Luke includes a story of the risen Christ meeting two of his disciples on their way from Jerusalem to the village of Emmaus and chastising them with the poetic expression ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ ‘O foolish ones, and slow in heart’ (Luke 24.25). No commentator has ever observed that Jesus' expression occurs verbatim, in the same iambic trimeter metre, in two poetic versions of animal fables attributed to the famous Greek fabulist Aesop. It is plausible that Luke is here, as at least twice elsewhere in his gospel, tapping into the rich tradition of Aesopic fables and proverbs that were widely known throughout the Mediterranean world in the first century ce.

Jesus’ answer to the High Priest in 18.20 offers a key to the pattern of his ministry. Each of the pairs ‘openly: secretly’; ‘the world: the Jews’ and ‘synagogue and Temple’ function significantly in the Gospel, but the last named are most important. In each of the Gospels, ‘synagogue’, ‘house’, and ‘Temple’ play narrative roles in the exploration of the relationship between Jesus with his community and the community of the Scriptures and contemporary Judaism. John's use of these narrative spatial-markers is very different and does not trace the separation of John's community from the synagogue, as often supposed. Instead, the Temple is the place for divine manifestation and where Jesus must be both revealed and rejected.

In both his Gospel and Acts, Luke places the ascension at the end of the day of Jesus' resurrection. There is no difference between Luke's dating of the ascension in his Gospel and that in Acts. The forty days mentioned in Acts 1.3 are viewed by Luke as subsequent to the ascension, not as previous to it. The forty days are not the term fixed for the ascension; they are not linked with the ascension at all. They are linked with the post-Easter, post-ascension appearances. The ascension ought to be regarded as preceding the forty days of Jesus' appearances rather than following them.

Three questions have remained central to the Erastus debate (Ἔραστος ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλɛως, Rom 16.23): the date of IKorinthKent 232, the nature of the office of οἰκονόμος (τῆς πόλɛως), and the frequency of the name ‘Erastus’ in antiquity. The present article focuses on the third issue. Moving beyond Meggitt's earlier research (1996, 1999), the author here furnishes a comprehensive catalog of literary, papyrological, and epigraphical occurrences of the name (in Greek and in Latin) in antiquity. The chief payoff of the catalog is two-fold: (1) it provides, for the first time, comprehensive quantitative evidence that the name was in fact rare; and (2) it reveals a significant dearth of attestations from first-century Greece.

Phil 2.6b should not be understood in the manner of an idiom but in a clearly negative way (‘booty’). The central key to Phil 2.6b is offered by biblical, Jewish and Hellenistic traditions about a usurpation of equality with God by kings and rulers (cf. Isa 14.12–15; hubris of god-like kings like Alexander, who ‘robbed’ their position). The self-humiliating Christ (who did not claim equality with God) is conceived as an antitype to the self-elevating rulers of the world; his Lordship is not based on usurpation. Phil 2.6–11 is keenly aware of the Jewish notion of the One and Only God (cf. John 5.18); the mantle of God's Oneness also embraces Christ as the Lord.

When Paul uses the verb πρoεγραϕη in Gal 3.1 he is not referring to an earlier writing of his, nor is he appealing to prophecies written in scripture. It may be possible to see here an allusive employment of mystery vocabulary. The dominant view is that πρoγραϕη implies a purely verbal depiction of Christ, the visual language being understood metaphorically. This article argues that the visual aspect of πρoγραϕη signifies Paul's display of the crucified Christ who was living in him according to the immediately preceding verses 2.19–21. Paul displayed the crucified Christ primarily in persecution suffered for his gospel.