It is now over twenty years since Alejandro Dez Macho announced his discovery of a complete text of the Palestinian Targum contained in the Codex Neofiti I of the Vatican Library. Even before the first volume of the editio princeps was published, the importance of Neofiti 1(N) and its marginal and interlinear glosses (Ngl) was apparent not only to specialists in the Aramaic language, Old Testament studies, and Jewish Literature of the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic times, but also to New Testament scholars. A particular feature of N which was bound to attract attention sooner or later is its frequent use of the formula Memra (utterance, word) of ahweh in the first chapter of Genesis in place of the Ἐlohim of the Massoretic Text, a feature encountered otherwise only in the Fragmentary Targum (FT). As we shall see presently, the exact significance of the term Memra was once a matter for keen scholarly debate, some asserting that it represented an entity separate from God, an intermediary between God and the created order, others roundly denying that it was any such thing, and regarding it only as a reverent means of avoiding pronunciation of the Holy and Ineffable Name. For reasons shortly to be described it was the latter opinion which finally prevailed and which is now generally accepted as established fact; but in the days before the scholarly debate on Memra was concluded it had been quite common for New Testament scholars to argue that, as an hypostasis and intermediary between God and the world, Memra had formed either the single antecedent, or one of the antecedents, to the Logos of the prologue of St John's Gospel. The presence of Memra in the text of N to Gen. i, and its frequent appearance in the Ngl, has led to renewed scholarly interest in the relationship of Memra to St John's Logos, so much so that A. Dez Macho, McNamara, and Domingo Muoz are all prepared to consider Memra a key concept in any discussion of St John's prologue. With the results of previous scholarship in mind, and in the light of new evidence, it would appear that the time is now right for a critical evaluation of these recent claims.

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.

Eine Reihe von μαρτυρεω-bzw. μαρτυρια-Belegen im vierten Evangelium rufen förmlich synoptische Zeugnisse auf. Das ist nicht verwunderlich, wenn man zur Kenntnis nimmt, dass es auch sonst johanneische Befunde der unzweideutigen Kenntnis, Verwendung und Umgestaltung synoptischer Vorlagen gibt. Dabei ist sorgfältig auf subtile unterschiedliche Tempusverwendung im Johannesevangelium, zumal den Gebrauch des Perfekts zum Ausdruck schriftlicher Textreferenz zu achten. Zu der fundamentalen Täufermartyria, die die Evangelienerzählung eröffnet, bildet Joh 19.35, der ursprünglich μαρτυρεω-Beleg, eine Inklusion, indem unter dem Kreuz anstelle des Bekenntnisses des römischen Centurio (Mk 15,39) ausdrücklich an die Verkündigung des ersten Christus-Zeugen (Jon 1.29–34) erinnert wird.

This article identifies a structural and conceptual chiasm within the description of Jesus' death and resurrection in Acts 2.23b-24, which helps to account for the distinctive elements of the passage.

In 1 Tim 5.3–16 ist ein Konflikt erkennbar zwischen dem Idealbild der Witwe und dem Status quo. Gemäss Verfasser, dessen Ansicht christlicher Tradition entspricht, sollten ausschliesslich die ‘wirklichen Witwen’ und nicht alle Frauen, die zu seiner Zeit als Witwen bezeichnet wurden, Objekt der Versorgung sein. Unter diesen Witwen gab es auch jüngere Frauen, die gar nie verheiratet gewesen waren. Der Verfasser versucht nun, diese ‘jüngeren Witwen’ aus der Gruppe der Witwen auszuschliessen, indem er das traditionelle Witwenbild gegenüber dem Status quo stark macht. Seine Motivation ist wohl die Abwehr gegen eine asketisch orientierte Irrlehre, die besonders unter den ‘jüngeren Witwen’ grosse Resonanz gefunden hat.

Did Tatian write his gospel in Greek or Syriac? Treatments of this most beleaguered crux in Diatessaronic studies have largely depended on a now defunct approach to the source material. The ‘New Perspective’ on Tatian's Diatessaron wants for a new study of this old question. A problematic arrangement of textual data at Luke 19.4 offers unrecognised evidence that Tatian composed in Greek – namely, contradictory testimonia to the Syriac word for Zacchaeus’ ‘sycamore’ in Tatian's gospel reflect different etymological translations of a distinctive, Greek textual variant.

Although it is widely recognised that οἱ πιστεύοντες was a self-designation of the early Christ groups, this is not reflected in scholarship on Romans and Galatians, where the participle is usually taken as a generic substantive. Such a rendering obscures the force of Paul's rhetoric, which presupposes the status of οἱ πιστεύοντες as a shared self-designation and mobilises it in an effort to naturalise Paul's claims regarding the exclusive justificatory value of his addressees’ πίστις. Accordingly, in Rom 3.22 and Gal 3.22, where οἱ πιστεύοντες appears in close connection with πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, it is unlikely that the latter phrase designates Christ's own faithfulness.

This paper explores the meaning of ἐφ’ ἑλπίδι in Rom 8.20c. This phrase has been variously understood as denoting a hope exercised by the one who subjected creation or a hope inhering in creation despite its subjection. After surveying and evaluating the standard proposals, I argue for an alternative manner of punctuating vv. 19–21 that makes it possible to preserve the most common meaning of ἐπί with the dative, while also taking creation itself as the agent that acts ἐφ’ ἑλπίδι. This proposal obviates a number of difficulties with conventional readings, and highlights the parallels between Paul's statements about the hope of creation in vv. 19–21 and the hope of believers in vv. 24–5.

‘Der Träger des gemeindeleitenden Amtes herrscht nicht über die Gemeindeglieder, sondern begegnet ihnen dienend in der Haltung geschwisterlicher Solidarität.’ Diese Aussage Roloffs charakterisiert die Gemeindeleitung in den Pastoralbriefen (Past) einseitig als Dienst. Immerhin hält Roloff es aber für angeraten, den Gedanken der Herrschaft explizit zurückzuweisen. Hierin deutet sich m.E. an, dass das Verständnis der Gemeindeleitung in den Past tatsächlich zwischen den Polen von Herrschaft und Dienst oszilliert. Dieses Phänomen möchte ich anhand eines zentralen Aspektes der Gemeindeleitung beleuchten: des Lehrens.

This paper focuses on the didactic function of the interpretation of Jesus' death in each of the Gospels as it is conveyed through the narrative's implicit commentary. It suggests that the evangelists tied the developing self-understanding of the emerging Christian communities to the death of Jesus. Mark interprets the church as a new ‘temple not made with hands’. Matthew relates the death of Jesus to the signs of the end-time and the hope of resurrection. Luke provides ethical instruction for the church, interpreting Jesus' martyrdom as a noble death, and John develops a rich portrait by which the church could define itself through the themes, images, and allusions of the Johannine passion narrative.

The endings of Pauline letters have been studied as providing clues to the letters' contents. The text of 2 Corinthians is no exception. But what constitutes the ending of that text, and is there more than one letter-ending in it? Rhetorical criticism provides some criteria for attempts to answer those questions, and has sometimes been claimed as providing evidence for the unity of 2 Corinthians. This article reviews that evidence and questions its reliability. The possibility that there may be more than one letter-ending points to a different solution and exposes important features of the text's composition.

Quel est le genre rhétorique du discours devant l'Aréopage (Ac 17.22–31)? Après avoir examiné et évalué les propositions précédentes en la matière, on est amené à y reconnaître le genre démonstratif, et particulièrement celui de l'éloge divin, dont ce discours partage les traits essentiels. Une lecture détaillée du discours selon les élements de sa dispositio permet alors de comprendre la portée des arguments et la pertinence d'un tel genre en un tel lieu.

Leo Perdue has applied Victor Turner's anthropological model of separation, liminality, and reaggregation to elucidate the social function of ancient wisdom texts. Ancient wisdom texts project the rhetorical situation of liminality upon their recipients in the course of imparting instruction, the effect of which is to integrate recipients at a new level into social structure. Using Turner's model, correlated with Berger's and Luckmann's model of resocialization, this paper argues that John's threshold speech functions to throw Q's recipients into a state of liminality. It thus creates the conditions necessary for reception of Jesus’ wisdom which follows. These results are used to critique stratigraphies of Q which are based upon the notion that the juxtaposition of John's and Jesus’ speeches is anomalous.

Wie konnte ein inhaltlich jüdisches Gebet ohne exklusiv christliche Anteile zum Zentralgebet der Christen werden? Mit der Suche nach den Gründen der Durchsetzung wird oft die Frage nach der Urheberschaft Jesu verbunden. Der Versuch einer Antwort mit Hilfe der Analyse des Inhaltes führt zu widersprüchlichen Ergebnissen. Sicher greifbar ist dagegen das Phänomen der frühen und unumstrittenen Akzeptanz des Vaterunsers, hier nimmt die vorliegende Untersuchung ihren Ausgang.

Entscheidend für die Durchsetzung des Vaterunsers war weniger sein Inhalt als seine Funktion. Durch seine schon in den Evangelien grundgelegte Kennzeichnung als ‘Gebet des κυριος’ wirkte das Vaterunser nach innen integrierend und nach außen abgrenzend. Eine weitere Christianisierung seines Inhaltes erübrigte sich. Daraus ergeben sich neue Perspektiven auf das Herkunftsproblem.

In an earlier article, ‘The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos’, I proposed that the prevailing explanations of the background and origin of the celebrated Logos concept/title of the Gospel of John are misguided in their attempts to trace the title to some extraneous source. I argued, rather, that the development of the christological title Logos had a beginning, middle, and end, and that this may be demonstrated from the Gospel and First Epistle themselves. Crucial to my argument was the chronological ordering of the three documents: the Gospel of John ‘proper’ (John 1.19–20.31), the First Epistle, and then the substance of the Prologue (John 1.1–18). The thesis itself, more specifically, was that (1) λóγoς and ρημα were employed in the Gospel ‘proper’ with a demonstrably ‘christological transparency’, (2) λóγoς was employed with a quasi-titular force in the first verses of 1 John, and (3) λóγoς reflects a full-fledged christological title in the Prologue material, which was composed still later. At the end of that article I suggested that a similar development could be traced in the case of the Johannine term αρχη´ – immediately related to λóγoς in the very first line of the Gospel – and that, if so, this would surely enhance my argument concerning λóγoς. Here I attempt to make the argument for a similar christological development of the Johannine αρχη´. Even aside from its relevance for my thesis about λóγoς, the prominent and recurring αρχη´ justifies the attention. And it does confront us, after all, with the majestic phrase with which the Gospel opens: ‘In the beginning’.

Die Gewiβheit, mit den üblichen traditions- und redaktionsge-schichtlichen Methoden eine vorsynoptische Traditionsgeschichte objektiv rekonstruieren zu können, schwindet immer mehr (s.u. 3). So wird es erforderlich, unter Einbezug der gegenwartig herrschenden texttheoretischen Methoden ein offenes Methoden-Modell zu konstruieren, das eine Rekonstruktion der Tradition plausibel ermöglicht (s.u. 4). Allerdings stammen die gewählten texttheoretischen Methoden aus unterschiedlichen texttheoretischen Modellen wie dem Strukturalismus, der Erzähltextanalyse (narrative criticism) und der historischen Gattungsanalyse (rhetoric criticism). Diese Modelle schlieβen sich aber nicht gegenseitig aus, sondern konvergieren in vielen Punkten miteinander. So wird es möglich, die historisch-kritische Methode um einzelne Elemente aus diesen Modellen zu bereichern, zu verändern und auf diese Weise weiterzuentwickeln (s.u. 1–2).