While the Gospel of John makes some forceful and explicit claims about the identity of Jesus and the character of his mission, it also invites readers into a deepened appreciation of its claims. Part of its strategy for doing so is to exploit ambiguity and to point to what the readers do not know. The article explores three examples of this pedagogical strategy: the deliberately hidden identity of the Beloved Disciple; the initial deeds of Jesus, labelled ‘signs’, which, however, do not in any direct and obvious way ‘signify’ anything, as the later works do; and the question debated by the crowds in Jerusalem, of where Jesus is from. In each case recognition of the unknown can be the first step towards discovering Truth.

The importance of the OT theophanies in relation to NT conceptions of the End has never been sufficiently realized. Again and again the prophets and psalmists spoke not merely of the Day of the Lord but they spelled this out in terms of a divine coming. Thus in Mic 1. 3 we read that ‘the Lord cometh forth out of his place, and will come down …’ Psa 96. 13 declares, ‘He cometh to judge the earth.’

The Acts of Thecla develop a narrative Christian counter-world to their pagan society. In this context erotic motifs are adapted and re-interpreted. It is into this framework that the description of the Apostle Paul is to be placed. In his human appearance he proves to be the antitype of the erotic lover such as depicted in the stereotypes of Greco-Roman novels. When Thecla, however, feels irresistibly attracted to him, it is his function as the mediator of Christ that attracts. Thus, Thecla's conversion to Christian faith is presented as a special act of falling in love with the Gospel.

A response to the article by Christina Hoegen-Rohls.

In this paper, I examine several sources of authority to which Origen laid claim as he set about the task of interpreting scripture. On occasion, in both his commentaries and his homilies, Origen provided accounts of his access to three different, though connected sources of authority that contributed to his self-presentation as an expert interpreter. These sources are as follows: 1) participation in the lineage of the apostles, particularly his exegetical role model, Paul. The second source of authority is a result of the first: 2) direct communication from the Logos, whom he understands to be Christ himself, and 3) angelic assistance and engagement with his pastoral exegetical project. In some instances, Origen even claimed to be on par with two of these sources of authority; he can be found claiming to have exegetical abilities similar to Paul's and, on some rare occasions, to have reached the same epistemological level as the angels. This analysis provides us not only with a case study of the kind of self-fashioning and authorising strategies used by elite scriptural exegetes in the first few centuries of the common era, but it also allows us to shift our focus away from exegetical methods towards the figure, personality and social position of the exegete him or herself. From this shift of focus we gain a better appreciation of a topic to which exegetical authors themselves dedicated considerable energy: just who it was that could occupy the office of authoritative Christian exegete and why.

Onomastic congruence (a feature defined in this article) is characteristic of historiographic biographies from the Early Empire. The Synoptic Gospels display onomastic congruence, as well as conservatism in their treatment of names. The preservation of names, especially those centred around key roles and events, suggests that some names may have been preserved in the oral archives of early Christian communities to footnote living eyewitness sources, paralleling historiographical situations.

In seiner Studie ‘Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17’ hat Ernst Käsemann ein Bild des Johannesevangeliums als das eines Dokuments einer Christo-logie des auf Erden schreitenden göttlichen Logos entworfen. Worte, die auf die Inkarnation hinweisen, wie 1. 14, deutet ernicht als Ausdruck der Selbsterniedrigung des Erlösers, sondern als ein Zeugnis seiner triumphie-renden Herrlichkeit, die die Barriere der Weltlichkeit überwindet und auch den sündigen Menschen erreicht.

This article compares two first-century authors, Paul and Plutarch, on the mechanics of inspiration and the role of gender in the prophetic process. Paul's First Corinthians and Plutarch's Delphic Dialogues (De Pythiae oraculis and De defectu oraculorum) were written by men who were observers of and commentators on the religious phenomenon of prophecy – that is, the communication of divine messages through human speakers. They also make statements about women that indicate that gender influenced their perceptions of prophecy. When these authors discuss prophecy at the conceptual level, gender does not affect their arguments, but when they turn to actual women prophets, they introduce ideas about gender and sex that shape their views of the prophetic process and the women who prophesy.

That John 6 was intended as a self-contained unit is clearly signalled by the evangelist, who has commenced chapters 5, 6 and 7 with μετά ταûτα, a formula that marks a new beginning. Yet there has long been controversy regarding the unity and integrity of the chapter and its present place in the Gospel. In this paper it is argued that, though independent of the Synoptics, John has made use of Synoptic-like tradition and that chapter 6 provides evidence of a developing and yet unified interpretation of that tradition. The tradition was the basis of two editions of the chapter. Recognition and characterization of the tradition is an important beginning in the attempt to understand John 6. A second step is to note the signals indicating changes of time, place and audience which coincide with changes of literary genre. Changes are signalled from the crowd at Capernaum (6. 22–36) to the Jews in the synagogue at Capernaum (6. 41–59) to the disciples and ‘the twelve’ at some unspecified location (6. 60–71). There are two references to each audience in the narrative of these sections (6. 22, 24, 41, 52, 60, 66, 67, 71) and a Son of Man saying in each of Jesus' responses, to the crowd (6. 27), the Jews (6. 53), and the disciples (6. 62). Changes of genre from quest (6. 1–36) to rejection (6. 41–59 and 6. 60–66) to commendation (6. 67–71) stories confirm these divisions. There is also a transition from the emphasis on the emissary christology in the quest story to the soteriology of the rejection stories.

For the past forty years NT scholars have been divided over the text of 1 Cor 11.2–16. Some see this pericope as addressing the issue of head coverings, while others see the issue as one of hairstyles. Although Stefan Lösch was the first to advocate the case for long flowing hairstyles, credit for starting this enduring controversy must be given to Abel Isaksson. This article investigates Isaksson's claim for the hairstyle thesis and concludes that a study of the verb κατακαλυπτω will permit a translation only of textile head coverings.

Since Joachim Jeremias' Jesu Verheissung für die Völker (1956) it has often been assumed that in Matt 8.11–12 Jesus looked forward to the inclusion of gentiles into the kingdom at the eschaton. However, several recent studies, most notably by Dale C. Allison, have called this view into question and have instead advocated that the logion refers to the regathering of the Diaspora. The purpose of this study is to evaluate Allison's arguments and to propose that a gentile reference is implicit in the logion based on: (1) the broader context of the inter-textual echoes of passages concerning the regathering of Jewish exiles; and (2) a wider ethnic membership for those who participate in the patriarchal banquet based on the reference to ‘Abraham’. Furthermore, the logion is interpreted in the historical Jesus' ministry through the lens of a partially realized eschatology. As such the saying represents Jesus' contention that Israel's restoration was already becoming a reality and that gentiles were already entering the kingdom as an embryonic foretaste of their inclusion at the eschaton.

Out of all the NT books, the Gospel of John has the most witnesses among the papyrus MSS – twenty-two to date (P2, 5, 6, 22, 28,36, 39, 44, 45, 52, 55, 60, 63, 66, 75, 76, 80, 84, 90, 93, and 95). Two of these MSS, P66 and P75, contain a good portion of this gospel by themselves; and when all the MSS are compiled together, they cover nearly the entire book, with a great deal of overlap. The missing portions are as follows: 14. 31; 15.1; 16. 5, 8–10; 21.10–11, 14, 16, 21–22. Many more verses, especially in chapters 14–21, have lacunae.

The prevailing view among modern critics and translators of the NT is that the adjective μονογενής in John 1.14, 18; 3.16, 18 and 1 John 4.9 means ‘only’ or ‘single’. Against this consensus several authors have recently re-argued the case for interpreting the adjective as ‘only-begotten’, claiming that it does after all include the notion of derivation or birth. By a thorough examination of the use of μονογενής in Greek literature I hope, however, to show that the adjective's usual meaning is in fact ‘unique’ or ‘only’, ‘single’. It will furthermore be argued that this sense best suits the context of the term's occurrences in John as well. Finally, I shall try to show how the interpretation of the Johannine μονογενής as ‘only-begotten’ originates in, and is the result of, developments in Christology which do not antedate the second century AD.

In seiner Manson Memorial Lecture von 1965 hat Henry Chadwick eine Lanze dafür gebrochen, die Literatur des hellenistischen Judentums bevorzugt zur Erhellung der Theologie des Neuen Testaments heranzuziehen und nicht von den neu entdeckten Qumran-Schriften verdrängen zu lassen.1 Sein Plädoyer scheint, was Philo betrifft, nicht allzu viel bewegt zu haben; jedenfalls nennt das Register der Philo-Bibliographie von Roberto Radice und David Runia nach 1966 nur eine einzige Untersuchung zum Thema ‘Paulus und Philo’ im ganzen.2 Anscheinend können sich Exegeten, die auf Paulus eingeschworen sind, nur wenig für Philo erwärmen3. Dafür gibt es sicher Gründe im unterschiedlichen Profil dieser beiden Theologen; aber es könnte auch damit zusammenhängen, daβ die Wirkungsgeschichte des einen und das Image des anderen unnötig weit auseinanderklaffen. Bei beiden hat die neuere Forschung dazu geführt, das jüdische Erbe höher zu veranschlagen als früher.4 Das Könnte sie auch einander näherbringen; erneute vergleichende Lektüre scheint also angezeigt.

Die These des Beitrags ist, dass die Wendung ‘ὡς δι᾽ ἡμῶν’ in 2 Thess 2.2 nicht als direkter Hinweis auf den 1 Thess zu verstehen sei, sondern dass sich hier vielmehr der pseudonyme Verfasser mit einer nicht mehr erhaltenen brieflichen Fehlinterpretation des 1 Thess auseinandersetzt und sich so indirekt um eine ‘richtige’ Deutung des 1 Thess bemüht. Im Unterschied zu 2 Thess 2.2 ist 2 Thess 2.15 als direkter Hinweis auf die—nach Meinung des Verfassers—‘richtige’ Paulus-Lehre, d.h. den 1 Thess oder den vorliegenden 2 Thess, zu verstehen. Mit dieser These schlägt der Artikel zugleich eine differenzierte Typologie der paulinischen und pseudo-paulinischen Diskurse vor.

Josephus' Life raises many important literary and historical questions that are not easily resolved. This may explain why, for the most part, it has been ignored by New Testament scholars, despite the fact that it is the only extant writing from the first century that bears directly on Galilean life and culture and was written by somebody with immediate experience of that location. Its tendentious character has been ably exposed by Shaye Cohen's study, Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as an Historian, Leiden, Brill, 1979. Yet it can still yield invaluable information on social relations within the province, provided we approach it in the proper critical fashion, framing our questions carefully and being attentive to the presuppositions of the author.

This article reads Acts 27–28.10 as an ‘aquatic display’ that offers Christ-believers a spectacle of navigating the stormy imperial world. It argues that Pliny's Panegyricus similarly employs aquatic displays to instruct in negotiating the emperor Trajan's power. It identifies four means in Acts 27 that assert Rome's power – judicial, military, economic, and the sea as a contested site where the sovereignties of God and Rome compete and cooperate – and which Christ-believers must negotiate by various means including submission, awareness of danger, courage, social interaction, agency, contribution to well-being, and discernment of and contestive allegiance to God's greater sovereignty.