This paper discusses ways in which NT scholarship can engage meaningfully with contemporary studies in Greco-Roman culture, using recent archaeological exploration in Galilee as samples of such a strategy. Three examples are discussed, dealing respectively with aspects of Hellenisation, Judaisation and Romanisation of the region. These illustrate how specific finds can be brought into dialogue with the literary evidence, providing fresh readings. Such approaches, which recall earlier debates between the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule and the Biblical Theology Movement, raise the issue of how NT scholarship can still be regarded as theological in its aims and objectives. Some tentative answers to this perennial question are offered by way of conclusion.

Dass der Menschensohn in der Vision des Stephanus (Apg 7.55–56) zur Rechten Gottes steht, scheint für frühe Rezipienten und Tradenten nicht im Widerspruch zu dem aus Ps 110.1 gewonnenen Christologoumenon der ‘sessio ad dexteram’ gestanden zu haben: Der textkritische Befund ist völlig unauffällig. Die ‘statio ad dexteram’ in Apg 7.55–56 konnte wohl als bewusste Verfremdung der ‘sessio’ aufgefasst werden, mit deren Hilfe das Motiv der Throngemeinschaft um ein märtyrerchristologisches Moment erweitert werden sollte. Der, den Stephanus sieht, ist durch sein Stehen gekennzeichnet als der Menschensohn, der ihm ins Martyrium vorausgegangen ist und von Gott zu sich erhöht worden ist.

This article clarifies Luke's portrayal of both John and Jesus as Elijah-like figures by considering how Malachi 3 was interpreted by Ben Sira, 4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q521) and the LXX. These ancient readers shared with Luke a concern to interpret the prediction of Elijah's return in the context of Malachi 3 even though they reached diverse conclusions. Luke's solution to the puzzle of Malachi 3 involved distinguishing between the Elijah of 1–2 Kings, who is associated with Jesus, and the Elijah of Malachi 3, who is consistently identified with John, the forerunner of the messianic ‘Lord’.

Although there is agreement that the body of the Sermon on the Mount (SM) contains three parts, there is little consensus regarding the nature of the third part. This passage is compared with different examples of wisdom instruction, each of which offers a unified composition on the moral problem of ‘goods’, broadly conceived as that which confers good standing or status, not only in economic terms but in social and spiritual terms as well. This provides a perspective from which to examine the overall structure of the sermon in the light of certain practices evident in ancient texts for organizing moral discourse.

Scholars have proposed various explanations for Paul's metaphor of a spectacle (θεατρον) in 1 Cor 4.9 – a Roman triumphal procession, a gladiatorial show, and more recently, a mime performance. Although scholars have presented substantial arguments in favour of their identifications, the details in the text do not totally resonate with any of the proposals. Rather, this article will advance a refined identification of Paul's metaphor that better agrees with the particulars of 4.9 and its context: the Roman spectacle of executing condemned criminals (noxii) within the arena, which was a significant social event in Roman society.

The redactional pericope in Matt 7.21–23, in which Jesus the final judge condemns certain false Christians, can and should be viewed as an anti-Pauline text. Those rejected by the Matthean Jesus are none other than Paul and those of his circle. This identification is indicated not only by their description as workers of lawlessness, but also by their defence that they are true Christians because they prophesy, work miracles and perform exorcisms in the name of Jesus. These charismatic activities were clearly associated with Paul and/or his churches.

While presupposing the widely accepted conclusion that the Gospel of John, like the other Gospels, is generically a bios, this article examines more distinctive features of this Gospel which it shares with ancient historiography: precise topography, precise chronology, selectivity, narrative asides, and claims to eyewitness testimony. In these respects the Gospel of John would have appeared to contemporary readers more like historiography than the Synoptics would. The problem of historiographical representation of speeches is solved differently by John from the way the Synoptics deal with it, but John's method of composing discourses and dialogues conforms to good historiographical practice as well as does that of the Synoptics.

Le présent article montre l'importance de μονογενης, attribué au Christ dans la tradition johannique et propose une hypothèse sur l'évolution de la signification de cette désignation christologique. La tradition première s'appuie sur le kèrygme initial de l'envoi Fils unique dans le monde destiné à manifester l'amour du Père (Jn 3.16–17; 1 Jn 4.9). L'école johannique en conclut à la nécessité inéluctable de la foi au Nom du Fils de Dieu (Jn 3.18). Placé en tête de l'évangile par l'ultime rédaction johannique, le Prologue confesse la divinité du Fils unique dans sa gloire et le proclame ‘Dieu Monogène’ (Jn 1.14, 18). La communauté johannique aura ainsi largement contribué à valoriser la portée christo-logique et théo-logique de μονογενης. Le choix de cette désignation témoigne en tous les cas d'un ‘monothéisme ouvert’ et en recherche d'expression adéquate.

Paulus wird mehrheitlich als weiterer Exponent einer frühchristlichen Tempel- oder Tempelkultkritik neben Jesus und dem Stephanuskreis betrachtet, obwohl er in seinen Briefen niemals eine direkte Kritik formuliert. In der Forschung verbindet sich mit dieser Annahme die These einer Opposition, weitergehend auch die einer Substitution des Herodianischen Tempels durch Christus oder durch die Gemeinde. Demgegenüber möchte dieser Beitrag aufzeigen, dass Paulus auch als Apostel, etwa in der Ablegung eines Nasiräats, Möglichkeiten der Tempelfrömmigkeit wahrnimmt und dass er angefangen von der Verwendung der Tempelmetapher in der Korintherkorrespondenz (1 Kor 3.16; 6.19; 2 Kor 6.16) bis hin zum Missionskonzept des Römerbriefs (Röm 15.16) eine positive Zuordnung auch der Heidenchristen zum Tempel sucht.

In the climactic trial scene of Matthew's Gospel, Pontius Pilate stands over Jesus and, having washed his hands, declares himself innocent of ‘this man's blood’. This shorter reading is found in most modern translations and critical editions and is supported by many of the best manuscripts. It has been the preferred reading ever since Wescott and Hort. Prior to then, however, a longer reading was preferred by the majority of scholars. It reads ‘I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man’. It too is found in many of the best manuscripts, but for the last century has been all but ignored by scholarship. This internal investigation will show why it is finally time to give the longer reading a second glance.

Acts 2.36 has caused problems for biblical interpreters both ancient and modern. This article examines the various readings and different hermeneutical strategies in the history of interpretation in order to situate the verse within its requisite interpretive context, Luke–Acts. Subsequently, an interpretation of Acts 2.36 is offered in which the verse is seen to express, rather than contradict, Lukan christology.

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.

This article seeks a fresh answer to the difficult question of the meaning of the phrase τα στοιχεια του κοσμου in Gal 4.3. The answer is sought by paying close attention to (1) the argumentative context of Paul's use of the phrase in the letter (he posits some sort of equivalence between the veneration of τα στοιχεια του κοσμου and the observance of the Law; he does so for contextually relevant theological and rhetorical reasons), and (2) the cultural-historical context of the addressees, the Gentile believers in Galatia (τα στοιχεια are ‘the gods’ they once venerated; this veneration involved calendrical observances).

Der vorliegende Artikel untersucht zwei Geschichten, die mit kritischer Tendenz die Überlieferung rezipieren, daß Elia Gegner seiner Prophetie durch Feuer vom Himmel getötet hat (2 Kön 2.10, 12). In beiden Geschichten kommt das Verhalten des Elia als Rollenvorbild nicht zum Tragen. Der Grund ist freilich nicht eine generelle ‘Humanisierung’ religiöser Vorstellungen: Bei Lukas ist die heftige Reaktion Jesu auf den Vorschlag der Zebedaiden, ein samaritanisches Dorf durch Feuer vom Himmel zu zerstören (Lk 9.54–55), gerade dadurch zu erklären, daß dieser Vorschlag aufgrund seiner biblischen Hintergründe plausibel erschien, vgl. Offb 11.3–13, wo ein christlicher Autor einen militanten Elia für die Endzeit erwartet. Die Reaktion Jesu hat satanologische Implikationen, die hier erstmalig herausgearbeitet werden (vgl. Mk 8.33). Sie war aus soteriologischen Gründen notwendig: Jesu Weg nach Jerusalem, an dessen Beginn Lk 9.51–56 steht, führte ins Leiden; damit ist prophetische Militanz in dieser Situation ausgeschlossen. Im Testament Abrahams ist der Ausgangspunkt der Erzählung von Abraham, der auf dem Thronwagen Gottes sitzend Sünder tötet, bis Gott ihm Einhalt gebietet (Test Abr 10), nicht so sehr eine Irritation über die inhumanen Folgen frommen Eifers als vielmehr die Frage, warum denn ein solches Vorgehen, das ‘Gerechtigkeit sofort’ bewirken würde, nicht von Gott selbst praktiziert wird.

This study of Romans 9–11 focuses on three prominent questions that Paul asks in relation to God's faithfulness to Israel: 1) Is God unjust in reference to his election?; 2) Why does God find fault, for who has resisted his will? and 3) Has God rejected his people? The article examines Paul's answers to these questions in light of an intertextual study related to the catchwords the apostle develops from the ancient Jewish sources that he echoes.

The passage Gal 3.10–12, well embedded into its context, is important with regard to the doctrine of justification; however, it is a crux interpretum. This essay tries to settle the problems by paying attention to the quotations from the scriptures in v. 10b (see Dtn 27.6), v. 11b (see Hab 2.4) and v. 12 (cf. Lev 18.5), in which the emphasis on individual regulations of the Torah is striking (vv. 10b, 12); the particles which twice (vv. 10b–11a; vv. 11b–12) form a ‘for …, but …’ are also taken into consideration. This leads to the thesis of two syllogisms linked to each other: vv. 10a–11a (Barbara) and vv. 11a–12 (Camestres). The quotations from the scriptures here supply three arguments, and v. 11a, the propositio of vv. 11a–12, is (as praemissa of v. 10a–11a) the fourth. The objective of the argumentation is v. 10a.

This article considers afresh the origin of the pericope of the adulteress, which is absent from some important manuscripts. Comparison of the witnesses to the text reveals that it has been preserved in two distinct forms, one (attested by Codex Bezae and the minuscules 2722 and 1071) that is Markan in style, and the other (attested by f13) that reproduces the style of Luke. The conclusion drawn is that the account was first composed by Mark (and placed after Mark 12.12) and subsequently adopted by Luke (after Luke 20.19). Because of the apparent moral leniency displayed by Jesus, the story would have been removed at an early date from both Gospels, and then later reinserted by some manuscripts but at different places.

The nearly three decades since the publication of E. P. Sanders's work on Paul and Judaism have witnessed a spate of new proposals for reading Gal 3.10, one of the most difficult and contested passages in Paul's letters. For some, the ‘traditional’ interpretation is still preferred, though the ‘exile/restoration’ reading has gained some momentum recently. The following article will critique both of these readings, proposing a new interpretation of this passage, one that regards Paul as citing Deut 27.26 in continuity with its meaning in its narrative setting and that finds an interpretive grid in the logic he unfolds in Gal 2.15–21.

Instructions given to the ‘older’ and ‘younger’ in some early Christian texts prompt inquiry into the rationale for this polarity and its ideological freight. Demographics suggest that the adult population rarely contained more than two generations, and comparative study indicates that where age was marked these categories usually sufficed. Their ambiguity and flexibility made them suited to ideological deployment, legitimating the power of the ‘older’. 1 Peter, 1 Clement, the Pastorals, and Polycarp demonstrate this phenomenon in early Christianity, with 1 Tim 4.12 and Ignatius Mag. 3.1 as exceptions that prove the rule. But why are age qualifications absent from the authentic Paulines?

This article argues that Paul's prophetic self-understanding is a fruitful starting point for understanding the elements of continuity and discontinuity between his Pharisaic past and the theology found in his letters. It is argued that Paul understood the majority of his fellow Jews, including himself as Pharisee, as apostates from the God of Israel. Paul's Damascus experience represents his coming to God. This perspective helps explain the problem passage in Gal 3.10–12. Paul reads Deut 27.26 and Lev 18.5 in light of the prophetic tradition, where these passages were seen as the warrant for God's judgment on Israel because of her apostasy.