Claiming that Mark is a Paulinist does not require that he agree with Paul about everything, and plausible reasons can be advanced for a later Paulinist wanting to write the story of the earthly Jesus. Martin Werner's assertion that the agreements between Mark and Paul reflect general early Christian viewpoints is not valid with regard to the theology of the cross, which was a controversial Pauline emphasis and a stress that the later Gospels attenuated in editing Mark. Contrary to Werner, Mark and Paul agree in ascribing Jesus' death to a combination of human and demonic opponents.

Little attention is given to the stare and the loud voice of Paul in the healing of the cripple in Acts 14.8–10. This article examines these two actions and suggests that far from being incidental in the narrative they help to explain how the Lystrans recognized that ‘the gods have come down’ in Paul and Barnabas. In both Graeco-Roman texts and in Jewish literature, the stare and the loud voice are indicators of the action or presence of the gods. In addition, the command ‘arise’ is commonly given by divine beings in Jewish texts.

Après avoir souligné l’impartialité divine (Rm 2.11), Paul fait appel à ce qui semble être une maxime juive (v. 12) et qui traduit sûrement une position judaïsante: les païens subiront une destruction, contrairement aux Juifs qui passeront en jugement avant d’hériter le monde à venir. Mais en soulignant l’importance de la pratique (v. 13), l’apôtre réussit à réexaminer le cas de païens qui observent des préceptes de la loi (vv. 14–15). Comme pour les Juifs, le résultat de leur style de vie sera manifesté lors du jugement (v. 15). L’apôtre conclut en soulignant l’orthodoxie de sa position (v. 16).

The polarity between ‘hierarchical’ and ‘egalitarian’ perspectives on the relationship of male and female is not the best way to approach this passage (1 Cor 11.2–16), which interprets this relationship as one of interdependence. This interdependence is expressed in the shared practices of prophecy and prayer, in which the dialogue between God and the congregation is articulated. In Paul's proposed modification to these practices, female head-covering – probably a veil – serves as a symbol of women's freedom from an erotic basis for the relationship of male and female derived from creation.

Paul's phrase ‘the law of Christ’, used without explanation in Gal 6.2, means neither some form of words (such as Lev 19.18), nor a norm constituted by the example of Christ himself. It is rather a metaphor for what, in the life of those who belong to Christ, occupies the place that law had in the life of those who came before Christ: it means the Spirit, as described in Gal 5.16–25. Incidentally, the phrase serves to relativize ‘law’, implying that the Jewish law is just one form of law and not the highest.

The debate over the proper reading of 1 Thess 2.7 is much less ambiguous than it is typically portrayed to be. The external evidence is decisively in favour of νηπιοι (infants), a fact that even those opposed to this reading readily admit. An evaluation of the internal evidence and the four arguments commonly used to justify the choice of ηπιοι (‘gentle’) reveals that none of them provides the needed grounds for overriding the clear testimony of the external evidence. Furthermore, the superior reading ‘infants’ involves a striking metaphor that functions effectively in the overall argument of 1 Thess 2.5–7b. There are compelling reasons, therefore, for allowing Paul to make the claim of innocence that he made to the Thessalonians long ago: ‘But we became infants among you.’

Paulus benutzt das in der Antike bekannte Bild vom Wettkampf positiv. Es begegnet oft nur stichwortartig und unterschwellig, gelegentlich aber auch engagiert und mit detailgetreuen Skizzen agonistischer Praktiken und Gepflogenheiten. Dies deutet darauf hin, daß er das Bild nicht nur durch die Reden wandernder Popularphilosophen oder durch die hellenistische Synagoge kennengelernt hat. Er ist mit ihm persönlich vertraut. Überlegungen zur Kindheit und Jugend, zur Reisetätigkeit und zu Kontakten des Paulus mit der Agonistik in hellenistischen Großstädten stützen diese Annahme. Die enge Vertrautheit mit dem Agon schlägt sich in der theologischen Verarbeitung des Motives nieder. Der Wettkampf wird zum kongenialen Ausdruck des paulinischen Apostelamtes und seiner Verkündigung.

The exegetical and textual problems in the opening verses of Mark's Gospel are well known. The punctuation of 1.1–4 has exercised editors of critical editions as it has translators. Does one, for example, put a full stop at the end of v. 1 or not? How does the quotation of vv. 2–3 relate to its context? There are also two main text-critical problems: (1) there is a choice between a longer and a shorter reading in v. 1, and (2) the MSS are divided between εν τω ‘Ησαια and εν τοις προϕηταις in v. 2.

In seiner Untersuchung ‘Heiden – Griechen – Gotteskinder’ schreibt J. Frey folgenden bemerkenswerten Satz über die Ironie der VV. Joh 11.49–50:

Diese Hintergründigkeit gehört wesentlich zur johanneischen Darstellung, in der ihr neben einer polemischen Bedeutung vor allem eine ‘didaktische’ Funktion zukommt für die Leser und die Art, in der diese die erzählte Geschichte wahrnehmen.

Acts states in 13.13–14a that Paul sailed on his outward journey from Paphos in Cyprus to Pergê in Pamphylia (Περγη), proceeding then to Pisidian Antioch – literally, Antioch-towards-Pisidia. (Pamphylia is the westernmost of two alluvial coastal shelves on the south coast of present-day Turkey; a relatively self-contained geographical area.) Acts states that John-Mark left for Jerusalem from this point after a disagreement, and also does not mention the coastal port of Attaleia (‘Ατταλεια), present-day Antalya. On the return journey, however, noted in 14.24–26a, the remaining missionaries are said to preach in Pergê and then proceed to Attaleia, from which point they sail on to Syrian Antioch, presumably actually disembarking at Seleucia. Now this all looks a little odd at first glance, especially since Pergê is some distance inland for any arrival on the first leg of this journey, and most interpreters have reacted accordingly. I want to suggest here, however, that the author's comments about these two traverses through Pamphylia, although brief and initially a little puzzling, are deliberately asymmetrical, and it is this that betrays their almost certain accuracy in historical terms.