The tradition that identifies Matthew's magi as ‘wise men’ is considered in light of narrative criticism, social history, and Wirkungsgeschichte. An examination of literature relevant to the narrative's setting reveals that Matthew's readers are expected to regard magian learning not as wisdom but as foolishness. Matthew's narrative is prejudiced against scholarship, such that the magi's status as fools is what qualifies them as candidates for divine revelation. The tradition that regards the magi as wise men can be traced to the Renaissance and attributed to an ideological bias that favours a blessing of scholarship.

The polemic against ‘the Jews’ in the Fourth Gospel is often realized and criticized. But John also points out that Jesus himself is a Jew. This is the way John draws the line of his incarnation theology into the ‘history’ of Jesus, narrated in the gospel. As ‘prophet’ (4.19) Jesus the ‘Jew’ (4.9) is ‘the Saviour of the world’ (4.42); as man, coming from Nazareth in Galilee (1.46; 4.43f; 7.41), Jesus is the Messiah, born in Bethlehem (7.42): well known as ‘son of Joseph’ (1.45; 6.42), unknown as ‘Son of God’ (cf. John 1.19). On the cross Jesus the ‘King of the Jews’ (19.19) dies ‘for the people’ and ‘for the scattered children of God’ (11.50ff). It is an essential aspect of John's Christology that Jesus belongs to his Jewish people. This theological fact, founded in the identity of the one God, shows the so-called anti-Judaism of John in a new light.

In the ‘quest for the historical Jesus’ it has become axiomatic that the Fourth Gospel, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. certain elements in the passion narrative), has little to offer attempts to trace the person and activity of the pre-Easter Jesus. A study of the Johannine presentation of the beginnings of Jesus' ministry, his relationship with the Baptist, the calling of disciples and his presence in the Jerusalem Temple, suggests otherwise. Given the Markan imposition of a ‘framework’ upon the Synoptic tradition, the Johannine tradition may more accurately recall those early events.

The infrequent use of the Jesus-tradition in Acts is seldom noted, but it has implications for the use of the Jesus-tradition in early Christianity. It is widely assumed that the Jesus-tradition served to justify and to legitimate changing Christian belief and practice. However, the church in Acts does not normally seek justification for its practices or beliefs from the teaching or example of Jesus. The assumptions of gospel criticism about the function of the Jesus-tradition need to be tested against the observable phenomena of the one writer whose interest spanned the life of Jesus and the life of the church.

In seinem Artikel versucht der Autor zu zeigen, daß die Theologie des Lukas eine Rom-kritische Pointe hat. Während die Heidenmission auf der ersten Missionsreise des Paulus theologisch legitimiert wird und die Unabhängigkeit dieser Heidenmission von der Synagoge auf der zweiten Missionsreise, wird mit dem Bericht von der Romreise des Paulus die politische Relevanz dieser Universalisierung der Christusverkündigung deutlich: Im gesamten Prozeßgeschehen vor römischen Behörden und schließlich in Rom selbst bezeugt Paulus, daß der Christus auch Kyrios ist. Die Verkündigung der Basileia Gottes betrifft das Imperium Romanum und relativiert dessen Herrschaftsanspruch. Das zu verkündigen muß (δει) Paulus nach Rom.

The current work argues for the compositional unity of 2 Corinthians. First, it addresses the chronological and argumentative relationship of chapters 10–13 to chapters 1–9. It next rejects the presence of so-called ‘interpolations’ and ‘sources’ in chapters 1–9. Finally, it considers the integrity of chapters 8 and 9. The uniqueness of this effort lies in its emphasis upon rhetorical reasons and warrants against the widely accepted partition hypothesis of Pauline historical- and source-critical scholarship. It does so by demonstrating the complex integrity of the argumentative development and trajectories in 2 Corinthians. It concludes with a new, suggestive approach to the correspondence as a complex, but nevertheless coherent, act of persuasion.

Hinter dem scheinbar widersprüchlichen Gebrauch des Terminus τυποσ kann ein einheitliches Grundverständnis nachgewiesen werden. Kein Mensch (oder Gegenstand) ist an sich Typos, sondern er wird situationsbezogen dann als Typos bezeichnet, wenn durch ihn oder in ihm etwas unmittelbar sichtbar wird. Weil τυποσ die Relation zwischen Typisierendem und Typisiertem benennt, bedarf es keines Gegenbegriffes. Das erklärt, warum αντιτυποσ nicht als Pendant zu τυποσ verwendet wird. Ein besonderes ‘hermeneutisches Verständnis’ des Begriffes begegnet nicht.

Aus der nicht wertenden Auffassung von τυποσ ergibt sich die Notwendigkeit einer Revision des traditionellen Verständnisses der Typologie als hermeneutischer Figur.

The Gospel of Thomas provides an important component in many recent portraits of Jesus as a non-eschatological sage. Various material is cited from Thomas, yet careful analysis of individual sayings and redactional layers is rare. This is particularly true of sayings without Synoptic attestation. Is it possible that Thomas contains authentic sayings not found in the NT? What methodological steps would be necessary to isolate such material? How would such sayings affect portraits of the historical Jesus? These issues are explored though analysis of Saying 82 of the Gospel of Thomas.

Rhoda, the slave maid (παιδισκη) in Acts 12.13–16, has been seen as a classic example of a touch of realism that lends authenticity to Luke's narrative: the vivid and precise detail of her flighty joy presents such a candid snapshot of her individuality and eccentric Christian faith that it could only come from a historical source, perhaps the eyewitness reminiscence of Rhoda herself. While less willing than earlier commentators to accept the description in its final form as factual, more recent scholars still perpetuate the goal of discerning the historical core behind the account and continue to read it as a piece of realistic drama. Many, to be sure, have detected in the scene the presence of other elements, such as comedy and extraordinary suspense, but this idea is downplayed or subordinated as further evidence of realism; a few discount the idea as a modern reading. Nonetheless, a consensus emerges: Rhoda's dramatic function in the narrative is to heighten realism. Some scholars then discover a further theological theme of liberation: Rhoda's genuine, assertive behaviour to speak her mind ‘breaks down’ the oppressive hierarchy between master and slave – revealing Luke's so-called subversion of slavery as a social institution – and the subsequent vindication of Rhoda's speech as trustworthy authenticates and uplifts the Christian witness of women (cf. Gal 3.28).