The Apocalypse of John mirrors in a very distinctive way the social and cultural amalgam which constituted late first century Christianity. Though a Christian document it is heavily indebted to Jewish religious and apocalyptic traditions. It also exhibits both the influences of and the reactions to Hellenism. The purpose of this paper is to examine selected Hellenistic magical traditions which have been taken up consciously by John and fashioned into an anti-magic apologetic.

During the last thirty years significant advances have been made in the study of early Christian miracle stories. The story of the woman who touched Jesus' garment has been especially well analyzed by Heinz Joachim Held and Gerd Theissen, and recently Manfred Hutter has brought additional information to bear on the Matthean version. It is my goal to look at each version of the story from the perspective of ‘comparative social-rhetorical’ analysis and interpretation. The rhetorical observations are informed especially by Kenneth Burke's chapter entitled ‘Lexicon Rhetoricae’ in Counterstatement and by Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative. The comparative and social observations are stimulated by various interpreters' use of Hellenistic-Roman data as well as Jewish data for analysis of New Testament literature.

Das Hirtenkapitel Joh 10 ist unbestritten ein anziehender, aber zugleich auch mit fast allen Problemen der Johannesexegese belasteter Abschnitt. So ist nicht nur der Beginn, die Form, die Binnenstruktur, teilweise der Wortlaut und vor allem die Stellung im Makrotext, sondern auch die Aussageabsicht des Kapitels umstritten.

In recent years the importance of the title ‘Son of God’ for Matthew's Gospel has received well-deserved recognition. There need be no hesitation in acknowledging the programmatic role which it plays in the christological development of the First Gospel. Thus, in considering this appellation, we are not lightly extracting a vacuous designation appropriated by the Evangelist from his tradition, but are dealing rather with a confessional title of continuing vitality for the Matthean church. All the more surprising is it, then, that the actual content of this expression has of late received comparatively little attention from many of those concerned to establish its importance. Moreover, among those who have dealt in more detail with the meaning of the title in Matthew's Gospel, little by way of a satisfactory consensus has been achieved.

Paul's thought forms a unity of a very peculiar kind. It certainly has a single focus: Christ, but this fact is not in itself sufficient to bring the many disparate elements in his thought together to form the unity that it manifestly has. Nor is that unity that of a system. The search for a Pauline ‘system’ of beliefs (δόγματα) with clearly defined relations between them is in vain – and even more so is the attempt to find a single formula supposed to express the whole of his thought. The immense diversity of his thinking should never be forgotten.

There is an abundance of evidence to support the thesis that the teachings of Jesus, what the early church called ‘The Holy Word’, functioned as the basis of Christian doctrine and practice from the beginning of the Christian era at least as far as Eusebius. The key to it all seems to have been the sanctity with which these teachings were regarded, treasured and used within the early church. They believed he was the Son of God, and they treated his words accordingly. As the author of 2 Peter summarized it: ‘Remember … the commandments of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles' (3. 2). Clement of Rome echoed the same message: ‘Let us walk in obedience to his hallowed words’ (Epistle 13. 3); and Papias characterized himself as one who ‘took delight in those who recall the commandments given to the faith by the lord’ (HE III, 39. 2–4). The church was the church of the Holy Word; and the NT is the written record of that word as it found expression in the life and thought of the church. So the history of the word, the history of the church and the history of the NT are one and the same history.

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.

The question of interpolations in the Pauline letters continues to provoke debate. Recent years have seen numerous attempts to identify particular passages as non-Pauline and occasional arguments for extensive interpolating throughout the letters. Nevertheless, as Victor Paul Furnish has pointed out, ‘no general scholarly agreement’ has emerged ‘on the probability, or even the plausibility, of any of these hypotheses about … interpolations’. A major problem is the fact that most of the discussion has focused directly upon individual passages, with little or no systematic attention to such preliminary matters as the burden of proof in the identification of interpolations or specific techniques or criteria that might aid in identifying interpolations. Although the burden-of-proof question and the question of criteria are clearly related, and both are crucial, it is possible to separate them for purposes of discussion, and it can even be argued that the former question is, at least logically, prior to the latter. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to raise only the burden-of-proof question; that of criteria must be reserved for treatment in a different context.

Almost all students of Luke-Acts have called attention to the special place of scripture in these documents. The fundamental Lukan strategy seems to be presented in the closing chapter of the gospel. In his post-resurrection appearance to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, Jesus assumes the role of the authoritative interpreter of scripture and shows that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer. He interprets all the scriptures ‘beginning with Moses and all the prophets’ (Luke 24. 27; cf. 24. 35, 45). This chapter suggests to the reader that, although the scriptures are authoritative, they must be rightly, i.e. Christologically, interpreted. This widely acknowledged principle has certain implications that require investigation.