Die Gleichnisse Jesu und der Rabbinen schöpfen unabhängig voneinander aus dem gleichen Repertoire jüdischer Bilder und Erzählmuster. Da die rabbinischen Gleichnisse der Schriftauslegung dienen, sind sie oft durch eine Straffheit der Gedankenführung und eine Konzentration auf die wesentlichen Züge der Handlung gekennzeichnet. Ihre neutestamentlichen Gegenstücke spiegeln die soziale Wirklichkeit lebendiger wider und weisen eine ausgeprägtere Erzählstruktur auf, um für die Gottesherrschaft zu werben. Dabei wird das Geschick der Sünder im Gegenüber zum Geschick der Gerechten thematisiert und die Integration von Randgruppen Israels in die Gottesherrschaft verteidigt. Diese unverwechselbaren Züge der Gleichnisse Jesu berechtigen nicht zur Abwertung der rabbinischen Gleichnisse.

It is often assumed, especially in North American scholarship, that the Q source used by Matthew and Luke reflects a special community different from those reflected in other writings of the NT. This community is located in Galilee, where the ‘Q gospel’ is supposed to have been composed. In this article it is argued that current theories regarding the composition and location of Q are untenable. It is also concluded that there was no significant difference in terms of beliefs and practices between Jesus-believing Jews in Galilee and in Jerusalem.

The conclusion to the parable of the tenants in Mark (12.1b–9) involves the vineyard owner killing the refractory tenants and re-letting his vineyard to others. In legal terms the man employs ‘self-help’ – the satisfaction of a real or pretended claim without the permission of the defendant or the intervention of a court. Most advocates of a metaphorical approach to the parable (Pesch, Snodgrass, Evans, Hultgren), and some who argue that Jesus spoke in realistic fiction, have argued or assumed that Mark 12.9 is an original part of the parable, believing it to be a ‘realistic’ element of Mark's story. But an examination of Greek, Roman, Graeco-Egyptian, and biblical legal rulings indicates that resorts to self-help were discouraged and even criminalized in this period. Mark 12.9 is not a realistic component of the parable, but is part of its secondary allegorization.

This study identifies several dimensions of the Greek Life of Adam and Eve that provide fresh points of entry to Paul's thought in Rom 1.18–25. Principal among these are the suppression of truth, the advent of divine anger, the onset of death, and, most notably, two related exchanges – God's glory for mortality and natural dominion for unnatural subservience to animals. While such features do not specifically characterize Gen 1–3, they belong to a shared conception of the drama of human sin that characterizes and unites both Rom 1 and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve.

Dem vieldiskutierten Problem des Verhältnisses von 1 Thess 2.15f. und Röm 11 wird hier unter dem Aspekt der Funktion des Topos vom verfolgten Propheten nachgegangen. Es zeigt sich, dass Paulus in den je verschiedenen konkreten Fragestellungen von 1 Thess 2.13–16 und Röm 11.1–10 das Motiv vom verfolgten Propheten einsetzt, um die Durchsetzungsfähigkeit des Evangeliums aufzuweisen. Die vermeintlichen Gegensätze zwischen 1 Thess 2.13–16 und Röm 11 sind dahingehend einander zuzuordnen, dass es Paulus sowohl im 1 Thess als auch im Röm primär um die Wirkmächtigkeit des Evangeliums geht, die die Behinderung der Rettung der Heiden überwindet (1 Thess) und Israel letztlich der Rettung zuführt (Röm 11).

J. Louis Martyn has identified perhaps the central question of Galatians: what time is it? This essay sheds fresh light on that question, however, by asking a corollary one: where are the Galatians? For Paul, it is argued, the Galatians are in the wilderness, somewhere between an Exodus-like redemption and the inheritance of the ‘kingdom of God’ (5.21). Paul utilises this narrative location as part of his rhetorical strategy to redress a developing crisis within his churches. The Galatians are on the verge of a wilderness apostasy, hence Paul colours his rebukes and warnings with language that evokes Israel's own tragic wilderness failings.

What can we know about the ‘School of Paul’ if we analyse the letter to the Colossians? This question is divided into three parts: how and why was the letter written, and what theological answers are given? Colossians depends mainly on the oral tradition of Paul. With Paul's words but in new contexts the authors try to overcome the depressed situation of the communities after Paul's death. Like Paul, the authors of Colossians refer to Wisdom traditions, but in a more conservative manner. Their dependence on and independence from Paul's speech and thinking reveal the ‘School of Paul’ as an ongoing context for discussion.

The editor of New Testament Studies is usually more than content to hide behind the impersonality of the role, protected by the corporate responsibility, if not identity, of the editorial board. For this, the 50th volume, however, an editorial postscript has been suggested, to balance the retrospective given by Professor C. K. Barrett at its start – although this is not designed to inspire more extensive searches for chiasms within the volume. It would take a braver, or more foolhardy, person than I, though, to label this a prospective, while it is, I must emphasise, written from a personal perspective and not as a signal of agreed editorial policy.