Im Mittelpunkt des Aufsatzes stehen drei Fragekomplexe: (1) Wie ist die Formulierung Χριστος υπερ + X/Y απεθανεν überhaupt zu verstehen? Welche Vorstellung ist mit der Wendung verbunden? Bezeichnet sie etwa ein sühnendes, vielleicht ein stellvertretendes Sterben? Der erste Teil des Aufsatzes zeigt diese Probleme anhand der verschiedenen Vorschläge, die in der bisherigen Diskussion Bedeutung gewonnen haben, auf. (2) Woher stammt die Vorstellung, dass Christus ‘für uns’, ‘für unsere Sünden’ bzw. ‘als wir noch Sünder waren’ gestorben ist? Paulus nimmt nach 1 Kor 15.3 eine gemein-christliche Tradition auf. Aber woher stammt diese Tradition? Ist sie, wie sie von sich behauptet, κατα τας γραϕας? Oder liegt der Ursprung dieser urchristlichen Formulierung vielmehr in der griechischen Tradition? (3.1) Worin liegen die Hauptdifferenzen zwischen der Verwendung des Gedankens des ‘Sterbens für’ in 4 Makk und bei Paulus? (3.2) Wie verhalten sich die zweifellos traditionelle Formulierung Χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων ημων und die personale Formulierungsweise des Paulus zueinander? (3.3) Wie denkt sich Paulus die Beziehung zwischen dem Tod Christi ‘für’ und dem Leben mit ihm, der Rechtfertigung des Sünders oder der Versöhnung des feindlichen Menschen?

This article challenges the conventional translation and interpretation of the perplexing aphorism in Matt 11.19/Luke 7.35. Linguistic evidence in particular indicates that the phrase should not be interpreted as defiant (‘but Wisdom is justified by her deeds/children’). The initial και should be read as a simple connective rather than an adversative. The εδικαιωθη … απο refers to the separation or dissociation of Wisdom from the ministries of John and Jesus according to this generation. Jesus' statement is a bitter complaint, then, of the lack of response by his contemporaries to the message of the kingdom. Matthew's version should be rendered: ‘And Wisdom has been absolved of her deeds.’ Luke 7.35, similarly, can be translated: ‘And Wisdom has been dissociated from her children.’

και εδικαιωθη η σοϕια απο των εργων αυτης. (Matt 11.19b)

και εδικαιωθη η σοϕια απο παντων των τεκνων αυτης. (Luke 7.35)

Bei einem Streifzug durch biographisch orientierte Texte aus alttestamentlich-jüdischer Tradition sowie aus der griechischen und lateinischen Literatur der Antike zeigt sich wiederholt, dass die Altersangabe ‘30 Jahre’ mehr als eine bloße numerische Angabe darstellt. Die Zahl ‘30’ kann vielmehr dazu dienen, eine besondere Altersschwelle zu markieren. Das scheint auch im Lukasevangelium (3.23) der Fall zu sein. Die Altersangabe Jesu ist im lukanischen Erzähltext vor allem hinsichtlich ihrer Positionierung aufschlussreich. Der Erzähler setzt dabei nicht nur biographische und literarische Akzente. Auch in heilsgeschichtlicher und christologischer Perspektive erweist sich Lk 3.23 als besonders interessanter Erzählerkommentar.

Reading John 11.1–12.8, focusing upon the roles of Martha, Mary and ‘the Jews’, suggests that widely held positions concerning Martha's expression of faith in 11.27, the function of ‘the Jews’ across the narrative as a whole, and Mary's relationship to Jesus, especially in the light of 11.2, 31–3, 45; 12.1–8, should be questioned. The death and the raising of Lazarus manifest the glory of God and are the means by which the Son will be glorified (11.4, 40). Consequently, the passage summons Johannine readers to transcend understandable sorrow and pain generated by the menacing realm of human mortality (11.19, 21–2, 31, 33, 39) by means of belief in Jesus, the resurrection and the life (11.25–6).

This article seeks to establish that Rev 5.6, despite its imprecise language, situates Christ on the divine throne and not merely next to it or alongside it. That Christ shares the divine throne is clearly asserted elsewhere in the book of Revelation (3.21; 7.17; 22.1, 3). Since this is the case, and as the other ways in which John's language at 5.6 can be understood introduces a number of difficulties, it is probable that John also intended 5.6 to be another affirmation of Christ's enthronement on the one divine throne. This conclusion is confirmed when it is noticed that John envisioned the living creatures which surround the throne to be living, constituent parts of the divine throne itself. Christ is thus in the midst of the throne and in the midst of the living creatures because they, as components of the throne, are both a part of it and surround it. This has been argued by at least one earlier interpreter. It has not, however, been noted just how widespread or how early is the evidence for the living creatures or cherubim as both living and constituent parts of the heavenly divine throne. Archaeological evidence, as well as passages from 1 Enoch, the Song of the Three Young Men, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, Josephus, 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham and On the Origin of the World are examined and shown to support such a conception of the divine throne and of the cherubim.

Most critical scholars have adopted some form of recapitulation theory to explain the chronological relationship between the seven seals, trumpets and bowls, but John was more interested in the chronological progression within the last days than is usually acknowledged. The seventh (or sixth) seal does not describe the ‘end’, but ushers in the Day of the Lord, which culminates in the seven bowls. While John does use the technique of recapitulation, he does not do so in the key texts usually adduced in support of the theory.

Generally speaking, J. Louis Martyn is rather dubious regarding recent attempts to interpret Paul's Galatian letter in terms of ancient rhetorical canons. He does, however, express considerable interest in the rhetorical strategies employed in Galatians. Of particular concern in the present study is Martyn's understanding of Paul's rhetorical use of ‘we’ (ημεις) in Gal 2.15–17.

Rom 1.16f. is often seen as the propositio of Romans. More specifically, if 1.17 summarizes the developments of chapters 1–8, v. 16b introduces chapters 9–11 and v. 16a points to the life programme of 12.1–15.13. However, Paul's explanation of his Roman visit in 15.14–33 ought not to be overlooked. Forming an inclusio with 1.8–15, it sets forth the main purpose of the letter. Therefore 1.8–15 is also to be considered as the propositio of the letter, to which vv. 16f. are subordinated in the same way as the theological consideration of Rom 1–11 are subordinated to Paul's mission perspectives.

In the framework of his grand argument on the law in Rom 6 and 7, Paul in Rom 7.1-4 uses a comparison that specifically appeals to ‘those who know the law’.