In an elegant discussion of the roles of women in the Pauline congregations, Wayne Meeks has drawn attention to Paul's apparently deliberate attempt to make parallel statements about the respective obligations of males and females in 1 Cor 7 and in 1 Cor 11. 2–16. In the same study, Meeks makes a second observation about 1 Cor 11. 2–16: ‘If the passage places most emphasis on the female, that must be because in Corinth it is the charismatic women who are donning the attire of the opposite sex’. There is indeed a fairly wide consensus that the problem underlying the instructions about head attire in 1 Cor 11 is with women. Is there a connection between the antics of the women of 1 Cor 11 and Paul's exhortations in 1 Cor 7? Are we to conclude that 1 Cor 7 also responds to a situation instigated by females? Or, does the fact that the parallelism in 1 Cor 7 is even more extensive than in 1 Cor 11 imply that, in his discussion of marriage and celibacy, Paul was equally concerned with the practices of men and women?

A satisfactory solution to the twin problems of the internal literary structure of the proclamations to the seven churches in Rev 2–3, and the external literary form to which they have the closest generic relationship continues to challenge New Testament scholarship. It is of course theoretically possible to limit a literary analysis to the texts in Rev 2–3 based on intrinsic criteria alone. In practice, however, most analyses have been dialectical attempts to understand the intrinsic literary features of the seven proclamations in the light of the clues provided by one or another comparable literary form. This kind of contextual investigation is unavoidable for Rev 2–3 in view of the many repetitive and formulaic words and phrases which, in addition to denotative or designative meanings, have a variety of connotative or associative meanings requiring exploration and assessment. Some recent candidates include the revelatory letter, prophetic speech forms, the covenant formulary or one of the types of Greek oratory.

Der Abschnitt Joh 3. 22–36 gehört wirkungsgeschichtlich nicht zu den Schwerpunkten des Evangeliums. Die vorausgehende Perikope, Jesu Gespräch mit Nikodemus, hat weitaus mehr Aufmerksamkeit auf sich gezogen. Für die neuere Auslegung jedoch hielt der Text zwei attraktive Probleme bereit: Die Frage nach der Historizität der Nachricht von Jesu Tauftätigkeit neben Johannes dem Täufer und die rätselhafte Stellung der V. 31–36 als Schluß einer Täuferrede. Beide Probleme werden uns auch bei unserer Auslegung beschäftigen, sollen uns aber nicht völlig in ihren Bann schlagen. Angestrebt ist eine Auslegungsskizze, die die theologische Aussage der Perikope als ganze ins Auge faßt. Doch geben uns die genannten Fragestellungen die Gelegenheit, uns exemplarisch mit zwei wichtigen methodischen Grundfragen johanneischer Exegese zu beschäftigen: 1. die Bedeutung des historiographischen und topographischen ‘Sonderguts’ des Johannesevangeliums, wobei uns weniger seine historische Zuverlässigkeit, als vielmehr seine theologische Bedeutung für die Botschaft des Evangeliums interessieren wird; 2. die Verarbeitung literarisch disparater Traditionsstücke zu einem Ganzen in den johanneischen ‘Reden’.

When scholars discuss the compositional processes of the Gospel of Mark, one of the important questions is the extent to which the evangelist drew on earlier sources. Mark seems to have collected and reordered a great amount of disparate material and given it his own stamp in order to produce something new. But the details of this process of collection, redaction, and composition are not at all clear. To what extent were those traditions already gathered or collected before Mark? Were the pre-Marcan materials transmitted in oral or written form? What degree of freedom did the gospel writer employ in taking over, adapting, or rewriting earlier sources?

Our redemption by the death of Christ on the cross is summed up in the credal statement of 1 Corinthians 15.3, ‘that Christ died for our sins (ύπέρ τν άμαρτιν ήμν)’, or very simply ‘for us (ύπέρ ήμ⋯ν)' (Rom 5.8). The meaning of this ύπέρ could be either vicarious: he died in our place; or atoning: he died on our behalf. But, whereas the ‘for our sins’ formula can be understood only in the atoning sense, the ‘for us’ one can be taken in both the vicarious and the atoning sense. Moreover, the ‘for us’ formula is logically — though not necessarily chronologically — prior to the ‘for our sins’ one. The latter might well have had its origin on Palestinian soil under the influence of Isaiah 53. 4–5,10.

In a recent article on ‘1 Cor 7:32–35 and Stoic Debates about Marriage, Anxiety, and Distraction’, David L. Balch offers a contribution to the debate whether Stoic ideas, are reflected in Paul's discussion. Balch concludes, in part, that the Roman Stoic Musonius Rufus and the Apostle Paul agree that ‘marriage is helpful for some, not advantageous for others’.

The speeches in Acts continue to arouse a variety of opinions; however, there is almost universal agreement that the style of the speeches belongs to Luke rather than to the persons to whom the speeches are attributed. This seems like a reasonable enough position given the convention among ancient historians to provide a précis of speeches rather than a verbatim transcription. However, Dibelius in his seminal essay on the speeches took Lukan style to be an indication of his unreliability: ‘Admittedly the speeches do, on the whole, reflect his (Luke's) style as regards vocabulary and phraseology; and it is this very fact which must constantly lead us to doubt their authenticity.’

The Forty-fourth General Meeting of the Society was held at Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, during 24–28 July under the Presidency of Professor F. Neirynck. About 270 members, spouses and guests were present.