Since Joachim Jeremias' Jesu Verheissung für die Völker (1956) it has often been assumed that in Matt 8.11–12 Jesus looked forward to the inclusion of gentiles into the kingdom at the eschaton. However, several recent studies, most notably by Dale C. Allison, have called this view into question and have instead advocated that the logion refers to the regathering of the Diaspora. The purpose of this study is to evaluate Allison's arguments and to propose that a gentile reference is implicit in the logion based on: (1) the broader context of the inter-textual echoes of passages concerning the regathering of Jewish exiles; and (2) a wider ethnic membership for those who participate in the patriarchal banquet based on the reference to ‘Abraham’. Furthermore, the logion is interpreted in the historical Jesus' ministry through the lens of a partially realized eschatology. As such the saying represents Jesus' contention that Israel's restoration was already becoming a reality and that gentiles were already entering the kingdom as an embryonic foretaste of their inclusion at the eschaton.

Eine Reihe von μαρτυρεω-bzw. μαρτυρια-Belegen im vierten Evangelium rufen förmlich synoptische Zeugnisse auf. Das ist nicht verwunderlich, wenn man zur Kenntnis nimmt, dass es auch sonst johanneische Befunde der unzweideutigen Kenntnis, Verwendung und Umgestaltung synoptischer Vorlagen gibt. Dabei ist sorgfältig auf subtile unterschiedliche Tempusverwendung im Johannesevangelium, zumal den Gebrauch des Perfekts zum Ausdruck schriftlicher Textreferenz zu achten. Zu der fundamentalen Täufermartyria, die die Evangelienerzählung eröffnet, bildet Joh 19.35, der ursprünglich μαρτυρεω-Beleg, eine Inklusion, indem unter dem Kreuz anstelle des Bekenntnisses des römischen Centurio (Mk 15,39) ausdrücklich an die Verkündigung des ersten Christus-Zeugen (Jon 1.29–34) erinnert wird.

For the last 150 years the Gospel of Marcion has been considered to be an abbreviated edition of the canonical Luke. This article renews the reverse hypothesis of Marcion's priority to Luke, Luke therefore being a revised and enlarged edition of Marcion. The arguments include a critique of the traditional view, based primarily on its failure to verify Marcion's alleged editorial concept on the basis of his text, and to solve the problem what Marcion would have done with Acts. On the other hand, the beginning of Luke (esp. 1.1–4; 4.16–30) suggests that the differences between both editions are best understood as Lukan additions to Marcion rather than Marcionite abbreviations of Luke. This Lukan, anti-Marcionite revision is very close to the Four-Gospel-collection and first created the unity of Luke–Acts.

Certain ancient philosophers (Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, Julian, and Macarius Magnes' critic) responded antagonistically to the New Testament. Their responses to several New Testament themes that appear in Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians and one specific text (1 Thess 4.15–17) show how difficult it was to persuade some individuals to give up paganism. Their criticisms of the New Testament probably indicate how the antagonists would have read 1 Thessalonians. The essay is a contribution to the history of the reception of the New Testament.

Unter der Leitfrage ‘Was überzeugt und gewinnt die Hörer?’ werden die (1) Authentizität des Redners sowie die Techniken der (2) Visualisierung, der (3) Einwirkung auf die Affekte und des Raumlassens für (4) Kreativität des Hörers behandelt. Mit paulinischem Material lassen sich Quintilians Erkenntnisse zu diesen vier Themen exemplifizieren. Sodann kommen der Prozess der (5) Kreativität des Autors/Redners sowie das (6) Gedächtnis in den Blick.

While Pontius Pilate is often seen as agnostic, in modern terms, the material evidence of his coinage and the Pilate inscription from Caesarea indicate a prefect determined to promote a form of Roman religion in Judaea. Unlike his predecessors, in the coinage Pilate used peculiarly Roman iconographic elements appropriate to the imperial cult. In the inscription Pilate was evidently responsible for dedicating a Tiberieum to the Dis Augustis. This material evidence may be placed alongside the report in Philo Legatio ad Gaium (299–305) where Pilate sets up shields – likewise associated with the Roman imperial cult –honouring Tiberius in Jerusalem.

Two Middle Egyptian Coptic texts of Matthew, published by the late Professor Hans-Martin Schenke, namely the Scheide Codex and the Schøjen Codex, are of great interest, not only for Coptisants but also for New Testament textual critics. These manuscripts probably belong, respectively, to the fifth and fourth century. So they may tell us something about form and character of the Greek text in the fourth or perhaps even third century in Egypt, at least if we assume that these manuscripts were copies of older Coptic texts. Moreover, the two texts are also important for our knowledge of the language technique and competence of early Coptic translators. This knowledge may be significant for the question of which form of the Greek text might ‘shine through’ in Coptic texts. In a review of Schenke's magnificent edition of the Schøjen text I have dared to criticize his attempt to give a reconstruction of the Greek text that underlies this Coptic text. The history of such ‘retranslations’ teaches us that they are sometimes utter failures, which might easily mislead those who use them without any knowledge of the languages of these versions.