The paper discusses one of the key concepts of Paul's anthropology, the concept of the ‘inner human being’ (όέσω άνθρωποσ). According to recent contributions by U. Duchrow, T. K. Heckel, C. Markschies and W. Burkert, Paul's concept originated in Plato. The questions still open are: How did the concept get into the hands of Paul? How does Paul interpret the concept in accordance with his own theological anthropology? Answering these two questions is the goal of the paper.

Le quatrième livre des Maccabées établit un parallèle tout particulier entre le martyre des sept frères, l’offrande d’Isaac sur le mont Moriah et l’épisode des trois Hébreux dans la fournaise. Ces événements ont été valorisés à date ancienne dans une perspective sacrificielle. Les textes montrent qu’on attribuait au don que les héros avaient fait de leur vie non seulement une valeur expiatoire mais aussi, simultanément, une vertu communielle, leur sacrifice leur donnant accès à la vie en ou à Dieu. Un éclairage peut ainsi être projeté sur les représentations néotestamentaires relatives à la mort-exaltation du Christ (He; Jn; Rm 6.10–11).

Der ursprüngliche Erzähler von Mt 12.43–45/Lk 11.24–26 stellt sich das vertriebene άκάθαρτον πνεύμα im Bilde eines von Hydrophobie befallenen tollwütigen Hundes vor. Daraus erklärt sich das auffällige Benehmen des unreinen Geistes, der in άνυδροι τόποι Ruhe sucht, aber keine findet. Die Verbindung der Tollwut mit Dämonologie findet sich zwar im hellenistischen Bereich selten, ist aber im frühjüdisch-christlichen Bereich recht häufig. Sie ist, obwohl die Belege weitgehend späteren Datums sind, auch für die Entstehungszeit des Textes annehmbar, weil es sich hierbei um Alltagswissen handelt, das sich anders als andere soziale Institutionen nur ganz langsam verändert.

Van Unnik interpreted the biographical term άνατροϕή in Acts 22.3 as confirmation of the view that Paul spent the major part of his youth in Jerusalem. A linguistic, rhetorical and narratological enquiry shows that this interpretation cannot be sustained. Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters make it more probable that Paul went to Jerusalem in his adolescent years. The Tarsus–Jerusalem dichotomy should be superseded by the recognition that Paul was the meeting and integrating point of a variety of influences.

How far should one take account of the wider context of OT citations used by NT writers in interpreting a NT text? This question is addressed in this article in relation to the first readers of NT texts, and focuses in particular on two texts from 1 Corinthians. General considerations make it rather unlikely that any very broad context would have been ‘heard’ by most readers/hearers in the first century. Detailed study of 1 Cor 5.13 (with its possible allusion to exclusion formulae from Deuteronomy) suggests that no reader is likely to have picked up such an allusion. There is a stronger case for a slightly wider context having been in mind in the case of 1 Cor 1.31; but this may have been because the Corinthians themselves had the text in mind already, and this may in part explain Paul's words in 1 Cor 4.6.

Weil der Galaterbrief unter den paulinischen Briefen der am heftigsten umstrittene Brief ist, muß man mit den lösbaren Problemen der sogenannten Einleitung zum Galaterbrief anfangen. Es gilt, die narrative Substanz des Briefes aufgrund der erzählerischen und referentiellen Sequenz, die nie erschöpfend analysiert worden ist, zu rekonstruieren. Speziell gilt es, die relative Reihenfolge von Gründung der galatischen Gemeinden und Jerusalemer Konferenz festzulegen: Paulus’ Bericht über die Konferenz und die nachfolgende Episode in Antiochien ist erstmals im Brief formuliert worden, weil die Konferenz erst nach der Gründung stattgefunden hat – wäre es umgekehrt, oder hätten die Galater schon von Rechtfertigung durch Glauben gehört, dann wäre die galatische Situation, wie wir sie aus dem Brief kennen, gar nicht entstanden.

The study participates in the ongoing discussion of the relationship between hermeneutics and exegesis. A review of the main aspects of the discussion, the meanings of both terms, and key influences in modern biblical criticism reveals that hermeneutics is an operating fundamental in both ‘exegesis’ and ‘hermeneutics’. The study consequently proposes ‘exegetical hermeneutics’ as an integrative methodology which would place exegesis at the service of hermeneutics. Jesus’ use of parables models the salient aspects of the proposed ‘exegetical hermeneutics’. A concluding section highlights the implications of the proposed approach for NT scholarship.

1 Thess 5.9–10 can be translated: ‘For God has not destined us for wrath but for possession of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us, so that whether we may be awake or whether we may be asleep we may together live with him.’ Paul uses the same verb for ‘asleep’ (καθεύδωμεν) in 5.10 as he uses in 5.6–8 with the metaphorical sense of being ethically or spiritually negligent in contrast to being ‘awake’ and ‘sober’, that is, ethically or spiritually vigilant: ‘Let us not be asleep (καθεύδωμεν) like the rest but let us be awake and sober. For those who sleep (καθεύδοντες) sleep (καθεύδουσιν) at night and those who get drunk get drunk at night. Since we are of the day, let us be sober . . .’ In 4.13–15 Paul uses a different verb for ‘asleep’ (κοιμάομάι) to refer to those who are physically dead. Nevertheless, most commentators insist upon interpreting καθευδώ in 5.10, not with the meaning it has in 5.6–7, but with the same meaning as καιμαομαι in 4.13–15 – those who have physically died. This also requires that ‘awake’ (γρηγορωμεν) in 5.10 be interpreted as physically ‘alive’ rather than ethically or spiritually ‘vigilant’, the sense it has in 5.6.