Some scholars view the Last Supper as a symbolic action, one that articulates a rejection of the Jewish temple. This essay presents an alternative approach. The Last Supper traditions are more subtle than is generally recognized. Also, a good deal of evidence demonstrates that the temple remained an important institution in early Christian practice and thought. Therefore it is necessary to drop the problematic practice of describing sacrificial metaphors as ‘spiritualizations’ of the cult. Rather, we should place the sacrificial metaphors of the Last Supper tradition within the broader ancient Jewish effort to channel the temple's sanctity into various non-sacrificial practices, such as eating and praying.

There is no adequate evidence of a ‘Son of Man’ concept in Jesus’ time, nor of a common Aramaism for ‘man’ (misunderstood by Aramaic-speaking evangelists). Ps 8.6 was widely used to explain the delay in Christians’ resurrection: the υιος ανθρωπου to whom all would be subjected in time was Jesus. Heb 2.8–9 makes this explicit, proving Jesus’ incarnation (‘briefly inferior to angels’), cross and resurrection (‘crowned . . . because of the suffering of death’). Mark exploits the title: Jesus was the Son of Man, prophesied to come, to die and to rise; and the similar phrase in Dan 7.13 suggests his parousia and authority.

This report of opened tombs and risen saints is conventionally deemed to mark Jesus’ death as the dawn of the new age. However, this understanding obscures Matthew's studied climax in v. 54. Defending the theory that vv. 51b–54 are a Matthean creation, it is argued here that Matthew drew his scene of risen saints from 1 Enoch 93.6, where ‘visions of the Holy Ones’ accompany the gift of the Torah. Matthew utilized this motif from the Mosaic era not to infuse Jesus’ death with eschatological significance, but to provoke the centurion's acclamation of Jesus as ‘son of God’ as the climax of the crucifixion narrative.

Die Untersuchung des ‘bildspendenden Bereichs’ des Jungfrauengleichnisses hat gezeigt, dass einzelne Motive des Gleichnisses als Elemente zeitgenössischer Hochzeitsbräuche erklärt werden können: So muss die nächtliche Ankunft des Bräutigams nicht allegorisch auf die Parusieverzögerung gedeutet werden, sondern entspricht dem griechischen Ritus, nach dem der Bräutigam erst spät am Abend die Braut in sein Elternhaus geleitet, nachdem zuvor im Haus der Braut das Hochzeitsmahl gefeiert wurde. Die Jungfrauen könnten Mägde aus dem Haus des Bräutigams sein, die auf die nächtliche Rückkehr ihres Herrn warten und die Brautleute nach ihrer Ankunft mit Gefäßfackeln ins Brautgemach begleiten, bevor die Tür zu demselben verschlossen wird.

Mark 10.42b, οι δοκουντες αρχειν των εθνων, seems an allusion to Isa 11.10 LXX comparing those seeming to rule the Gentiles now to the prophesied messiah in Isaiah who will rule them in the eschaton. The messianic eschatological significance of Isa 11.10 LXX, evident in its development and prior use, seems continued in Mark 10.42–5, particularly as context for the preparatory, sacrificial Son of Man Christology of Mark 10.45. The allusion also suggests the prophetic applicability of all Isaiah 11 to Mark 10.42–5. The allusion's implied progression between Jesus’ self-sacrifice and his messiahship permits Mark 10.42–5 to function as an independent rhetorical unit applicable to church leadership in the interregnum and as a theologically climactic unit within Mark. Undeveloped by later readers of Mark, this allusion should be highlighted to preserve the passage's eschatological expectation.

In most MSS of John's Gospel, only the Hellenistic name of ‘Ιεροσολυμα is used. However, there are two variant readings of ’Ιερουσαλημ in Codex Bezae as well as an additional reference to Jerusalem with the Hellenistic spelling. The article examines the theological significance of the pattern of usage in Codex Bezae which, it is argued, represents an earlier stage of the Gospel than that transmitted by the Alexandrian text.

The presence or absence of references to Paul's collection can be a valuable aid in determining the relative chronology of the various Pauline letters. This is particularly true of Galatians if recent commentaries are correct in seeing no evidence in Gal 2.10 that Paul was then actually engaged in raising the collection, and if that agreement did not lead directly to his collection. Also suggestive, but puzzling, are the varied references to the churches taking part in the collection at different points in time, which seem to reflect the often turbulent relations between Paul and his churches.

Der Philipperbrief kann auf dem Hintergrund antiker Freundschaftsethik gelesen werden. Ein Beispiel dafür liefert der Abschnitt Phil 2.25–30. Das vertraute Verhältnis, das Paulus mit der Gemeinde in Philippi teilte, wurde durch die Freundschaft zwischen Paulus und seinem geliebten ‘Bruder’ Epaphroditus gestützt. Auf der Basis antiker Freundschaftsideale von Gleichheit, Reziprozität, Gemeinschaft und Seelenverwandtschaft hat sich ein intensives freundschaftliches Verhältnis entwickelt, das ungebrochene Beziehungen zwischen den Philippern, Paulus und Epaphroditus widerspiegelt. Paulus und sein vertrauter ‘Bruder’ haben ihre Freundschaft in der Not bewährt. Durch die Teilhabe am Geschick von anderen und die Bereitschaft zur selbstlosen Lebenshingabe für andere entsprechen beide der höchsten Verpflichtung von Freunden.

L’épître aux Laodicéens représente un défi aux théories habituelles sur la pseudépigraphie, tant elle paraît manquer d’intérêt. Pour lui rendre justice, il convient de l’analyser comme le moyen épistolaire de convoyer la présence de l’apôtre: en ce sens, elle prolonge la pratique épistolaire paulinienne et la dépasse puisqu’elle vaut plus en tant qu’objet-symbole de la présence apostolique (connotation), qu’en tant que support de message (dénotation).

New Testament scholars have long debated whether 2 Cor 6.14–7.1 originally stood at its present location in 2 Corinthians and, indeed, whether the passage should even be attributed to Paul. The verses have variously been viewed as (a) composed by Paul specifically for inclusion at their present location, (b) composed by Paul for some other occasionPerhaps as part of the earlier letter mentioned in 1 Cor 5.9–11. but subsequently included at their present location either by Paul or by someone else, (c) composed by someone other than Paul but included at their present location by Paul, or (d) both composed by someone other than Paul and included at their present location by someone other than Paul (not necessarily the same person).For a good summary of scholarship since the Reformation, see William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14–7.1 (JSNTSup 85; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 16–30; see also, e.g., Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 32A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 375–83. It is not my intention in this brief study to address the question of authorship; rather, I propose simply to look at one aspect of the question whether this passage originally stood at its present location in 2 Corinthians – that is, at the relation between 2 Cor 6.14–7.1 and its immediate context (6.11–13 and 7.2–3).