Within the current discussion of myth in New Testament theology this article reconsiders the ongoing myth debate between Greco-Roman, Jewish and Christian authors against the background not of atheism but of philosophical theology. Over against its challenges Greco–Roman authors defend the myth as exemplum within a sociologically framed accommodation theory and interpret problematic texts using allegorical exegesis. Jewish and Christian authors follow these patterns. In particular, ancient Christian commentators on the Bible use the ancient category of ‘myth as exemplum’ to understand the activities of God and Jesus Christ not only as the base but also as an exemplum for the pious life.

The question as to whether Jesus preached repentance has been discussed in historical Jesus research over the past twenty years, apparently without any scholarly consensus being at hand. This article seeks to eliminate some unnecessary confusion from the debate by investigating early Jewish conceptions of repentance and suggesting that a distinction should be maintained between moral and ritual repentance. It argues that Jesus, while most probably expecting moral repentance of his followers, did not uphold the customary rites of repentance. The article suggests some reasons for Jesus' avoidance of traditional penitential prayers and practices, which may account for the instances of strong criticism against him indicated by the synoptic Gospels.

Luke 23.34a, ‘Father forgive them for they know not what they do’, has been a textual conundrum in text criticism. The weight for the external evidence points to the probability that this logion of Jesus from the cross was not in the earliest manuscript of Luke. What motivation then led to this saying being added to the text of Luke? In this article, the argument is made that a numerical motivation is at the heart of the addition. Luke 23.34a was added in order that there be seven sayings and not six that Jesus spoke from the cross. This issue arose as the four Gospels were collected together and read as one narrative of the life, ministry, and passion of Jesus.

This article argues that when the fundamentally Jewish character of 1 Corinthians is recognized, a clear structure and argument emerges. The order of the material reflects Paul's own agenda seen in patterns elsewhere in his letters. While unity is clearly a significant issue, Paul's main concern is with the purity of the church and the glory of God. The Corinthian church is part of the fulfillment of the OT expectation of worldwide worship of the God of Israel, and as God's eschatological temple they must act in a manner appropriate to their holy status by shunning pagan vices and glorifying God under the lordship of Christ.

Die größten Schwierigkeiten bei dem Versuch, 2 Kor als einheitlichen Brief zu lesen, bieten zum einen der Kontextbezug und die unpaulinischen Züge von 6.14–7.1, zum anderen der Anschluss der Kap. 10–13 an den vorangehenden Kontext. Getrennt haben diese beiden Fragen bisher keine überzeugende Lösung gefunden. Die hier vertretene These lautet: Die beiden Schwierigkeiten bedingen sich gegenseitig, denn der Textabschnitt 6.14–7.1 stellte ursprünglich die jetzt fehlende Verbindung zwischen den Kap. 1–9 und 10–13 her und wurde sekundär von dort an seine jetzige Stelle versetzt. Wird diese Versetzung rückgängig gemacht, der Text also zwischen Kap. 9 und 10 eingefügt, erhält er einen klaren Kontextbezug; andererseits entsteht ein sinnvoller Übergang von 1–9 zu 10–13. Es lässt sich plausibel erklären, wie und warum der Text aus seiner ursprünglichen Kontextstellung gelöst und an seiner jetzigen Stelle eingefügt wurde.

This essay argues that the attempts of John Kloppenborg and several others to explain Paul's neologism θεοδιδακτος in 1 Thess 4.9 are unsuccessful. An alternative explanation is offered by taking into consideration available evidence regarding compound neologisms in Koine Greek and by drawing upon Emmanuel Tov's work on LXX translation tendencies. It is suggested that Paul draws upon Isa 54.13 in forming his neologism in a manner analogous to the ‘reverse and combine’ pattern of LXX compound-word formation noted by Tov. Paul creates a new word as part of his larger epistolary strategy of strengthening the communal identity of the troubled Thessalonian community.

A close comparison with Plutarch's De amore prolis and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics shows the author of 4 Maccabees to have used common topics from Greek ethical reflection on love for offspring as a means of commending Torah-observance as the means by which one is enabled to secure one's children's eternal well-being, fulfilling the natural goal of love for offspring more completely. The author shows how trust in God's future enables the mother to view even the death of her children as the fulfillment rather than the negation of her maternal investment, as in the laments of Euripides's heroines in Trojan Women and Hecuba, from which the author explicitly distances her, enabling her exemplary courage.