Bittgebete gehören zu den besonderen Ausdrucksformen religiöser Überzeugungen. Schon in der Antike lassen sich Beziehungen zwischen Bitten, die an Menschen adressiert sind, und Bitten, die an Gott bzw. Götter gerichtet werden, ausmachen, Für einen Vergleich mit Ermutigungen zum Bittgebet im Matthäusevangelium werden Beispiele aus den Epigrammen Martials vorgestellt. Der Bittsteller, der bei Martial vor allem materielle Güter anstrebt, scheut sich beim Bitten nicht, den Kaiser mit Jupiter zu parallelisieren. Doch prägt ihn die Unsicherheit, ob die ausgesprochenen Bitten Gewährung finden. Von ‘Erhörungsgewißheit’, wie sie für die verglichenen Texte im Matthäusevangelium kennzeichnend ist, kann nicht gesprochen werden. In den Epigrammen Martials wird vor allem um die Steigerung persönlicher Lebensqualität gebeten. Demgegenüber begegnen bei Matthäus Gemeinschaftsbitten, die nicht nur persönliche Interessen im Auge haben. Nicht die bloße materielle Existenzsicherung oder persönliche Bedürfnisbefriedigung ist hier das Thema, sondern die Herrschaft Gottes.

Citing the difficulties of establishing a unity between parable and frame in Luke 18.1–8, this article argues that Luke has significant themes of justice and social transformation that could be used to frame the parable of the audacious widow (18.2–5). In the antecedent source of Luke's widow tradition, the widow is characteristically without a voice in her community. Ironically, Luke has effectively silenced the story's prophetic voice for justice with the parable's frame. However, the parable can find its voice through alternative framing within the gospel, for example, the Magnificat. If the parable (vv. 2–5) has independent force within the same community of the gospel's production, what possible tensions does a widely acknowledged dissonance in vv. 1–8 reflect at its point of production? What implications might these tensions have for subsequent parable interpretation?

The authenticity of 2 Cor 6.14–7.1 continues to be debated. This essay argues that the passage is non-Pauline and that it was interpolated by an Ephesian redactor of 2 Corinthians. Linguistic and theological parallels with Rev 21.3–8 and Eph 5 suggest that the passage came from a circle of Jewish Christians in Ephesus, originally from Palestine, who espoused a rigorously exclusivistic Christianity. This circle was also involved in the collection, redaction, and publication of the Pauline corpus. The Epistle to the Ephesians is itself evidence for the interaction between Christianity of Palestinian provenance and the Pauline heritage.

‘La foi paulinienne n'est ni une ouverture à l'avenir ou au prochain, ni une désespérance sur les possibilités de l'homme, ni une adhésion à des dogmes; elle est ‘célébration.’Pierre Bonnard, ‘L'anamnèse, structure fondamentale de la théologie du Nouveau Testament’, Anamnesis (Cahiers de la Revue de théologie et de philosophie 3; Genève/Lausanne/Neuchâtel, 1980) 1–11. (Republication d'un article de Vox Theologica [1961] et de Die Zeichen der Zeit [1971].

Sans nier la portée argumentative des lettres de Paul, cet article montre l'importance des phénomènes d'anamnèse dans ses épîtres. Après avoir démontré que les indicateurs de rappel sont très fréquents, il explicite l'importance du déjà-connu dans l'établissement de la πιστις chez Paul puis ébauche une justification littéraire et théologique de ce phénomène. En cela, il rejoint l'intuition de Pierre Bonnard, énoncée il y a 40 ans: l'anamnèse est bien une ‘structure fondamentale’ de la lettre paulinienne.

The interpretation of 1 Pet 4.6 which sees ‘the dead’ as Christians who heard the gospel during their lifetime but who have since died is becoming increasingly widely accepted, especially in recent commentaries in English. William Dalton's monograph Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits has been influential in promoting this view. However, despite its current popularity, there are serious problems with this interpretation, especially in its dependence on assuming a primitive eschatological context for 1 Peter. The view of the verse as referring to a proclamation made to people already dead, on the other hand, is more plausible than recent commentators suggest, and can be defended against their criticisms.

The denial of angelic rule in the world to come (Heb 2.5) provides an important clue to the purpose of Christ's exaltation over the angels in Heb 1–2. The excessive reliance upon angels for national deliverance and personal protection within Second Temple Judaism posed a threat to the pre-eminence of Christ among Jewish Christians. Rather than seek ‘help’ from angels, the author exhorts his readers to hold firmly to their confidence in Jesus. For as messianic ‘Son’, only Jesus is able to ‘help’ them (Heb 2.18; 4.16) remain faithful through the perils of the coming eschatological judgment.

Wisse's Group 1519 is selected as a test case. An initial analysis of Text und Textwert (TuT) finds support for the existence of the group. The data provided in TuT is then used to provide Claremont Profile Method profiles of manuscripts in the group. This approach is used to look for additional group members among manuscripts not profiled by Wisse and McReynolds. The TuT analyses of Mark and Matthew indicate that Group 1519 exists there too. The relationship between the two core members of the group (871 and 1566) is studied. Specific and theoretical conclusions are drawn.