Part of the Syriac textual tradition of Matthew 16. 18c attests the reading mukleē, ‘bars’, instead of πúλαι.1 The word mukleē is transparently loaned from Greek (μοχλóς). What is the exact significance of this interesting textual variant, which surely represents the wording of Tatian's Diatessaron and which may well be even older? One interpretation is that the mukleē are the bars which are part of, or stand for the sluice gates restraining the waters of the deep2.

Ulrich Luz schreibt in seinem kleinen, sehr anregenden Büchlein, Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence and Effects: ‘Even Matthew himself seems to have completely forgotten what he had written in the Sermon of the Mount when he was writing his twenty-third chapter, with the harsh and unjust woes agains Pharisees and Scribes.’ Eines der hier angerissenen Probleme ist viel ausgeprägter in Lk 6 feststellbar, wo dem Gebot der Feindesliebe unmittelbar die Wehesprüche gegen die Reichen vorangestellt sind. Es begegnet aber schon in der Logienquelle und bei Paulus. Wie ist das Verhältnis dieser beiden Aussagen zu einander zu sehen? Das ist die Frage, der wir im folgenden nachgehen wollen

Der hierapolitanische Bischof Papias formulierte im Proömium seiner Auslegung von Herrenspriichen ein bemerkenswertes Arbeitsprinzip: ‘Ich nahm nicht an, daβ die (Nachrichten) aus den Büchern mir soviel nützen wie die von einer lebendigen und bleibenden Stimme (mitgeteilten Nachrichten)(ού γὰρ τὰἐĸ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν με ώφελεῖν ύπελάμβανον ὄσον τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς ĸαì μενούσης). ’1 Aus dieser Aussage des Papias über den Vorzug der viva vox hat man recht weitgehende kanongeschichtliche Schlüsse gezogen. Da Papias der mündlichen gegenüber der schriftlichen Überlieferung grundsätzlich den Vorzug einraume, könne nach seinem Urteil die Normativität der Herrenworte noch nicht auf die sie verzeichnenden Evangelienschriften übergegangen sein. Darum könne Papias die (ihm bekannten) schriftlichen Evangelien noch nicht als ‘endgültige oder kanonische Form der Jesus-Überlieferung’ angesehen haben.2 Die in seiner Aussage reflektierte Vorliebe der kleinasiatischen Gemeinden für die mundliche Tradition habe die Entstehung eines schriftlichen Kanons verzögert.3 Andere Forscher haben dieser Folgerung entgegengehalten, das Prinzip von der Überlegenheit der viva vox sei in den Augen des Papias nicht von allgemeiner Gültigkeit gewesen und von ihm gar nicht auf die Evangelien bezogen worden. Es sei deswegen auch nicht von kanongeschichtlicher Relevanz.4

On reconnaît en principe que le Nouveau Testament parle de la mort de Jésus de plusieurs façons différentes. Nous en possédons quelques classifications, telles que celles de Bultmann et de Theissen établies pour les épîtres pauliniennes, la première souvent reprise dans les théologies bibliques postérieures et étendue à l'ensemble de l'univers néotestamentaire. En pratique cependant, à quelques exceptions près, l'exégèse les étudie séparément, selon l'occurrence d'une représentation dans un livre donné ou d'un livre à l'autre. On a peu abordé avec la même rigueur d'analyse et la même fécondité leur articulation entre elles, leur articulation avec leurs contextes médiats et immédiats et avec les récits de la Passion, l'incidence de leur multiplicité sur la signification de la mort qu'elles nous présentent.

Some recent writing both on the gospels and on some of the Pauline epistles has shown a certain tendency to work with presuppositions in which a circularity in reasoning can be detected. On the basis of arguments (of varying power to convince) making use of a selection of passages in the work concerned, the work itself – the gospel or epistle as it now stands in the Canon – has been made the subject of hypotheses about the situation which evoked its composition, and about resultant polemical or other intentions determining the nature of the work as a whole. All individual passages within this larger whole then tend to be pressed into service so as to provide further evidence in support of these hypotheses. This trend in recent exegesis is illustrated by some interpretations of II Corinthians iii published during the last decade. Theories about the identity and doctrines of Paul's opponents in Corinth having been arrived at on the basis of evidence found elsewhere in the epistle, the difficult third chapter has been found to shed corroborative or even additional light on both. It is perhaps fair to say that these studies, from Georgi's influential treatment of this chapter onwards, indicate great ingenuity on the part of their authors (as well as claiming an even greater ingenuity for Paul himself, and attributing remarkable exegetical sensitivity to his readers in Corinth), but leave one with the impression that the wrong questions have been asked of the text.

Les commentateurs de l'épître aux Hébreux sont unanimes à reconnaître l'importance particulière des dix premiers versets du chapitre v, texte qui présente d'abord une description du sacerdoce (v. 1–4) et en précise ensuite l'application au Christ (v. 5–10). L'attention des exégètes, cependant, ne s'attache guère à l'interprétation d'ensemble de ce passage, elle se concentre le plus souvent sur certains problèmes de détail, comme celui de l'exaucement de la prière du Christ, qui a suscité, on le sait, une conjecture célèbre de Harnack. Quant à l'interprétation d'ensemble, on estime apparemment qu'elle ne présente pas de difficulté, et cette opinion fait qu'on se dispense de traiter clairement certaines questions, qui, mériteraient pourtant d'être discutées.

The kiss is defined as the placing of the lips upon another's lips, another person or another thing as a mark of homage or affection. It is a common phenomenon in many religions, generally directed towards inanimate objects.Early Christian sources confine their descriptions and prescriptions of the kiss to a public greeting between two people. Its practice within the community raises two questions: where did it originate? and what function did it serve beyond strengthening the ties of affection that exist in the fellowship? The fact that the command to kiss appears four times in Paul and once in 1 Peter makes it necessary to ask why something as spontaneous as a kiss would need to be commanded. Finally we inquire into the specific meaning of the adjective ‘holy’ (Paul) or ‘love’ (Peter) when attached to the word kiss.

This article compares a discursive analysis of 2 Thess 2 and Giorgio Agamben's use of the same passage in his political philosophy (in at least three of his books). On the one hand, 2 Thess 2 is a complex and detailed eschatological scenario, but ultimately elliptical – with a self-referential enunciative device centred on a ‘super blank’, the κατέχον/κατέχων, which it is preferable not to identify. On the other hand, despite some shortcuts, Agamben aligns with the main intuitions of 2 Thess 2, which finally returns the reader to his/her own present where a conflict is played out between, on one front, the Messiah and his community, and, on the other front, the anti-messiah and his anti-messianic community. According to Agamben, the κατέχον/κατέχων is a negative figure, the legal facade that prevents unmasking the anomie of current political systems and delays the establishment of a messianic community beyond the law.

Paul seems neither to know anything about rhetoric nor to appreciate it. On the one hand he calls himself an ‘amateur in speech’ (2 Cor 11.6). On the other hand he rejects rhetoric as part of the wisdom of the world (1 Cor 1–4). Such statements could, however, be a rhetorical strategy, which belongs to dissimulatio artis (‘concealment of (rhetorical) art’). Thus, while Paul seems to dissociate himself from rhetoric, he might in some way declare himself for rhetoric. This article gives a survey of the realisation of dissimulatio and of its functions in pagan literature of antiquity and deals with the question whether this rhetorical means is to be found in Paul's letters.

Jas 4.5 poses several exegetical difficulties. Particularly elusive has been identifying the ‘scripture’ to which James refers. This article suggests a fresh translation and reading of vv. 5–6. It is argued that vv. 5b–6a constitute an indirect discourse construction. This is grammatically possible and best takes into account the paraenetic context of chapter 4. Further, the two main sections of these verses correspond functionally to the two cola of the quotation from Prov 3.34 in v. 6. Hence, vv. 5b–6a serve as an introductory gloss to the proverb designed to advance James's paraenetic aims.

In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp of Smyrna offers a reading of 1 Timothy 6 in which he uses the term ‘the commandment’ as an apparent reference to the practice of almsgiving. Polycarp's Philippians, therefore, offers important and heretofore neglected evidence that supports recent contentions that ‘the commandment’ in 1 Tim 6.14 is almsgiving.

Friedrich Nietzsches Philosophie kann mit Paul Ricoeur unter dem Aspekt der ‘Hermeneutik des Verdachts’ gesehen werden. Er ist mit Nachdruck hermeneuti_scher Philosoph. Im ‘Nachlaß’ (Ende 1886 bis Frühjahr 1887) spricht er seine hermeneutische Grundüberzeugung aus: Es gibt nur Interpretationen, aber keine Tatsachen. Diese Aussage richtet sich entschieden gegen allen Positivismus. Wenn er etwa erklärt, er sei ‘gegen das Atom’, so antizipiert er in gewisser Weise moderne physikalische Überzeugungen, nach denen das Atom nicht als Vorstellung gedacht werden kann, sondern nur in mathematischer Interpretation. Die Schwierigkeit bei Nietzsche ist, daß er aufgrund seiner Inspiration von Sils-Maria 1881 seine Überzeugung von der ‘Ewigen Wiederkehr des Gleichen’ dogmatisch vertritt und sie nicht als bloße Interpretation versteht. Die Frage bleibt offen und bedarf der weiteren Klärung in der Nietzsche-Forschung.

This article argues that the double negative form of the ‘disclosure formula’ in 2 Cor 1.8 (οὐ … θέλομεν ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν) is not merely a stylistic variation on θέλομεν ὑμᾶς γινώσκειν but performs the additional rhetorical function of disavowing any attempt on Paul's part to hide the story of his sufferings from the church in Corinth. The transition from 1.8–11 to 1.12–14 (which many commentators struggle to explain) thus becomes a smooth and obvious one, suggesting a close interconnection between Paul's defence of his transparency and integrity in 1.12–2.13 and his apology for his sufferings in 2.14–7.4.

When interpreted in its context in the argument of Galatians, Gal 2.20 is an important part of Paul's discussion of justification by faith. It functions as a depiction of justification apart from any consideration of Jew or Gentile status. This conclusion is based on an examination of the flow of Gal 2.15–21, a consideration of 2.15–21 in its larger context, and a study of 2.20 itself. This role of Gal 2.20 has frequently been overlooked due to inherent difficulties in interpreting the passage and to specific features about the way scholars have interpreted the verse and the larger passage.

Against the consensus that ‘peace and security’ in 1 Thess 5.3 is an allusion to a common Roman imperial slogan, it is argued that, while ‘peace’ does, in fact, evoke Roman propaganda's promise of a stable society to her loyal subjects, ‘security’ has its roots in the Hellenistic conception of the polis as the guarantor of stability. Paul himself combined these two catchwords, thereby promoting a counterclaim both to Roman imperial power and to Hellenistic visions of the ideal civic society. Neither can offer true security in the face of the apocalyptic cataclysm he is convinced is coming. That can be found, as far as he is concerned, only in identifying with the community of believers in Jesus.

It is commonly thought that the apocryphal Letter to the Laodiceans was composed by an author who was little more than an editor, piecing together phrases from Pauline texts in a mediocre fashion. Not only does the text seem devoid of conceptual rigour and theological merit, but it is also thought to lack a coherent structure. This essay proposes that, to the contrary of most estimates, the Letter to the Laodiceans exhibits a discernible structural coherence from which a rhetorical strategy is evident.