Die Psalmen Salomos sind ein für die frühjüdische Vorstellung von der δικαιοσύνην Gottes überaus wichtiges Zeugnis. Werden sie in der Forschung zumeist als Ausdruck pharisäischer Frömmigkeit, in der die Vorstellungen von der Gerechtigkeit Gottes und seiner Barmherzigkeit auseinanderfallen, gewertet, so versucht der vorliegende Beitrag zu zeigen, daβ die Verhältnisbestimmung beider Gröβen differenzierter ist. Die PsSal rücken die Vorstellung von der Gerechtigkeit Gottes eng mit seinem züchtigenden Handeln an den Frommen zusammen und gebrauchen hierfür die Termini παιδεία bzw παιδεύειν. Ein vergleichen-der Blick auf das Qumran-Schrifttum zeigt, daβ beide frühjüdischen Konzeptionen in je eigenerWeise als Hintergrund der paulinischen Rede von der δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ relevant sind.

Recent discussion of the genre of Q suggests that a consensus is not yet emerging. On the one hand there is the view of John Kloppenborg that the stages in the development of Q were, firstly, the assembling of a number of wisdom speeches followed by, secondly, an expansion by various groups of sayings, many formed as chriae, and then, thirdly, a move in the direction of a bios by means of an historicizing tendency and the addition of the temptation story (Q 4.1–13).1 Within this approach traditions which seem prima facie to exhibit prophetic form or content are strictly subordinated to, or at least controlled by, their setting in a wisdom collection. That is, the wisdom Makrogattung determines how any prophetic Mikrogattungen are to be viewed. On the other hand there is the view of Migaku Sato that Q should be compared with prophetic books, and that it grew in several redactional stages, each of which was informed by the prophetic tradition and conditioned by prophetic mission.2 On this view the prophetic Makrogattung determines how any sapiential Mikrogattungen are to be viewed.

Dans la première édition de La structure littéraire de l' Epître aux Hébreux (Paris, 1962), A. Vanhoye notait au terme de son étude d'Héb 3, 1–6: ‘Nous n'oserions pas prétendre que cette interprétation s'impose en tout point avec la clarté de l'éVidence’ (p. 91), et dans la deuxième édition (Paris, 1976) il ajoute: ‘Cette discussion reste fort problématique. Le raisonnement de l'auteur n'est pas assez explicite pour qu'on puisse en saisir avec certitude toutes les étapes’ (p. 265). Cette dernière affirmation nous semble contestable, et c'est ce que le présent travail voudrait s'efforcer de montrer. Sans revenir sur les critiques adressées à juste titre par Vanhoye (pp. 88–9) aux lectures de C. Spicq, O. Michel, J. Héring et J. Moffatt, et sans négliger l'apport des deux éditions du livre, mais non plus celui de l'article de J. Swetnam, ‘Form and Content in Hebrews 1–6’,1 nous proposerons d'abord une traduction servile du texte, puis nous en étudierons la structure littéraire, et enfin nous essaierons de saisir les étapes du raisonnement de l'auteur. L'étude du rapport aux premiers chapitres sera notre conclusion.

Mark vi. I–6a is a story told with a fullness of vivid detail, and it is devoid of any edificatory ending. These two facts give the ‘impression of uninventable authenticity’, The result has been—and it is one that is still with us—that in the history of research interpreters have been all too prone to look at it only from the perspective of its historical value. In Mark vi. I–6a we seem to find ourselves ‘on the soil of the best tradition’, just because there is a series of concrete individual points which are indeed very likely to give confidence in their historical credibility. In v. 3 ‘personal details are given, which can have no other origin than old Galilean tradition’. Verse 5a and v. 6a draw features of such human truth into the picture of Jesus that the reader must be convinced of their authenticity.4 But—granted all these points— what is won for the historical facts from our pericope? Well, there are mentioned the origin and profession of Jesus, the names of his mother and of four of his brothers, the existence of sisters and the fact of an unsuccessful visit to his native town. This is really quite a lot.

Christian Orientalists have always been fascinated by the fact that the Greek text of the canonical Gospels is in some way secondary to a Semitic tradition. Indeed, even if we accept that all four Gospels were written in Greek, we must allow, somewhere in the chain of tradition from the teaching of Jesus to the Gospel-writers, for a transition from Aramaic to Greek. Consequently, a fruitful exegetical approach to the Gospel text has been the attempt to go beyond the Greek text-form to the more original Aramaic wording and to understand this wording in its proper setting in Palestinian Judaism of the 1st century AD. Several methods have been applied within this approach. G. Dalman championed the retroversion of significant New Testament terms into Palestinian Jewish Aramaic (and Hebrew), and investigated the use of the retroverted terms in Jewish texts of the first centuries. J. Wellhausen, and others, searched for anomalies in the Greek Gospel-text which might be explained as mistaken translations of Aramaic expressions. The history of research on this question up to 1946 is discussed and evaluated by M. Black in his Aramaic Approach to the Gospels.

This article considers Mark's account of the cursing of the fig tree, read in conjunction with Jesus’ temple action. Having reviewed recent proposals on the literary shape of Mark 11.1–12.12, the article proposes a fresh reading of the section's structure. Triple introductions at 11.11, 11.15 and 11.27 are shown to match triple conclusions at 11.11, 11.19 and 12.12, these constituents framing interwoven units running from 11.11 to 12.12. The pattern of triple intercalation suggests that the cursing of the fig tree and Jesus’ temple action should be interpreted one in light of the other. The article then considers the intertextual relationship between Mark's narrative and the scriptural texts it evokes. The study uncovers previously neglected echoes vital for understanding the significance of Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree and temple action. The ‘casting out’ motif in Jeremiah 7–8, as dramatically portrayed in Jesus’ temple action, is set forth as heralding a ‘renewed exile’ for those who reject Jesus’ message, while the mirror motif of ‘ingathering’ in Isa 56.1–8, accentuated by the ‘withered tree’ imagery of 56.3, heralds new opportunity, with those who were previously outsiders to the temple made insiders in the eschatological house of prayer.

Paul's letters depict gentiles and Jews with different characteristics of sin. This article focuses on Paul's rhetoric about Jewish shortcomings and argues that he has an eschatological myth of Jewish sin: it is the period in the Jewish deity's plan when he has hardened his people into disobedience and disloyalty. While scholars have traditionally tried to connect Paul's ideas about Jewish sin to deficiencies of historical Jews, Paul's claims are primarily animated by his Jewish eschatological scheme and competitive rhetorical needs. Paul re-emerges as a Jewish writer within his competitive social landscape wherein ethnic differentiation was an expected way of imagining the human and divine realms.

This article, originally presented as the presidential address at the 2021 SNTS meeting, held virtually via Leuven due to Covid-19 conditions, investigates the nature of Pauline interpretation, past and present. It brings into the scholarly conversation a neglected ancient source, John Chrysostom's occasional homily on 1 Cor 7.2–4 (Hom. 1 Cor. 7–4 (CPG 4377)), and provides an analysis of key passages showing how the late antique orator-bishop seeks to turn Paul's words from the fifties to Corinth into a magical incantation, and, as inscribed on various materials, a talisman against the evils associated with porneia. The article concludes with defence of the category ‘Christian love magic’ and an argument that New Testament studies constitutes a unified field which should unite (rather than separate out) the work of philology, historical contextualisation, literary criticism, humanistic commitments and hermeneutical sophistication as we trace and analyse the ways human agents construct meanings with New Testament texts, then and now.

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 is the first part of a two-part article focused on a fragmentary parchment codex, whose three extant leaves, designated in Leo Depuydt's catalogue as P.MorganLib. 265, are housed at the Morgan Library & Museum in New York. These fragments bear witness to 1 Cor 2.12–3.18; 7.16–30; 15.3–30 in the ‘classical’ variety of Fayyūmic Coptic (dialect F5). Most of these verses have been hitherto unattested in Fayyūmic and thus allow us to attain better insight into the history and text of the Coptic Bible. In the first part of this article, I discuss the codicology of P.MorganLib. 265, its linguistic features, provenance and date.

über das System des Basilides, seines Sohnes und Schülers Isidor und der Basilidianer ist unter den Forschern bis heute keine Einigkeit erzielt worden, auch ist die einzig neuere Schrift, die sich ausführlich und umfassend mit Basilides befaβt, die von Hendrix,2 zu wenig in die Tiefe gegangen und läβt manche Fragen offen. Die Uneinigkeit der Forscher hangt mit der besonders disparaten Quellenlage zusammen. Die Berichte der Kirchenväter teilen sich in zwei Gruppen. Die eine wird vertreten durch Irenaeus, Adv. haer I.