The current work argues for the compositional unity of 2 Corinthians. First, it addresses the chronological and argumentative relationship of chapters 10–13 to chapters 1–9. It next rejects the presence of so-called ‘interpolations’ and ‘sources’ in chapters 1–9. Finally, it considers the integrity of chapters 8 and 9. The uniqueness of this effort lies in its emphasis upon rhetorical reasons and warrants against the widely accepted partition hypothesis of Pauline historical- and source-critical scholarship. It does so by demonstrating the complex integrity of the argumentative development and trajectories in 2 Corinthians. It concludes with a new, suggestive approach to the correspondence as a complex, but nevertheless coherent, act of persuasion.

Weil der Galaterbrief unter den paulinischen Briefen der am heftigsten umstrittene Brief ist, muß man mit den lösbaren Problemen der sogenannten Einleitung zum Galaterbrief anfangen. Es gilt, die narrative Substanz des Briefes aufgrund der erzählerischen und referentiellen Sequenz, die nie erschöpfend analysiert worden ist, zu rekonstruieren. Speziell gilt es, die relative Reihenfolge von Gründung der galatischen Gemeinden und Jerusalemer Konferenz festzulegen: Paulus’ Bericht über die Konferenz und die nachfolgende Episode in Antiochien ist erstmals im Brief formuliert worden, weil die Konferenz erst nach der Gründung stattgefunden hat – wäre es umgekehrt, oder hätten die Galater schon von Rechtfertigung durch Glauben gehört, dann wäre die galatische Situation, wie wir sie aus dem Brief kennen, gar nicht entstanden.

The debate over the proper reading of 1 Thess 2.7 is much less ambiguous than it is typically portrayed to be. The external evidence is decisively in favour of νηπιοι (infants), a fact that even those opposed to this reading readily admit. An evaluation of the internal evidence and the four arguments commonly used to justify the choice of ηπιοι (‘gentle’) reveals that none of them provides the needed grounds for overriding the clear testimony of the external evidence. Furthermore, the superior reading ‘infants’ involves a striking metaphor that functions effectively in the overall argument of 1 Thess 2.5–7b. There are compelling reasons, therefore, for allowing Paul to make the claim of innocence that he made to the Thessalonians long ago: ‘But we became infants among you.’

The discrepancy between the historical evidence for Domitian's reign and the persecuting ‘beasts’ from the land and sea in the Revelation of John discourages the identification of the latter with the Roman government. For the author of Revelation, they are meant to represent political messianism in Palestinian and diaspora Judaism. The conflict between political messianism and Christian messianism is best illustrated by the contrast between the Messiah who emerges from the sea in 4 Ezra 13 and the ‘beast’ from the sea in Rev 13.1.

The study participates in the ongoing discussion of the relationship between hermeneutics and exegesis. A review of the main aspects of the discussion, the meanings of both terms, and key influences in modern biblical criticism reveals that hermeneutics is an operating fundamental in both ‘exegesis’ and ‘hermeneutics’. The study consequently proposes ‘exegetical hermeneutics’ as an integrative methodology which would place exegesis at the service of hermeneutics. Jesus’ use of parables models the salient aspects of the proposed ‘exegetical hermeneutics’. A concluding section highlights the implications of the proposed approach for NT scholarship.

Paulus benutzt das in der Antike bekannte Bild vom Wettkampf positiv. Es begegnet oft nur stichwortartig und unterschwellig, gelegentlich aber auch engagiert und mit detailgetreuen Skizzen agonistischer Praktiken und Gepflogenheiten. Dies deutet darauf hin, daß er das Bild nicht nur durch die Reden wandernder Popularphilosophen oder durch die hellenistische Synagoge kennengelernt hat. Er ist mit ihm persönlich vertraut. Überlegungen zur Kindheit und Jugend, zur Reisetätigkeit und zu Kontakten des Paulus mit der Agonistik in hellenistischen Großstädten stützen diese Annahme. Die enge Vertrautheit mit dem Agon schlägt sich in der theologischen Verarbeitung des Motives nieder. Der Wettkampf wird zum kongenialen Ausdruck des paulinischen Apostelamtes und seiner Verkündigung.

Hinter dem scheinbar widersprüchlichen Gebrauch des Terminus τυποσ kann ein einheitliches Grundverständnis nachgewiesen werden. Kein Mensch (oder Gegenstand) ist an sich Typos, sondern er wird situationsbezogen dann als Typos bezeichnet, wenn durch ihn oder in ihm etwas unmittelbar sichtbar wird. Weil τυποσ die Relation zwischen Typisierendem und Typisiertem benennt, bedarf es keines Gegenbegriffes. Das erklärt, warum αντιτυποσ nicht als Pendant zu τυποσ verwendet wird. Ein besonderes ‘hermeneutisches Verständnis’ des Begriffes begegnet nicht.

Aus der nicht wertenden Auffassung von τυποσ ergibt sich die Notwendigkeit einer Revision des traditionellen Verständnisses der Typologie als hermeneutischer Figur.

Angesichts des gegenwärtigen Standes der Methodendiskussion in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft erscheint es angebracht, die Grundlagen des Faches zu überdenken. In dem folgenden Beitrag wird dies in einem Dreischritt versucht, der sich mit der neutestamentlichen Exegese als Textwissenschaft, als historischer sowie als theologischer Wissenschaft befaßt. Anhand ausgewählter Beispiele wird argumentiert, daß historisch-kritische Arbeitsschritte und hermeneutische Reflexion nicht zwei aufeinander folgende Wege der Textauslegung, sondern Bestandteile eines Verstehensprozesses sind. Die gängige Aufteilung in synchrone und diachrone Fragestellungen müßte demzufolge dergestalt weitergedacht werden, daß beide innerhalb eines Textverstehensmodells integriert werden. Auf diese Weise wird auch der Beitrag der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft zur Theologie deutlicher erkennbar.

The exegetical and textual problems in the opening verses of Mark's Gospel are well known. The punctuation of 1.1–4 has exercised editors of critical editions as it has translators. Does one, for example, put a full stop at the end of v. 1 or not? How does the quotation of vv. 2–3 relate to its context? There are also two main text-critical problems: (1) there is a choice between a longer and a shorter reading in v. 1, and (2) the MSS are divided between εν τω ‘Ησαια and εν τοις προϕηταις in v. 2.

The Gospel of Thomas provides an important component in many recent portraits of Jesus as a non-eschatological sage. Various material is cited from Thomas, yet careful analysis of individual sayings and redactional layers is rare. This is particularly true of sayings without Synoptic attestation. Is it possible that Thomas contains authentic sayings not found in the NT? What methodological steps would be necessary to isolate such material? How would such sayings affect portraits of the historical Jesus? These issues are explored though analysis of Saying 82 of the Gospel of Thomas.

1 Thess 5.9–10 can be translated: ‘For God has not destined us for wrath but for possession of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us, so that whether we may be awake or whether we may be asleep we may together live with him.’ Paul uses the same verb for ‘asleep’ (καθεύδωμεν) in 5.10 as he uses in 5.6–8 with the metaphorical sense of being ethically or spiritually negligent in contrast to being ‘awake’ and ‘sober’, that is, ethically or spiritually vigilant: ‘Let us not be asleep (καθεύδωμεν) like the rest but let us be awake and sober. For those who sleep (καθεύδοντες) sleep (καθεύδουσιν) at night and those who get drunk get drunk at night. Since we are of the day, let us be sober . . .’ In 4.13–15 Paul uses a different verb for ‘asleep’ (κοιμάομάι) to refer to those who are physically dead. Nevertheless, most commentators insist upon interpreting καθευδώ in 5.10, not with the meaning it has in 5.6–7, but with the same meaning as καιμαομαι in 4.13–15 – those who have physically died. This also requires that ‘awake’ (γρηγορωμεν) in 5.10 be interpreted as physically ‘alive’ rather than ethically or spiritually ‘vigilant’, the sense it has in 5.6.

In seiner Untersuchung ‘Heiden – Griechen – Gotteskinder’ schreibt J. Frey folgenden bemerkenswerten Satz über die Ironie der VV. Joh 11.49–50:

Diese Hintergründigkeit gehört wesentlich zur johanneischen Darstellung, in der ihr neben einer polemischen Bedeutung vor allem eine ‘didaktische’ Funktion zukommt für die Leser und die Art, in der diese die erzählte Geschichte wahrnehmen.

Rhoda, the slave maid (παιδισκη) in Acts 12.13–16, has been seen as a classic example of a touch of realism that lends authenticity to Luke's narrative: the vivid and precise detail of her flighty joy presents such a candid snapshot of her individuality and eccentric Christian faith that it could only come from a historical source, perhaps the eyewitness reminiscence of Rhoda herself. While less willing than earlier commentators to accept the description in its final form as factual, more recent scholars still perpetuate the goal of discerning the historical core behind the account and continue to read it as a piece of realistic drama. Many, to be sure, have detected in the scene the presence of other elements, such as comedy and extraordinary suspense, but this idea is downplayed or subordinated as further evidence of realism; a few discount the idea as a modern reading. Nonetheless, a consensus emerges: Rhoda's dramatic function in the narrative is to heighten realism. Some scholars then discover a further theological theme of liberation: Rhoda's genuine, assertive behaviour to speak her mind ‘breaks down’ the oppressive hierarchy between master and slave – revealing Luke's so-called subversion of slavery as a social institution – and the subsequent vindication of Rhoda's speech as trustworthy authenticates and uplifts the Christian witness of women (cf. Gal 3.28).

Acts states in 13.13–14a that Paul sailed on his outward journey from Paphos in Cyprus to Pergê in Pamphylia (Περγη), proceeding then to Pisidian Antioch – literally, Antioch-towards-Pisidia. (Pamphylia is the westernmost of two alluvial coastal shelves on the south coast of present-day Turkey; a relatively self-contained geographical area.) Acts states that John-Mark left for Jerusalem from this point after a disagreement, and also does not mention the coastal port of Attaleia (‘Ατταλεια), present-day Antalya. On the return journey, however, noted in 14.24–26a, the remaining missionaries are said to preach in Pergê and then proceed to Attaleia, from which point they sail on to Syrian Antioch, presumably actually disembarking at Seleucia. Now this all looks a little odd at first glance, especially since Pergê is some distance inland for any arrival on the first leg of this journey, and most interpreters have reacted accordingly. I want to suggest here, however, that the author's comments about these two traverses through Pamphylia, although brief and initially a little puzzling, are deliberately asymmetrical, and it is this that betrays their almost certain accuracy in historical terms.