Most scholars share the opinion that Luke 10.18 is an authentic saying of Jesus. But by analysing the vision we can see that the saying in Luke 10.18 fits exactly in Lukan theology. In all probability this Jesus saying is written by Luke as an ‘internal heterodiegetic analepsis’ within the temporal frame of the Gospel. Even the positioning in the scene of the return of the disciples, and its genre as a vision can be explained as Lukan. This paper demonstrates that the ‘historische Plausibilitätskriterium’ proposed by Gerd Theißen and Dagmar Winter should begin with a ‘literarisches Differenzkriterium’. That is to say, to establish historical plausibility it must be possible first to show that the saying probably once had a life of its own and does not fit exactly in its present literary context. But the Jesus saying of Luke 10.18 does not fulfil this initial criterion.

Phil 4.4–7 is best understood against the background of a society with an imperial ideology, mirrored in the epistle's terminology. The church is under pressure from its social environment and opposes the claims of the state's officials. The various parts of the passage are united by this context. Christian emotions should be shaped by the relation to Christ who is ‘near’, said in contrast to Caesar's proclaimed omnipresence. Christians are called to behave nobly towards their fellow citizens. The terminology of prayer reflects imperial customs. The peace of God surpasses the pax Romana. Paul's strategy is to strengthen the unity of the church and to enhance a convincing social behaviour.

J. Louis Martyn has identified perhaps the central question of Galatians: what time is it? This essay sheds fresh light on that question, however, by asking a corollary one: where are the Galatians? For Paul, it is argued, the Galatians are in the wilderness, somewhere between an Exodus-like redemption and the inheritance of the ‘kingdom of God’ (5.21). Paul utilises this narrative location as part of his rhetorical strategy to redress a developing crisis within his churches. The Galatians are on the verge of a wilderness apostasy, hence Paul colours his rebukes and warnings with language that evokes Israel's own tragic wilderness failings.

In addition to the stylistic break at Heb 13.1 which many have noted, the vocabulary and to some extent the content of ch. 13 differ from those of 1–12 and may be more plausibly explained if 13 was written in the knowledge of 1–12 but by a different author and for a different situation.

This study re-examines the proverbial ‘patience of Job’, its function in the letter of James, and the hypothesis that the author derives the motif from the pseudepigraphical Testament of Job. Particular attention is paid to the use and abuse of the category of parallelism in the study of the NT and the literature of antiquity. While there is not sufficient evidence to settle the source-critical question, the recontextualization of the Job tradition in James sheds light on the relationship between eschatology and ethics in early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism.

This article joins recent studies of the letter of James in arguing that the ancient system of patronage aids in illuminating the social situation of this short text. However, unlike other authors, I suggest that God is not understood as a substitute patron in James, but as an ideal benefactor, on whom the audience must rely. Building on the work of Stephan Joubert and others, the article first offers evidence that patronage and benefaction were understood as different relationships in parts of the Roman Empire. Subsequently it focuses on sections of James in which patronage is criticized and God is portrayed as a frank friend and benefactor, consistent with the image of the ideal benefactor in antiquity.

What can we know about the ‘School of Paul’ if we analyse the letter to the Colossians? This question is divided into three parts: how and why was the letter written, and what theological answers are given? Colossians depends mainly on the oral tradition of Paul. With Paul's words but in new contexts the authors try to overcome the depressed situation of the communities after Paul's death. Like Paul, the authors of Colossians refer to Wisdom traditions, but in a more conservative manner. Their dependence on and independence from Paul's speech and thinking reveal the ‘School of Paul’ as an ongoing context for discussion.

The recent resurgence of interest in ancient Greco-Roman ethics has prompted many studies of NT ethical thought in the light of Aristotelian and Stoic approaches to ethics. The purpose of this article is to compare Rom 12 with Stoicism. Rather than looking for similarities between Stoic ethics and Pauline moral teaching, however (as Troels Engberg-Pedersen does in Paul and the Stoics), it is argued that a comparison between Paul and the Stoics is better achieved by a comparative process more interested in differences rather than similarities. Such a comparison undertaken in relation to Rom 12 reveals Paul's interaction with Stoic ethics, but in the interests of presenting a radically different moral vision.

The majority of Pauline scholars depict the eschatological orientation of Colossians as ‘realized’. Furthermore, a number of interpreters juxtapose the eschatological ‘already’ which arguably earmarks the epistle with the eschatological ‘not yet’ which ostensibly permeates Paul. This article questions the common contention that Colossians, in contradistinction to Paul, is virtually void of futurist eschatology. It is argued herein that even though the ‘already’ may feature in the letter, the ‘not yet’ is more pervasive than is frequently supposed. Correlatively, this study suggests that there is less variance between the eschatological perspectives of Colossians and Paul than is typically recognized.

The editor of New Testament Studies is usually more than content to hide behind the impersonality of the role, protected by the corporate responsibility, if not identity, of the editorial board. For this, the 50th volume, however, an editorial postscript has been suggested, to balance the retrospective given by Professor C. K. Barrett at its start – although this is not designed to inspire more extensive searches for chiasms within the volume. It would take a braver, or more foolhardy, person than I, though, to label this a prospective, while it is, I must emphasise, written from a personal perspective and not as a signal of agreed editorial policy.

1 Joh verankert die johanneische Überlieferung in der vergangenen Geschichte. Dies zeigt eine Exegese von 1 Joh 1.1–4. Dieser Prolog setzt Leser voraus, die Joh 1–20 kennen. Wie der Prolog bindet auch der restliche Brief seine Christologie ausdrücklich an den irdischen Jesus und verankert auch die Pneumatologie geschichtlich. Die Sammlung der johanneischen Schriften entspricht diesem historisierenden Programm. Die johanneische Überlieferung findet nach dem 1 Joh in Joh 21 ihren Abschluss.

Wer die Bildworte der Bibel liebt, hat sicher schon die Schwierigkeiten empfunden, die aus dem Zitat Ps 118.22 im NT (Mk 12.10f. par; Eph 2.20; 1 Petr 2.6) erwachsen: Christus sei der ‘Eckstein’ (κεϕαλη γωνιας oder griechischer: λιθος ακρογωνιαιος) jenes Baues, den die Kirche darstellt. Die landessprachlichen Übersetzungen und die kirchliche Lehrtradition wollen gern einen ‘Grundstein’ daraus machen; denn darauf soll ja der ganze Bau – wie man meint – ruhen.

Many scholars in a former generation thought that Zoroastrian ideas had influenced the concept and structure of the millennium in Rev 20. More recently, however, nearly all scholars who deal with Revelation think rather that Ps 90.4 was responsible for the formulation in Rev 20. A careful review of both Jewish and Zoroastrian texts that bear on the issue, however, shows that, while absolute proof may be lacking, we should still give very serious consideration to the likelihood of a Zoroastrian background.