Leo Perdue has applied Victor Turner's anthropological model of separation, liminality, and reaggregation to elucidate the social function of ancient wisdom texts. Ancient wisdom texts project the rhetorical situation of liminality upon their recipients in the course of imparting instruction, the effect of which is to integrate recipients at a new level into social structure. Using Turner's model, correlated with Berger's and Luckmann's model of resocialization, this paper argues that John's threshold speech functions to throw Q's recipients into a state of liminality. It thus creates the conditions necessary for reception of Jesus’ wisdom which follows. These results are used to critique stratigraphies of Q which are based upon the notion that the juxtaposition of John's and Jesus’ speeches is anomalous.

In the wake of redaction-criticism it has become customary to treat the evangelists as theologians. This study is an attempt to elucidate how the Gospel of Matthew defines the impact of Jesus on salvation in a reinterpretation of tradition. Following a new trend in christological studies, emphasis has been laid not so much on the different christological titles as on the way the Jesus story is told as articulating the writer's christology. A special trait in Matthew is its meeknes Christology, and great importance is also given to Jesus as the Teacher par excellence. God being the real actor in the gospel story, the Christology of Matthew turns out to be theology in the sense of soteriology.

It is possible to construct both ‘ontological’ and ‘chronological’ scales on which Mark's Christology is then plotted. In neither case, however, does the method correspond to Mark's own christological method, which uses narrative to juxtapose pictures of Jesus as both ‘truly human’ and ‘truly divine’. This essay explicates the ‘truly divine’ side of Mark's presentation, arguing that a number of Markan texts express a ‘high’ Christology without compromising either Jesus’ humanity or a truly monotheistic doctrine of God.

Although Abraham's prayer in Her. 24–29 has several distinctive features, the similarities with the Hodayot suggest that it is an Alexandrian example of the same kind of prayer. Flaccus's prayer in Flac. 170–75, and the whole treatise Against Flaccus, belong to the writings which present the view that those who attack God or God and His people suffer punishments. Such writings are the book of Esther and parts of the books of Daniel and 2 Maccabees. A parallel is also found in Rev 18. Flaccus's prayer in itself has the form of a prayer at departure before death. Abraham's prayer illustrates how a cited text in Philo's Allegorical Commentary is interpreted by means of expository paraphrases and elaborations in which various biblical texts are woven together. At the same time critical circumstances in Philo's time are reflected. In the treatise Against Flaccus (as also in the Embassy to Gaius) the interpretation of the Laws of Moses in the practice and crisis of communal life is the issue. Thus there were in Alexandria conflicting views of, and actions relative to, the Laws of Moses. Flaccus's exile and death were an indubitable proof that, in spite of the pogrom suffered by the Jews, God's help was not withdrawn from their nation. Flaccus was a person who was justly punished. In Abraham's prayer, his and the people's exile and banishment are understood paradoxically. What Abraham was lacking as an outcast, he nevertheless possessed in his Lord. Abraham, and then implicitly the Jewish people, lived a life ‘in spite of’.

Die Traditionsgeschichte der Spruchquelle Q ist nach wie vor ebenso umstritten wie die Frage nach ihrem Tradentenkreis. Der vorliegende Aufsatz versucht, am Beispiel der Wehesprüche sichtbar zu machen, daß es sinn-voll ist, die Frage nach den historischen Ereignissen, in denen sich die Tradenten von Q im 1. Jahrhundert notwendigerweise bewegten, mit der Frage nach der Traditionsgeschichte von Q zu verbinden, und daß es möglich ist, auf diesem Wege zu begründeten Feststellungen über die Geschichte der Spruchüberlieferung und über ihre Tradenten zu kommen.

Scholars tend to view the Markan Peter as a relatively impersonal figure, to a large extent blended with the group of the disciples. The idea that first-century society possessed a weak sense of the individual, the prevalence of typical figures in Greek literature, the special nature of the Gospel material, and Mark's lack of attention to Peter's future role are factors which contribute to this perspective. A survey of Mark's characterization of Peter, however, and comparison with the evangelist's portrayal of other disciples and the disciples as a group, reveals a distinctive figure and significant elements of individual human experience.

The question of Paul's identity is raised by his history as a diaspora Jew, then Pharisee, who became a believer in Messiah Jesus and apostle to the gentiles. How did he think of himself? The essay focuses on the categories ‘Jew’, ‘(in) Judaism’, ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Israel(ite)’, with particular reference to Rom 2.28–9, 1 Cor 9.20–1, Gal 1.13–14, 2 Cor 11.22, Phil 3.4–7 and Rom 11.1. It also contrasts Paul's devaluation of circumcision and food laws with his continued and characteristically Jewish hostility to idolatry and sexual licence. Paul's identity was evidently in transition, both rooted in his Jewish heritage and responding to fresh revelation, thus reflecting the emerging identity of Christianity.

Dans le contexte romantique où a pris naissance l’exégèse scientifique au dix-neuvième siècle, l’interprétation psychologique proposée par Schleiermacher et les postulats positivistes qui ont marqué la théorie de la compréhension de Dilthey, ont influencé la conception du sens littéral de la Bible, conçlu comme ‘sens voulu par l’auteur’. Mais l’herméneutique a pris un tournant décisif sous l’influence de la phénoménologie de la connaissance. Le rapport intrinsèque et circulaire entre l’objet connu et le sujet connaissant, approfondi par Heidegger, a été repris et développé par Bultmann (précompréhension), Gadamer (appartenance, fusion des horizons) et Ricoeur (distanciation, cercle explication-compréhension). Les méthodes littéraires récentes proposent des procédures d’analyse des textes pour bien faire advenir du sens. La quête est mise sur l’intention de l’oeuvre plutôt que de l’auteur et sur l’apport du sujet-lecteur, ce qui conduit à reconnaître la lecture plurielle et la tradition des effets de sens. La réflexion sur le sens biblique se doit, toutefois, de tenir compte des caractères spécifiques des textes bibliques, notamment la réalité historique à leur source et ce que recouvre la notion de sens spirituel.

The Jerusalem church called itself oι πτωχoι (Gal 2.10), probably from Isa 61.1, and held a prophetic Christology (Acts 3, 7). The Ebionites in Irenaeus and Epiphanius traced their name to Acts 2–5, and held Jesus to have been a prophetic figure, conceived naturally and possessed by the Spirit/‘Christ’ from baptism till before the passion. The same prophetic/possessionist Christology seems to be taught by Jewish Christians opposed by Justin and Ignatius: the ‘docetists’ believed that Christ (not Jesus) seemed to have suffered. It is also opposed by Polycarp, by John (especially in 1 John 4–5), by Paul (dramatically in 1 Cor 12.1–3), and in the pre-Marcan traditions.

When Paul uses the verb πρoεγραϕη in Gal 3.1 he is not referring to an earlier writing of his, nor is he appealing to prophecies written in scripture. It may be possible to see here an allusive employment of mystery vocabulary. The dominant view is that πρoγραϕη implies a purely verbal depiction of Christ, the visual language being understood metaphorically. This article argues that the visual aspect of πρoγραϕη signifies Paul's display of the crucified Christ who was living in him according to the immediately preceding verses 2.19–21. Paul displayed the crucified Christ primarily in persecution suffered for his gospel.

Le rapport de continuité observé dans les développements de thématiques qui se prolongent du troisième évangile au livre des Actes des Apôtres sont des manifestations de l’unité du double ouvrage lucanien. À partir du lien établi entre les contenus de Lc 12.10–12 et d’Ac 4.16–18, cet article démontre: (1) que le rejet par le Sanhédrin du miracle opéré par Pierre et Jean, en Actes, est l’accomplissement de l’annonce du péché contre l’Esprit par Jésus, en Luc; (2) que ce rapport d’accomplissement est un lieu de vérification de l’unité théologique de Luc/Actes.

The paper provides a study of the disciples and family of Jesus in Mark 3.13–35. It argues, against the prevailing interpretations, that (1) Mark 3.13–35 should be viewed as a subsection of 3.13–6.13, thus 3.20–35 should not be read in isolation from 3.13–19. (2) Recognising the connection of 3.13–19 to 3.22–35 by 3.20–21 points the way to identifying the twelve as those who sought to restrain Jesus. (3) On this basis an outline reading of 3.20–35 is given. Four groups fall under critique here: the twelve, the crowd, the scribes from Jerusalem and the family, the last of these less severely than the other three groups. (4) Family is redefined in terms of discipleship and discipleship in terms of family. (5) The study also argues that, according to Mark, the households of supporters were the strategic centres of the Jesus movement. These are contrasted with synagogues and Temple, which are places of opposition to the Jesus movement.

Jesus’ answer to the High Priest in 18.20 offers a key to the pattern of his ministry. Each of the pairs ‘openly: secretly’; ‘the world: the Jews’ and ‘synagogue and Temple’ function significantly in the Gospel, but the last named are most important. In each of the Gospels, ‘synagogue’, ‘house’, and ‘Temple’ play narrative roles in the exploration of the relationship between Jesus with his community and the community of the Scriptures and contemporary Judaism. John's use of these narrative spatial-markers is very different and does not trace the separation of John's community from the synagogue, as often supposed. Instead, the Temple is the place for divine manifestation and where Jesus must be both revealed and rejected.

The epistle contains three OT quotations as well as several biblical allusions and examples; other sources (such as Ben Sira) are not discernible. James collected excerpt-material from a wide background, not just by oral tradition – hence ‘intertextuality’. In a similar way the OT quotations, all combative in nature, seem to have been taken from secondary sources, viz. from Pauline (ch. 2) and ‘Petrine’ (ch. 4) traditions. Probably James had no direct access to a full OT text or longer parts of it. Nevertheless he uses ‘scripture’ as an authority and may have had a concept of canon.

The article explores Gal 1.14 and Acts 22.3, two statements where Paul is said to be a ζηλωτη´ς. The term is a noun, meaning ‘Zealot’. However, interpreters and commentators have always interpreted the term as an adjective, meaning ‘zealous’. By understanding Paul's statement as an adjective, interpreters and commentators have dissociated Paul from the Zealot movement which was emerging during this period of time within Judaism. However, Paul appears in these passages to claim that the Zealot movement was a powerful influence upon his formative Jewish life and theology and was a motivating factor in his persecution of the Christians. This article proposes that we seriously consider Zealot influences in the formative years of Paul.

Readings of Mark 1.12–13 which focus on Jesus as the second Adam or Israel's antitype are problematic. Mark 1.13's semantic field links up with passages in the Jewish Bible referring to episodes of Israel's period in the wilderness after the exodus. In Mark 1.13 the testing motif seems not to be applied to the people, but to Jesus, who may be understood as the leader of the people. Similar adaptations of the testing motif focusing upon the people's leader can be observed already in passages of the Hebrew Bible and post-biblical Jewish literature.

Der Vergleich der beiden Seereisen in Apg 18.18–22a und 20–21 ergibt, daß der Verfasser der Apg in Apg 20–21 eine Quelle verwertet, und zwar den ersten Teil eines Rechenschaftsberichts, den ein Mitglied der in 20.4 genannten Kollektendelegation nach der Rückkehr aus Jerusalem angefertigt hat. Diese Quelle war von vornherein im ‘Wir’-Stil verfaßt. Dagegen gehen die Reiseroute und das ‘Wir’ von Apg 16.10–17; 17.1 (Übergang nach Europa; Beginn der Mission in Philippi) auf Lukas selbst zurück, der so einen gemeinsamen Rahmen für die selbständige Mission des Paulus (Apg 16–19) bildet. Lukas betont dabei besonders die Lenkung des Geschehens durch den Geist.

In der Forschung zur Johannesapokalypse ist die Deutung des ersten apokalyptischen Reiters (Apk 6.2) kontrovers. Neben die verbreitete negative Deutung traten in den letzten Jahren verschiedene Ansätze für ein positives christologisches Verständnis. In Auseinandersetzung damit wird ein bisher nicht berücksichtigtes Problem besonders in den Blick genommen, daß nämlich der erste Reiter einerseits positiv interpretiert werden kann, dann aber andererseits als ein Siegel am siebenfach versiegelten Buch zu deuten ist, das nicht als Buch des Gerichtes, sondern als Lebensbuch des Lammes verstanden werden muß. Schließlich wird seine konzeptuelle Bedeutung im Zusammenhang mit dem Reiter von Apk 19 beschrieben.

Considerations of language, context, and ideational content suggest that Rom 1.18–2.29 is a non-Pauline interpolation: (1) the language of 1.18–32 and, to a lesser extent, that of chap. 2 is not typically Pauline; (2) it is difficult to relate Rom 1.18–2.29 convincingly to Rom 1.1–17, and its relation to chap. 3 is at best strained; and (3) much of the ideational content of chap. 2 and, to a somewhat lesser extent, that of 1.18–32 is non-Pauline and even anti-Pauline. In addition, it is possible that the text of Romans used by Marcion did not contain 1.19–2.1.

L’auteur de Luc–Actes use d’un procédé rhétorique de double signification, qui oriente la lecture aussi bien vers une culture nourrie de la LXX que vers une conceptualité gréco-romaine. Exemples de cette ambivalence sémantique: Lc 23.47; Ac 4.32–4; 17.16–34; 18.13; 27.1–28, 10, etc. Ce procédé témoigne d’une volonté de fixer l’identité chrétienne entre Jérusalem et Rome, inscrivant le christianisme à la fois comme la continuité d’une histoire de salut et comme une réponse à la quête religieuse gréco-romaine. Le programme théologique qui se dessine ainsi rapproche Luc de Flavius Josèphe.