The first text in the Akhmîm codex discovered in Upper Egypt in 1886–87 was confidently identified as the Gospel of Peter, mentioned by Eusebius in his description of the activities of the second-century bishop Serapion. Although the Akhmîm text is dated palaeographically between the seventh and ninth centuries, it is seen as being a witness to a text that dates from at least as early as the second century. This position appeared to have been strengthened by the identification of a number of early papyrus fragments as belonging to the Gospel of Peter. This paper calls into question such identifications, and consequently suggests caution should be exercised before too quickly making the conclusion that the text from Akhmîm is to be identified with the second-century Gospel of Peter.

Since Joachim Jeremias' Jesu Verheissung für die Völker (1956) it has often been assumed that in Matt 8.11–12 Jesus looked forward to the inclusion of gentiles into the kingdom at the eschaton. However, several recent studies, most notably by Dale C. Allison, have called this view into question and have instead advocated that the logion refers to the regathering of the Diaspora. The purpose of this study is to evaluate Allison's arguments and to propose that a gentile reference is implicit in the logion based on: (1) the broader context of the inter-textual echoes of passages concerning the regathering of Jewish exiles; and (2) a wider ethnic membership for those who participate in the patriarchal banquet based on the reference to ‘Abraham’. Furthermore, the logion is interpreted in the historical Jesus' ministry through the lens of a partially realized eschatology. As such the saying represents Jesus' contention that Israel's restoration was already becoming a reality and that gentiles were already entering the kingdom as an embryonic foretaste of their inclusion at the eschaton.

Within the current discussion of myth in New Testament theology this article reconsiders the ongoing myth debate between Greco-Roman, Jewish and Christian authors against the background not of atheism but of philosophical theology. Over against its challenges Greco–Roman authors defend the myth as exemplum within a sociologically framed accommodation theory and interpret problematic texts using allegorical exegesis. Jewish and Christian authors follow these patterns. In particular, ancient Christian commentators on the Bible use the ancient category of ‘myth as exemplum’ to understand the activities of God and Jesus Christ not only as the base but also as an exemplum for the pious life.

Current methodological discussion within the field of New Testament studies focuses today on the influence of the work and its history, and is often motivated by newer findings in linguistics and literary criticism. Such inquiry is broadened through its correlation to reception theory, i.e. that inquiry that focuses on how readers understood the work during the course of its transmission or reception. By contrast to the above, textual criticism is that science that tries to discover the ‘original text’ as exactly as possible. Here I would like to ask, to what extent do the ‘witnesses’ (e.g. manuscripts, versions, quotations, etc.) of textual criticism also function as interpreters and ‘receivers’ of the text. In all three of the topics handled here we have been aware of an interaction between text and reader.

Eine Reihe von μαρτυρεω-bzw. μαρτυρια-Belegen im vierten Evangelium rufen förmlich synoptische Zeugnisse auf. Das ist nicht verwunderlich, wenn man zur Kenntnis nimmt, dass es auch sonst johanneische Befunde der unzweideutigen Kenntnis, Verwendung und Umgestaltung synoptischer Vorlagen gibt. Dabei ist sorgfältig auf subtile unterschiedliche Tempusverwendung im Johannesevangelium, zumal den Gebrauch des Perfekts zum Ausdruck schriftlicher Textreferenz zu achten. Zu der fundamentalen Täufermartyria, die die Evangelienerzählung eröffnet, bildet Joh 19.35, der ursprünglich μαρτυρεω-Beleg, eine Inklusion, indem unter dem Kreuz anstelle des Bekenntnisses des römischen Centurio (Mk 15,39) ausdrücklich an die Verkündigung des ersten Christus-Zeugen (Jon 1.29–34) erinnert wird.

The question as to whether Jesus preached repentance has been discussed in historical Jesus research over the past twenty years, apparently without any scholarly consensus being at hand. This article seeks to eliminate some unnecessary confusion from the debate by investigating early Jewish conceptions of repentance and suggesting that a distinction should be maintained between moral and ritual repentance. It argues that Jesus, while most probably expecting moral repentance of his followers, did not uphold the customary rites of repentance. The article suggests some reasons for Jesus' avoidance of traditional penitential prayers and practices, which may account for the instances of strong criticism against him indicated by the synoptic Gospels.

The recent interest in social memory theories among NT scholars promises a new framework for the study of the social dynamics reflected in the Gospels. This essay employs Eviatar Zerubavel's ‘sociomental typography’ of the ‘sociobiographical memory’ in order to conceptualize the contours of the Sitz im Leben of the Gospel of Matthew. The perspective of social memory as described by Zerubavel reveals the mnemonic character of the Sitz im Leben and discloses how those participating in it related to and used the Gospel of Mark, identified with the scribal traits of the Matthean disciples, cherished Peter, and situated themselves in history.

Those who have identified the specific charges of the judicial proceedings in Thessalonica according to Acts 17.6–9 have generally taken one of two routes. The traditional view is that Paul and Silas were accused of treason (maiestas). Just over three decades ago, however, E. A. Judge put forth an alternative hypothesis that the decrees of Caesar in Acts 17.7 referred to imperial laws against predicting the change of ruler. After challenging these two explanations, this essay puts forward a fresh proposal – that both the charges and the seizure of payment in this judicial episode relate to the imperial laws repressing Graeco-Roman voluntary associations.

This article proposes to interpret the appearance of the risen Jesus to the community of the disciples on Easter evening in terms of a Johannine theology and spirituality and as integral to the Johannine resurrection narrative as a whole. The scene is a narrative exploration of Johannine ecclesiology, that is, the establishment of the New Covenant with the New Israel and the raising of the New Temple, the body of Jesus, in it midst.

For the last 150 years the Gospel of Marcion has been considered to be an abbreviated edition of the canonical Luke. This article renews the reverse hypothesis of Marcion's priority to Luke, Luke therefore being a revised and enlarged edition of Marcion. The arguments include a critique of the traditional view, based primarily on its failure to verify Marcion's alleged editorial concept on the basis of his text, and to solve the problem what Marcion would have done with Acts. On the other hand, the beginning of Luke (esp. 1.1–4; 4.16–30) suggests that the differences between both editions are best understood as Lukan additions to Marcion rather than Marcionite abbreviations of Luke. This Lukan, anti-Marcionite revision is very close to the Four-Gospel-collection and first created the unity of Luke–Acts.

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.

The narrative of Acts has often been mined for historical information about the monetary collection that Paul raised among the Gentile churches of his mission for the saints in Jerusalem. Most scholars have assumed that Acts refers to the Pauline collection, either in 11.27–30 or 24.17. Against this consensus, this paper contends that the narrative of Acts, when read on its own terms and without the imposition of information from the Pauline epistles, neither mentions nor alludes to Paul's collection for Jerusalem. In its narrative context, Acts 24.17, far from being a reference to the collection, identifies Paul before his accusers as a faithful Jew whose individual piety is demonstrated by almsgiving and worship. Information from the book of Acts, therefore, cannot be used to write the final chapter of the historical reconstruction of the Pauline collection.

Röm 2 ist kein antijudaistischer Text, sondern zunächst Teil des innerjüdischen Israel-Diskurses, von dem er sich aber zugunsten einer universalen Verurteilung der Menschheit vor Gottes Forum fortentwickelt und damit universal-anthropologische Dimensionen annimmt. Die Heftigkeit der Polemik gegen bestimmte Juden resultiert aus der unerhörten These des Paulus, auch gesetzestreue Juden, die im Bund leben, seien vor Gott nicht gerecht, sondern schuldig. Um die Leserschaft von dieser These zu überzeugen, bedient Paulus sich einer so starken diatribischen Polemik, dass diese ethischen Schuhtexte trotz ihrer anthropologischen Intention antijudaistisch wirken. Weiterhin führt Paulus in Röm 2 nicht das Gericht nach Werken neu ein, sondern beschreibt den Ist-Zustand des Verhältnisses zwischen Gott und den Menschen in der adamitischen Welt, dies aber im Horizont der neuen Existenz in Christus, die Inhalt seines Evangeliums ist. Daraus entwickelt sich eine neue christliche Universalanthropologie.

This article argues that when the fundamentally Jewish character of 1 Corinthians is recognized, a clear structure and argument emerges. The order of the material reflects Paul's own agenda seen in patterns elsewhere in his letters. While unity is clearly a significant issue, Paul's main concern is with the purity of the church and the glory of God. The Corinthian church is part of the fulfillment of the OT expectation of worldwide worship of the God of Israel, and as God's eschatological temple they must act in a manner appropriate to their holy status by shunning pagan vices and glorifying God under the lordship of Christ.

Baptism in the Corinthian church was an expression of allegiance to honour not only Christ but also the ‘patron’ apostle in whose testimony the convert had believed (1 Cor 1.12–17). Some apostles known to the Corinthians had died (cf. 15.6), yet their testimony lived on and bore fruit in Corinth, resulting in baptism for the honouring of the dead apostles. In the context of 15.20–34 Paul uses this practice to expose the hypocrisy of those who deny the resurrection and yet seek to honour apostles who depend on the resurrection for receiving honour, as do Christ and God the Father.

Certain ancient philosophers (Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, Julian, and Macarius Magnes' critic) responded antagonistically to the New Testament. Their responses to several New Testament themes that appear in Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians and one specific text (1 Thess 4.15–17) show how difficult it was to persuade some individuals to give up paganism. Their criticisms of the New Testament probably indicate how the antagonists would have read 1 Thessalonians. The essay is a contribution to the history of the reception of the New Testament.

Two sources, the Acts of the Apostles and the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, inform us of the arrival, sojourn and activity of Paul in Thessalonica (Acts 17.1–9; 1 Thess 1.6–2.12), but they hardly tally with each other. Evidence of the Lukan redactor's hand in Acts 17.1–9 invites us to see this narrative as secondary, perhaps, in relation to the account Paul himself gives in 1 Thessalonians, particularly in 1 Thess 2.1–12. It would be of interest, then, to analyse this passage in Paul's letter to detect how he himself portrays the first

Unter der Leitfrage ‘Was überzeugt und gewinnt die Hörer?’ werden die (1) Authentizität des Redners sowie die Techniken der (2) Visualisierung, der (3) Einwirkung auf die Affekte und des Raumlassens für (4) Kreativität des Hörers behandelt. Mit paulinischem Material lassen sich Quintilians Erkenntnisse zu diesen vier Themen exemplifizieren. Sodann kommen der Prozess der (5) Kreativität des Autors/Redners sowie das (6) Gedächtnis in den Blick.

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.

Die größten Schwierigkeiten bei dem Versuch, 2 Kor als einheitlichen Brief zu lesen, bieten zum einen der Kontextbezug und die unpaulinischen Züge von 6.14–7.1, zum anderen der Anschluss der Kap. 10–13 an den vorangehenden Kontext. Getrennt haben diese beiden Fragen bisher keine überzeugende Lösung gefunden. Die hier vertretene These lautet: Die beiden Schwierigkeiten bedingen sich gegenseitig, denn der Textabschnitt 6.14–7.1 stellte ursprünglich die jetzt fehlende Verbindung zwischen den Kap. 1–9 und 10–13 her und wurde sekundär von dort an seine jetzige Stelle versetzt. Wird diese Versetzung rückgängig gemacht, der Text also zwischen Kap. 9 und 10 eingefügt, erhält er einen klaren Kontextbezug; andererseits entsteht ein sinnvoller Übergang von 1–9 zu 10–13. Es lässt sich plausibel erklären, wie und warum der Text aus seiner ursprünglichen Kontextstellung gelöst und an seiner jetzigen Stelle eingefügt wurde.