The ‘Paulus and Jesus’ seminar at the SNTS meeting at Trondheim in 1985 decided not to investigate the ‘sachliche Kontinuität’ between Jesus and Paul in their preaching and conduct at the following session, but rather the ‘sachliche Entsprechung’; this terminology was chosen because earlier studies, in particular of Paul's use of Jesus-traditions (by Dr N. Walter at Basel in 1984) and of the possibility that the Hellenists were a ‘bridge between Jesus and Paul’ (by Professor H. Räisänen in Trondheim), had, through no fault of the excellent and judicious papers of these two scholars,’ seemingly shown that the traditionsgeschichtliche question implied by the term ‘Kontinuität’ had proved a blind alley. The purpose of the present study is, however, to show that the question of continuity is nevertheless a necessary one that cannot and should not be avoided, and moreover that it need not be quite as fruitless as might seem to be the case.

An den Problemkreis ‘Paulus und Jesus’ kann man mit verschieden akzentuierten Fragestellungen herangehen. Aus primär traditionsgeschichtlich orientiertem Interesse wird erörtert, welche Teile der Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus als bekannt vorauszusetzen sind. Eine vor allem theologisch ausgerichtete Aufmerksamkeit wendet sich vergleichend dem Zentrum der Verkündigung Jesu und der Botschaft des Paulus zu. In der vorliegenden Studie soll ergänzend versucht werden, das Verhalten Jesu und Pauli gegenüberstellend zu betrachten, und zwar unter dem für beide charakteristischen Aspekt des dienenden Verzichts.

The publication of George Kennedy's New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism marked the full realization of a growing trend in NT criticism, whereby scholars are beginning to look beyond the limitations of form- and source-criticism for another viable hermeneutical tool. Rhetorical criticism has its origins in the classical canons conceptualized and formulated by the principal rhetoricians of Greek and Roman antiquity, such as Aristotle and Quintilian. This methodology sprang from roots in the ancient world; rhetoric was ‘one of the constraints under which New Testament writers worked’. But it has a universality that transcends its own cultural boundaries, as well as an extraordinary practicality: ‘ … it does study a verbal reality, our text of the Bible, rather than the oral sources standing behind that text, the hypothetical stages of its composition, or the impersonal workings of social forces, and at its best it can reveal the power of those texts as unitary messages’’. Often, too, it is capable of slashing through exegetical Gordian knots that prove otherwise intractable. The ability of rhetorical criticism to evaluate even the more opaque or mystical portions of the NT is a measure of its effectiveness.

Fraglos sagt Paulus in Röm 9 einiges über Israel und auch etwas über die Kirche, und ebenso fraglos spielt Rö;m 9 bei der Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Israel und Kirche eine Rolle – eine viel zu geringe, wenigstens gegenwärtig, wie jemand jüngst meinte, zu Unrecht, wie ich gleich hinzu-fügen möchte -. Doch wichtiger ist, zunächst und vor allem herauszufinden, was Paulus in Röm 9 tatsächlich über Israel und die Kirche gesagt hat. Das ist freilich keine leichte Aufgabe. Denn was genau das Thema ist, wie die Gedankenführung im einzelnen aussieht und was jeweils ein Ausdruck meint, das ist in Röm 9 noch schwerer zu erfassen als in Röm 10 + 11. Nicht umsonst hat einer der sorgfältigsten Ausleger von Röm 9–11 vom ‘rätselvollen Dunkel’ in Röm 9 gesprochen, und dieses Dunkel wird auch dadurch nicht heller, daß reformatorische Dogmatik unter Rückgriff auf Augustin in Röm 9 einen locus classicus für die PrädestMationslee fand und daß seit dem 19. Jhdt. solche dogmatische Verwendung von Röm 9 immer wieder energisch zurückgewiesen wurde. Vor über 100 Jahren ver-merkte ein Theologe, Röm 9 sei trotz der ‘verschiedenen neueren Commentare und biblisch-theologischen Erörterungen noch immer eine crux interpretum’; das läszlig;t sich heute wörtlich wiederholen.

The long history of research on Paul's style has neglected to a large extent the question of the functions of the various stylistic techniques used in his letters. This statement, however, needs some clarification. By ‘style’ here is not meant the traditional figures of speech and figures of thought, but all the linguistic choices an author has made in the light of restrictions imposed on him by the rhetorical situation. These choices include such things as vocabulary, grammatical forms, sentence patterns, sentence length, coherence devices, rhetorical figures, paragraphing, etc. ‘Function’ again does not refer to the familiar efforts of linking these linguistic choices with Greek and Roman textbooks on rhetoric and style; nor does it refer to the general remarks in grammars and other works on the Greek NT, when they speak of the emotional or emphatic or forceful function of certain stylistic figures. By ‘function’ here is meant what Kennedy calls ‘function in context’.

The Greek word έξήγησις means ‘explanation’ or ‘interpretation’. When applied to the Bible, it would appear to mean ‘explication de texte’. However, Biblical exegetes are often in the habit of contrasting what they do with ‘eisegesis’, i.e. the imposition of ‘subjective’ meanings onto the text. This contrast suggests that the meaning derived by exegesis is gotten ‘out of’ the text, where it is thought to reside, by means of the ‘correct’ exegetical methods, of which the exegete is the master. Like Philip the Evangelist, the exegete responds to the plea for help implied in the reader's befuddled question, ‘How can I [understand], unless someone guides me?’ (Acts 8.31).

Gehenna, we all know, is a Hebrew word which means hell. It appears often in Jewish texts of the Hellenistic and Roman periods as well as in the New Testament. In this paper we hope to show that the use of this word in Matthew and Luke, when analyzed in the context of Jewish notions of retribution, offers us an important key to understanding Matthew's and Luke's beliefs concerning eschatology, retribution, and their interrelationship.

The variants found in the Greek text of Acts that are included in this paper have been selected for three reasons: 1) They all contain readings which have the combined support of the Byzantine majority text and papyri. These have been taken from the lists to be found in Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville, Camden, New York: Thomas Nelson, 1984). 2) They have a bearing on a recent study of Acts by M-E. Boismard and A. Lamouille, Le Texte Occidentale des Actes des Apôtres: Reconstruction et Réhabilitation (Paris: 1984), to be referred to hereafter as B + L. In their work B + L print as Lucan two versions of Acts, the Alexandrian (TA) and the Western (TO). 3) They show differing types of scribal emendation.

The importance of the OT theophanies in relation to NT conceptions of the End has never been sufficiently realized. Again and again the prophets and psalmists spoke not merely of the Day of the Lord but they spelled this out in terms of a divine coming. Thus in Mic 1. 3 we read that ‘the Lord cometh forth out of his place, and will come down …’ Psa 96. 13 declares, ‘He cometh to judge the earth.’

The saying of the Mote and Beam (properly Chaff and Pole) has caused some difficulty; but alas an intricate and subtle saying, paradoxical (not absurd), has been domesticated by being seen as a trite commonplace. The obvious questions are why only one eye is involved: for only if both were affected could a foreign body not be extricated; and why does the seer of the Chaff have to have a Pole in his eye; why, again, does he take the initiative, offering to attend to his ‘brother’, whereas in a case of a foreign body the initiative comes from the sufferer; why is it assumed that a ‘casting out’ will occur (έκβάλλειν has a very sombre semantic scope); and whence comes that grotesque Pole (conventionally ‘beam’)? The answers must be sought in many quarters, viz. (1) a popular saying known in more than one culture, (2) the behaviour of the eye, (3) a common Jewish cluster of idioms, (4) the pious ideal in Israel on the subject of rebuke, reproof, and (5) the Law and the Prophets. Our saying has languished because information from these quarters has not been combined.

Luke's account of the anointing of Jesus (Luke 7. 36–50) seems to be one of the gospel stories which critics have examined somewhat in isolation from the context of the surrounding material. One reason for this may be that Luke has told his story almost too well, if that is possible, so that the account of the woman's act of overflowing love and its contrast with the Pharisee's lack of care for his invited guest can easily be read as a self-contained unit. It has certainly provided useful ammunition for those who have sought to denigrate the Pharisaic outlook by comparing it with Christian love; moreover, as Dibelius recognised, the woman's action and Luke's six-fold repetition which emphasises forgiveness would have made the story very valuable for illustrating sermons.