Während der letzten zwanzig Jahre – mit Ausnahme von einigen Jahren, in denen ich krankheitshalber meine Forschungsarbeit unterbrechen mußte – habe ich in meinem Fach ständig sozusagen ‘zwei Hasen’ gejagt. Mit dem einen meine ich die Erforschung der gnostischen Schriften, mit dem anderen die Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen, insbesondere lukanischen Schriften. Die Zwischenergebnisse dieser Studien habe ich im letzten Jahr in meinem japanischen Aufsatzband Studies in the New Testament and Gnosticism (Tokyo: Iwanami) veröffentlicht. Freilich gibt es in Japan ein Sprichwort, das lautet: Verfolgt man zwei Hasen, fängt man keinen. Entgegen dieser Lebensweisheit jedoch werde ich auch in den kommenden Jahren den zwei Hasen weiterhin nachjagen. Und ich habe die Hoffnung noch nicht auf-gegeben, sie auch tatsächlich zu erlegen und ihre Beziehung zueinder zu klären, damit ihre Bedeutung in der Geschichte der frühen Christenheit deutlicher dargestellt werden kann.

This article interprets Paul's self-reflections in Phil 1 in light of the most current discourse about the ‘(introspective) self’ in antiquity: it is argued that Paul – in his last letter writing during his final imprisonment (in Rome?) – offers insights into his ‘inner self’ by construing the reflective mode of introspection. Similar to how ancient philosophers – such as Seneca in his letters – develop introspection when dealing/coping with the expectatio mortis, Paul too, in Phil 1–3, has to respond to his expectation of his pending death. While Phil 1.21–6 – which is to be read in the frame of chapters 1–3 – reflects Paul's situation highly individually and autobiographically, ancient philosophical introspective speaking modes in general tend to remain generic. In its ‘autobiographical consolidation’ Phil 1.21–6 is also to be seen in a ‘contrastive analogy’ to Rom 7.

The encounter between Jesus and the woman of Samaria is unique to the fourth gospel. Water symbolism and the true nature of worship constitute two major motifs that are woven into its narration. The meeting at the well touches off a discussion about water, and this discussion leads into one on worship. The connection between the two topics has not received hitherto a satisfactory solution, A. Guilding's work has the merit of recognizing the problem but her structural solution is unsatisfactory because it fails to make any connection in sense between the two.1 A matter that arouses curiosity concerns the subject of water common to the discussion Jesus and the woman have and the preceding section of material about purification and baptism by water as discussed by a Jew,2 the disciples of John the Baptist, and the Baptist himself. The fact that the incidents in question are set down in proximity invites scrutiny. Attention to the above two problems results in an interesting interpretation of the encounter.

This article argues for a renewal of the discipline of New Testament studies through a focus on the question of truth. To make the argument, the article first engages a recent essay that is highly critical of mainstream NT scholarship and subsequently works with the thought of Søren Kierkegaard, Stanley Cavell, Cora Diamond and Hans-Georg Gadamer to pursue the interpreter's implications in the NT's assertions of truth. The article also briefly exegetes five passages from the NT to illustrate the way the NT makes claims that require judgements about truth. Along the way, the article also engages contemporary NT scholars who argue vociferously against ‘theological’ readings of the NT and others who argue for their inherent necessity.

Homosexualität ist besonders durch die gesellschaftlichen Verän–derungen in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika zunehmend zu einem Thema auch der theologischen Diskussion geworden. Dem exegetischen Befund kommt in dieser Diskussion eine ent–scheidende Bedeutung zu. Da die Ergebnisse in den Humanwissen–schaften es vielen immer schwieriger erscheinen lassen, Homosexualität in den Kategorien von Schuld und Sünde zu denken, dienen häufig die ‘eindeutigen’ biblischen Aussagen als Basis der Argumentation. Es erscheint daher angebracht, die einschlägigen Stellen exegetisch zu untersuchen und den Befund durch her–meneutische Überlegungen für eine umfassendere theologische Diskussion fruchtbar zu machen.

The occurrence and significance of the five women in Jesus' genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew has been a source of continuous scholarly debate. Taking a gender-sensitive approach, this contribution argues for looking at the five women as one group, viewing them as simultaneously accentuating the messianic line that Jesus is part of and vindicating his somewhat irregular birth, as well as substantiating the openness of Israel for Gentiles by adducing precedents from Israel's history.

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.

Over a century ago, Sören Kierkegaard remarked that Paul's thorn in the flesh ‘seems to have afforded an uncommonly favorable opportunity for everyone to become an interpreter of the Bible’. Adolf Deissmann suggested that a small library could be gathered together all dealing with Paul's illness. However, Lenski thinks we have ‘nothing but hypotheses’. Some say certainty about the identification of Paul's thorn is ‘unattainable’, that ‘nobody knows exactly what it was’ and that not even the Corinthians knew what the metaphor meant.

Substantial reasons for rethinking the function of Rom 1.18–32 have emerged in recent studies. The traditional interpretation which continues to be widely accepted asserts that 1.18–32 is one piece of a larger section, 1.18–3.20, which, as a whole, establishes the sinfulness of all humankind. Having shown that to be the case with both Gentiles and Jews, Paul then turns in 3.21 to set forth the solution to that problem. One consequence of this interpretation has been the tendency to isolate 1.18–32 from what follows. The claim of Otto Michel that Rom 1.18–32 is ‘ein Beispiel der Missions-predigt des Pls’ not only illustrates this tendency but is of special interest for the thesis of this presentation.

Johannes Weiss was the first to suggest that 2 Cor 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 was once an independent work.1 Weiss saw that the tone of these chapters varied, not only from chapter 10–13, but also from the intervening text, 2.14–7.4. Here the reconciliation is not apparent, which, in chapters 1–2 and 7, is the presupposition of Paul's joy. On the contrary, Paul must still answer charges that he has wronged, corrupted, and defrauded the Corinthians, and must plead with the Corinthians to open their hearts (2.17; 4.1–2; 6.3–13; 7.2–4). This passage must have been written at the height of the conflict, before the successful conclusion of peace. Then, Paul wrote again in a cordial manner, to assure the Corinthians of his confidence, and to remove the lingering traces of doubt. The proof of this analysis Weiss discovered in the connection between 2.13 and 7.5: the account of Paul's anxious search for Titus breaks off at the decisive point (2.13) and resumes only four chapters later (7.5) at the very point where it had broken off. ‘This separation of what belongs together is unheard of and intolerable, from a literary point of view, since 2.13 and 7.5 fit onto each other as neatly as the broken pieces of a ring.’2

Is it unfair to say that the ethical teaching of the N.T. is a step-child of scholarship? Over against ten books on N.T. theology one can hardly find one work on N.T. ethics. This holds good both for genera; surveys and for monographs. It goes without waying that the moral implications and consequences of the new faith are not absolutely neglected, but on the whole the doctrinal aspect has been stressed far more than th4e ethical. It is not my task at the present moment to explain this fact, but it did not seem out of place to call special attention to this ‘under-developed country’. Work in this part of the field is not at all superfluous. Therefore the discussion of a particular point in a paper for this general meeting will be fully justified.

The denial of angelic rule in the world to come (Heb 2.5) provides an important clue to the purpose of Christ's exaltation over the angels in Heb 1–2. The excessive reliance upon angels for national deliverance and personal protection within Second Temple Judaism posed a threat to the pre-eminence of Christ among Jewish Christians. Rather than seek ‘help’ from angels, the author exhorts his readers to hold firmly to their confidence in Jesus. For as messianic ‘Son’, only Jesus is able to ‘help’ them (Heb 2.18; 4.16) remain faithful through the perils of the coming eschatological judgment.

My primary purpose in handling this topic is to investigate the question of Paul's indebtedness to Hellenistic traditions and above all to the theology of the mystery religions. Not that I think it likely that he was directly influenced by the latter; it seems to me that A. D. Nock's arguments from the vocabulary of the New Testament, and particularly from that of the Pauline homologoumena, are too cogent for that. Rather the question must be one of the indebtedness of Paul to this milieu via Hellenistic Judaism or his more Hellenized predecessors in the Christian faith or both. And for investigating this problem Romans 6 is of prime importance, being one of the principal strands of evidence for some that the Christian beliefs of some predecessors of Paul were characterized by ‘Hellenistic enthusiasm’, beliefs which Paul then countered in this chapter. For it is widely held that Paul here corrects an enthusiastic view of an already realized resurrection, usually regarded as derived, at least indirectly, from the sacramental theology of the mysteries. Others, however, play down the clash, arguing that Paul simply assimilates such traditions, from whatever source, into his own theology; others, as we shall see, go further still and squeeze out the traces of traditional material from this chapter almost to vanishing point.

Early Christian literature leaves us with apparently conflicting traditions about the first appearance of the risen Lord, although these traditions can be reduced to at least two main classes. On the one hand, some writers give Peter pride of place; he heads the list in Paul's ‘official’ παράδοσις of I Corinthians xv, and takes priority in both Luke (xxiv. 34) and the late second-century Gospel of Peter (xiii. 57 – xiv. 60). On the other hand, some connect women with the first appearance; Matthew presents an albeit brief account of Jesus meeting the three women who had visited the tomb (xxviii. 9–10), whilst John (xx. 11–18) and the longer ending of Mark (xvi. 9) single out Mary Magdalene as the special recipient of the first appearance. As appearances of the resurrected kúpios came to acquire importance for the early Church in establishing apostolic authenticity and leadership, it is surprising that this second line of tradition persisted along with the contradictory ‘pro-Petrine’ material. Was it a source of embarrassment for those wishing to give pre-eminence to Peter? The question has usually been evaded because of the common supposition that Matthew was the first to ‘invent’ the tradition of such an appearance to women, so as to overcome ‘the impasse presented by Mark's (empty tomb) story’ before passing on towards the great summation of his Gospel; but it is also possible to affirm that Matthew (who is pro-Petrine enough, cf. xvi. 17–19) made astonishingly little out of this appearance, sparing as his comments are.

The story of the Transfiguration has received some attention in the past few decades, and the significance of Elijah and Moses has not been neglected. But their prominence in the Marcan narrative has not always been sufficiently recognized, and where it has been recognized it does not seem to have been correctly evaluated.

One of the dominant motifs of the Fourth Gospel is the centrality of Christ for any kind of relationship between man and God. This theme at least stands out as a main purpose of the author, for he sets out to persuade his readers ‘that Jesus is the Christ’, and that believing they ‘may have life in his name’ (20. 31). What is more, he points out the superiority of the revelation in and through Jesus Christ (1. 17;3. 13) as compared with all other claims to offer revelation about God. Whether the author was seeking to persuade non-believers of the truth of the Christian message or Christians to remain faithful to the faith which they already had is much disputed. As far as the present discussion is concerned, however, it will be assumed that the gospel is directed primarily to those who were believers already, rather than being evangelistic in outlook, and is intended to dissuade Jewish-Christians from abandoning their new allegiance to Christ.

The narrow dating of some of the early New Testament papyri and the methodological approach that is used must be brought into question in the light of the acknowledged difficulties with palaeographical dating and especially the use of assigned dated literary papyri. The thesis of this paper is that the way forward in dating New Testament papyri, or for that matter any undated literary papyri, is first to locate the manuscript in its graphic stream and using, on the whole, dated documentary papyri belonging to the same stream, come to an approximate understanding of where in the history of the stream the manuscript lies. The following New Testament Papyri will be so treated: P52, P67+ and P46.

Paul describes his discipleship and mission, in short his apostolate, in terms of his vision of the resurrection of the exalted Christ. The glorious body of Christ and the spiritual body are similar in substance because one is transformed into the other, a conclusion based on his own experience of visions of the risen Christ in a body but not a physical body in normal sight. This notion of Christ's risen activity contrasts strongly with the later gospel description of the risen Christ. It comes out of Jewish apocalypticism, revalued to express his new Christian vision of the end.