Luke's physical description of Zacchaeus as ‘short in stature’ is usually given scant attention in the scholarly literature. The reference is illuminated, however, when read in light of the ‘physiognomic consciousness’ that permeated the ancient world and the rhetorical practice of using physical abnormalities, such as shortness, to ridicule one's adversary. This physical characterization joins with the other descriptors of ‘rich’ and ‘tax collector’ to form the derisive image of a Zacchaeus who is traitorous, small-minded, and greedy. But Luke's intention is to reverse these conventional tropes to show that the penitent Zacchaeus is also a ‘son of Abraham’.

It is commonly stated that while the author of Acts records some conversions that resulted from Paul's Athenian ministry, it is unlikely that a church was established in the city. This article argues, through an analysis of the use of the κολλάω word family in Luke-Acts, the Septuagint, early Christian writings and other relevant texts, that Luke uses the participle κολληθέντɛς as a way of signifying that a Christian community was indeed gathered together in Athens at this time. Leaving other social groups to join Paul and the other new believers, the new group is fused together by their shared faith, forming a new faith community in this ancient city.

The Benedictus is Luke's own composition. Its syntax is perspicuous, provided that 1.71 is understood as zeugma and 1.73 as hyperbaton. It has three parts in 3 + 5 + 5 double lines; their topics are eschatological (1.68–70: messianic hopes), ecclesiological (1.71–75: God's covenant) and soteriological (1.76–79: remission of sins). The oath sworn to Abraham and granted to ‘us’ (1.73) forms the centre. The hymn originates in Luke's sophisticated theological reflection, his knowledge of LXX, and his literary skill which is confirmed by the stichometric proportions of the passage.

Die Gesetzesinterpretation bei Paulus und Jesus soll durch ein erstes Eingehen auf die Beiträge der modernen Toposforschung gefördert werden. Dieses Vorhaben ruht auf der Voraussetzung, daß biblische Exgeten sich nach wie vor den Methoden der literaturwissenschaftlichen Forschung verpflichtet wissen, und daß die moderne Toposforschung für die Exegese von besonderem Interesse ist. Dieses Interesse wird allerdings im negativen Sinn dadurch bestimmt, daß im Fall der Gesetzesinterpretation bei Paulus oder Jesus methodisch immer noch weitgehend einseitig, wenn nicht gar ausschließlich historisch oder theologisch vorgegangen wird. Im positiven Sinn aber wird das Interesse an der modernen Toposforschung dadurch bestimmt, daß man in der literaturwissenschaftlichen Arbeit, zu der ja die biblische Exegese gehört, neuerdings von ‘radikalen Veränderungen’ spricht, die angeblich notwendig sind angesichts der Forderung, daß in dieser Arbeit ‘nach den Regeln eines expliziten Argumentationsschemas argumentiert… und über den Status der verwendeten Daten, Begründungen, Stützungshypothesen etc. entschieden und die empirische Qualität von argumentativen Ergebnissen diskutiert werden soll’.2 Beim Eingehen auf diese Forderung verdient der rhetorische Topos besondere Beachtung.

L'importance de Rom. v. 12 vient directement de son contenu religieux très riche, indirectement de l'utilisation capitale qu'en a faite la théologie chrétienne; il est naturel que son étude a été souvent reprise: une lecture critique visant à justifier avec précision les formules du verset, et tout particulièrement la fin de celui-ci, aboutira à la présentation d'une exégèse qui n'exclut pas la probabilité d'autres explications, et le champ restera libre pour une recherche ultérieure.

In the course of an inquiry into the origins of Luke's understanding of the poor I was forced to ask the question how far Luke might have been influenced not only by certain texts in Isaiah but also by wider themes. In answer to this question one is often referred to C. H. Dodd's According to the Scriptures, where he concluded that when NT authors quoted small OT texts they often did so with knowledge of larger passages or collections of passages from which the text was drawn. This principle has become a commonplace and is frequently used illegitimately to find ideas in the NT which are not otherwise discernible.1 The recent study of B. Lindars (‘The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology: Prolegomena’, N. T. S. xxiii (1977), 59–66) argues that NT writers had no interest in the meaning of the OT for its own sake, but simply quarried texts to support and illustrate a pre-existing NT theology. Both these views need to be kept in mind. It may be that each is correct in different places. What is needed is a closer study of the practice of individual authors and their use of different parts of the OT. Only then will it be possible to give any confident judgement of how much an NT author may have carried in the way of related ideas, theology and contextual understanding when he quotes or alludes to the OT.2

It is well known that earlier ways of measuring the style of Paul's epistles have in recent years been supplemented by specific tests based on calculations of the frequency of certain particles, sentence lengths, use of the subjunctive, use of specific tenses and the like. Two prominent works using such methods reach very different conclusions. In an important recent book Anthony Kenny puts forward a conclusion phrased in terms which reflect the judicious caution of one well versed in philosophy. He does not boldly assert that it is probable that Paul wrote twelve of the surviving epistles, merely that on the evidence which he collected he saw ‘no reason to reject the hypothesis that twelve of the Pauline epistles are the work of a single, unusually versatile author’.

The formula ’he or she who has an ear let him or her hear’ occurs eight times in the Book of Revelation. The formula will be called ‘Hearing formula’ (an invitation to hear). In German it is often called ’Weckformel’ or ‘Weckruf’. In the Book of Revelation the formula is used seven times in the second and third chapters in connection with the letters and once in the 13th chapter combined with an apocalyptic vision.

Die Versuche, auf Grund von Apok. xvii. 9–12 über die Abfassung der Schrift Klarheit zu gewinnen, sind überaus zahlreich. Viele Ausleger haben an diesem Text ihren Scharfsinn erprobt. Trotzdem ist man über plausible und vorzuziehende Lösungen nicht hinausgekommen.1 Die Schwierigkeit liegt bekanntlich darin, daß die Reihenfolge der römischen Kaiser nur mit Mühe den einzelnen Aussagen angepaßt werden kann. Sie lauten:

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.

Es ist zu beobachten, daß Untersuchungen zum theologischen Begriff Evangelium neben Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gattung Evangelium weitgehend unverbunden herlaufen.

In an article entitled ‘Zum Problem “Johannes und die Synoptiker”, S. Mendner has again raised the question of the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics (Syn). Comparing John vi. 1–30 with the synoptic parallels, he discovers that John's account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand is a literary development of the synoptic account. On the other hand Mark and Matthew have moulded the account of Jesus walking on the sea after the Johannine example.

When scholars discuss the compositional processes of the Gospel of Mark, one of the important questions is the extent to which the evangelist drew on earlier sources. Mark seems to have collected and reordered a great amount of disparate material and given it his own stamp in order to produce something new. But the details of this process of collection, redaction, and composition are not at all clear. To what extent were those traditions already gathered or collected before Mark? Were the pre-Marcan materials transmitted in oral or written form? What degree of freedom did the gospel writer employ in taking over, adapting, or rewriting earlier sources?

Paul's own behaviour is not as open to scrutiny as that of some of his congregations. Comparisons are possible, with limited success, between the reports of his actions in Acts and what he himself says in his letters. Certain kinds of behaviour can be guessed at through a careful analysis of his letters. Rarely, however, do we have in his letters a passage that is as pregnant with implications – particularly for an understanding of his behaviour – as I Corinthians 9. 19–23. The purpose of what follows is to explore an inconsistency between what Paul says about his own behaviour in that passage and what he says with regard to Peter's behaviour in Galatians 2. 11–14. Attention will be focused on ethics, apostolic accommodation, and the relation between Paul and Peter as primitive Christian missionaries.

It has long been noted by interpreters of Luke 2.1–3 that by the reference to Caesar Augustus and his decree Luke opens up a worldwide horizon in order to underline the universal importance of Jesus’ birth. While the recent discussion of this short passage is largely concerned with explaining the historical background of the decree and its initiator Augustus, the present study, in which Luke-Acts is read as a narrative, provides a detailed analysis of the Lukan picture of Caesar Augustus. By use of a narratological approach it examines how Luke characterizes the figure of this Roman emperor and what role he and the decree play in the narrative in Luke 1–2, especially in relation to the characterization of God and Jesus Christ. At the end of this study its results are related to the geographical orientation of the world presented by Luke in the first two chapters of his Gospel.

Daß die Königsherrschaft Gottes auch im lukanischen Doppelwerk als wichtiger theologischer ‘Leitbegriff’ fungiert, signalisiert allein schon die erst- und letztmalige Verwendung dieses Begriffs: Mit dem Logion von Lk 4.43, das eine Gesamtdeutung der Sendung Jesu liefert, und dem letzten Satz seines Werkes in Apg 28.31 legt Lukas einen Rahmen um seine Darstellung, der durch das Stichwort der βασιλεία το θεο dem Ganzen unübersehbare Kohärenz verleiht. Dazu paßt, daß Lukas auch in dem Bericht über die 40 Tage zwischen Ostern und Himmelfahrt, der die beiden Teile seines Doppelwerkes miteinander verknüpft, das Basileia-Thema aufgreift (Apg 1.3, 6). Die Gottesherrschaft ist hier zum Bestandteil eines geschichtstheologischen Gesamtentwurfs geworden, der aufgrund seiner Abständigkeit zum historischen Jesus naturgemäß auch dessen Basileia-Verkündigung nur gebrochen rezipieren konnte.—In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat sich nun vor allem das ‘eschatologische Büro' mit diesem Thema befaßt. Gegenstand der Diskussion ist vor allem, in welcher Weise die Erfahrung der sich dehnenden Zeit (d.h. der Parusieverzögerung und des zunehmenden Abstands von den Anfängen der Christentumsgeschichte) als für die lukanische Basileia-Konzeption maßgeblich zu veranschlagen ist. Die einzelnen Diskussionsbeiträge orientieren sich dabei weitgehend an einem durch Zeitkategorien definierten Koordinatensystem, mit dessen Hilfe das Wie der Präsenz der Basileia in der Gegenwart (der gewesenen des irdischen Jesus sowie der augenblicklichen des Lukas) und das Wann ihres Kommens in der Zukunft (der nahen oder der fernen) verortet wird.

L'pisode vanglique des tentations de Jsus dans le dsert (Marc i. 1213; Matt. iv. 111; Luc iv. 113) soulve des problmes sur lesquels les exgtes n'ont pas encore pu se mettre d'accord:2 problme littraire de la relation tablir entre les trois rcits, problme de la signification de cet pisode dans la pense de ceux qui nous l'ont transmis. La discussion n'est pas toujours mene avec beaucoup de mthode; on tranche les questions de dpendance sur des impressions trop personnelles, on interprte le rcit en fonction de proccupations psychologiques qui lui sont certainement trs trangres. Le point de dpart d'une solution valable devrait tre cherch dans une confrontation attentive de ce rcit avec les sources qu'il utilise. C'est en tenant compte de ces sources qu'on peut se faire une ide un peu prcise de la manire dont il a t compos et des intentions dont il tmoigne.