There is no adequate evidence of a ‘Son of Man’ concept in Jesus’ time, nor of a common Aramaism for ‘man’ (misunderstood by Aramaic-speaking evangelists). Ps 8.6 was widely used to explain the delay in Christians’ resurrection: the υιος ανθρωπου to whom all would be subjected in time was Jesus. Heb 2.8–9 makes this explicit, proving Jesus’ incarnation (‘briefly inferior to angels’), cross and resurrection (‘crowned . . . because of the suffering of death’). Mark exploits the title: Jesus was the Son of Man, prophesied to come, to die and to rise; and the similar phrase in Dan 7.13 suggests his parousia and authority.

When Paul asks for the incestuous man at Corinth to be handed over to Satan is he calling for mere physical expulsion from the community or is he calling for something more? We argue in this paper that the nature of the man's offense—i.e., an ostentatious display of sexual immorality that also receives theological justification from the perpetrator—demanded a harsher sentence beyond mere physical exclusion. Drawing on the book of Job, we show that the disciplinary practice Paul advocates in 1 Corinthians 5 is a spiritual practice that aims to remove the spiritual protection enjoyed by the incestuous man while he remained in the body of Christ, thereby exposing him to Satan's attacks. Paul's hope was that the affliction suffered by the man at the hands of Satan as a result of this exposure would lead to his repentance and ultimate salvation.

The present article argues that 666 in Rev 13.18 is best related to the notice of Solomon receiving 666 talents of gold (1 Kgs 10.14 // 2 Chr 9.13), which is, in turn, an important notice of this king's wayward and unjust practices: his inordinate wealth, exploitation of his own people and eschewing of God's law.

In his first letter to the Thessalonians, Paul addressed the occasion of deaths among Christians with stock arguments of the consolatory genre, without using the typical epistolary structure associated with consolation in ancient handbooks of letter-writing. It is demonstrated that three of Seneca the Younger's letters also employed stock arguments of consolation, but did not follow the usual structure for a letter of consolation. Using Seneca's letters as a test case for what constituted pagan ideas of consolation, we highlight some compelling reasons for reading First Thessalonians as a letter of consolation, a reading that offers some new insights into the passage on the right Christian attitude towards death in 1 Thess 4.13–5.11.

There can be no doubt that Paul considered himself an apostle at the point of his conversion. In the words of Ferdinand Hahn, Paul's ‘concept of apostleship is characterized by the fact of his being simultaneously converted, entrusted with the gospel, and sent out to the Gentiles’ When we say that Paul considered himself an ‘apostle’ we must clarify at the beginning what is meant by this term since it is susceptible of two interpretations. It could be used loosely to refer to any missionary who was ‘sent out’, as it is commonly used in the Didache. Indeed Paul occasionally used the word in this sense (e.g. 2 Cor 8. 23). However as John Knox observes, Paul's customary use of the term ‘apostle’ means ‘one who saw the Lord and was commissioned directly by him. Certainly when Paul saw himself as an “apostle”, he invariably has this higher meaning in mind.’

Our Bibles have a margin of Synoptic cross-references beside the Epistles: what does it really mean? What literary relationships exist between the Epistles and the Synoptics? I here pass by three kinds of agreement.

There are several references in the gospels of John and Matthew which indicate that members of the Pharisaic sect associated with the Jewish chief priests in a quasi-authoritative way to work for common religious or political purposes. Where these references have occurred, they have attracted attention – and indeed suspicion – as being historically inaccurate and the result of a retrojection of the role of the Pharisees in the later first century into the earlier periods of that century.

Der Philipperbrief kann auf dem Hintergrund antiker Freundschaftsethik gelesen werden. Ein Beispiel dafür liefert der Abschnitt Phil 2.25–30. Das vertraute Verhältnis, das Paulus mit der Gemeinde in Philippi teilte, wurde durch die Freundschaft zwischen Paulus und seinem geliebten ‘Bruder’ Epaphroditus gestützt. Auf der Basis antiker Freundschaftsideale von Gleichheit, Reziprozität, Gemeinschaft und Seelenverwandtschaft hat sich ein intensives freundschaftliches Verhältnis entwickelt, das ungebrochene Beziehungen zwischen den Philippern, Paulus und Epaphroditus widerspiegelt. Paulus und sein vertrauter ‘Bruder’ haben ihre Freundschaft in der Not bewährt. Durch die Teilhabe am Geschick von anderen und die Bereitschaft zur selbstlosen Lebenshingabe für andere entsprechen beide der höchsten Verpflichtung von Freunden.

The repeated elements in the mission speeches of Acts have attracted considerable attention. Some scholars believe that these repeated elements reflect a pattern of early Christian preaching; 1 others see in them a pattern of Lukan theology.2 Narrative criticism, the study of biblical narratives in light of literary theories of narrative,3 suggests that past study should be balanced by a different approach. It suggests that we should investigate the functions of the individual speeches within their narrative settings. Despite the repeated themes, the speeches differ significantly in emphasis and function. These differences relate to the narrative setting in which each speech is found, and the setting influences the speech more profoundly than is commonly recognized. It is illuminating to think of each of the speeches as an action in the unfolding narrative plot. In speaking, Peter acts to influence a particular audience at a particular point in the plot. This action and the hearers’ decision about how to respond will determine

Jesus is never explicitly identified as the ‘messiah’ or christos in Q. The conspicuous absence of this particular term—so frequently used in the Pauline letters and the Gospels—is often taken to mean that the Q community was uninterested in, unaware of and/or rejected kerygmatic traditions which understood Jesus as a ‘messianic’ figure. Yet a careful analysis of the literary structure of Q 3–7 demonstrates that the redactor of Q both appropriated and subverted ‘traditional messianic expectations’ of a popular warrior-king by framing Jesus' baptism, temptation and Inaugural Sermon within announcement and confirmation passages that serve to both affirm and qualify Jesus' relationship to ‘messianic’ traditions. Located within a text dominated by the theme of eschatological reversal, the literary structure of Q 3–7 serves as a rhetorical defense in the redactor's construction of a new identity for Jesus.

This article examines the poisonous characteristics of Lolium Temulentum L., the weed that is generally identified with the tares (zizania) mentioned in Matthew's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matt 13.24–30, 36–43). It identifies the weed, examines its pervasiveness in antiquity, as well as the nature and degree of its toxicity, and establishes that the tares of the Palestine of Jesus' day were likely poisonous. With this in mind, it considers whether the tares' toxicity is a factor in understanding the parable and its interpretation, concluding that it is very likely presupposed by both.

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.