The debate over the meaning of πίστις Χριστοῦ has been continuing for some time and shows no signs of abating, yet one conclusion has remained constant: the Church Fathers, generally, did not understand πίστις Χριστοῦ in the Pauline materials in the subjective sense as the ‘faithfulness of Christ’. Furthermore, there has heretofore been no text that correlates Jesus' faithfulness with his death on the cross in patristic writings. In light of that, the aim of this study is (1) to offer a critique of recent work on πίστις Χριστοῦ in the Church Fathers, and (2) to break the longstanding silence by presenting overlooked evidence from Hippolytus's De Christo et Antichristo that unambiguously relates Jesus' faithfulness to his death on the cross.

Wie konnte ein inhaltlich jüdisches Gebet ohne exklusiv christliche Anteile zum Zentralgebet der Christen werden? Mit der Suche nach den Gründen der Durchsetzung wird oft die Frage nach der Urheberschaft Jesu verbunden. Der Versuch einer Antwort mit Hilfe der Analyse des Inhaltes führt zu widersprüchlichen Ergebnissen. Sicher greifbar ist dagegen das Phänomen der frühen und unumstrittenen Akzeptanz des Vaterunsers, hier nimmt die vorliegende Untersuchung ihren Ausgang.

Entscheidend für die Durchsetzung des Vaterunsers war weniger sein Inhalt als seine Funktion. Durch seine schon in den Evangelien grundgelegte Kennzeichnung als ‘Gebet des κυριος’ wirkte das Vaterunser nach innen integrierend und nach außen abgrenzend. Eine weitere Christianisierung seines Inhaltes erübrigte sich. Daraus ergeben sich neue Perspektiven auf das Herkunftsproblem.

Following the introduction of a ‘Quaestiones Disputatae’ session at the 69th General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in Szeged, Hungary in 2014, a second such session was held at the 70th General Meeting at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam on 29 July 2015. The theme was proposed by the President of the Society, Prof. Judith Lieu.

Quel est le genre rhétorique du discours devant l'Aréopage (Ac 17.22–31)? Après avoir examiné et évalué les propositions précédentes en la matière, on est amené à y reconnaître le genre démonstratif, et particulièrement celui de l'éloge divin, dont ce discours partage les traits essentiels. Une lecture détaillée du discours selon les élements de sa dispositio permet alors de comprendre la portée des arguments et la pertinence d'un tel genre en un tel lieu.

Daniel's vision of the Son of man (Dan. 7. 2 ff.) is undoubtedly a most important passage for the interpretation of the Gospels and of the ‘Son of man’ sayings of Jesus in particular. In this article however, I will try to answer a number of preliminary questions concerning the identity of the four beasts in this vision that should perhaps be answered before we attempt to solve the problem concerning the enigmatic figure ‘like a son of man’. Why, for instance, does the fourth beast remain anonymous although the other three, weird as they are in appearance, show at least a likeness to known animals: like a lion (v. 4), like a bear (v. 5), like a leopard (v. 6)?

The perfect tense-form verb ἀναβέβηκεν in John 3.13 is usually interpreted in light of traditional verb theory, as a ‘past action with present results’. This interpretation introduces an apparent problematic chronology in that the Son of Man ascends before descending; however, recent developments in Greek grammar, particularly verbal aspect theory, provide a viable solution to this grammatical ‘problem’ and indicate that the Son of Man's descent precedes his ascent.

Our redemption by the death of Christ on the cross is summed up in the credal statement of 1 Corinthians 15.3, ‘that Christ died for our sins (ύπέρ τν άμαρτιν ήμν)’, or very simply ‘for us (ύπέρ ήμ⋯ν)' (Rom 5.8). The meaning of this ύπέρ could be either vicarious: he died in our place; or atoning: he died on our behalf. But, whereas the ‘for our sins’ formula can be understood only in the atoning sense, the ‘for us’ one can be taken in both the vicarious and the atoning sense. Moreover, the ‘for us’ formula is logically — though not necessarily chronologically — prior to the ‘for our sins’ one. The latter might well have had its origin on Palestinian soil under the influence of Isaiah 53. 4–5,10.

The description of Wisdom in Sirach has exercised a profound influence on the interpretation of Matt 11.28–30. Many scholars, impressed with the evident parallels between Sir 51.23–7; 6.23–31 and the Matthean logion,1 have regarded the latter as dependent on the former.2 Others, taking a further step, have felt justified in interpreting the logion with reference to a wisdom christology. According to this view, Jesus, represented as Wisdom incarnate,3 offers rest to those burdened by the legal interpretations of the Pharisees4 through his yoke, which stands for his teaching, or, more precisely, for his interpretation of the law.5 This approach to the logion has had its detractors,6 and some scholars have questioned the suitability of positing any connection between Sirach and the logion.7 It is not the purpose of the present discussion to enter into this debate, but rather to draw attention to what might be termed a neglected feature in the discussion of Matt 11.28–30, namely the relation of the logion to certain OT prophetic themes.8

Die folgenden linguistischen Vorüberlegungen sind eklektischer Art. Zu einer konsistenten Textheorie, aus der sich so komplizierte Texte wie die synoptischen Evangelien oder auch nur Teiltexte daraus deduzieren ließen, sehe ich mich nicht in der Lage. Geleitet werden die folgenden elementarhaften Erwägungen von der Intention, die Methoden historisch-kritischer Exegese zu reflektieren. Dazu dient der texttheoretische (bzw. textlinguistische) und semiotische Ansatz. Die Ausgangsfragen sind: Was ist ein Text? und: Was tun wir, wenn wir einen Text exegesieren?

Leo Perdue has applied Victor Turner's anthropological model of separation, liminality, and reaggregation to elucidate the social function of ancient wisdom texts. Ancient wisdom texts project the rhetorical situation of liminality upon their recipients in the course of imparting instruction, the effect of which is to integrate recipients at a new level into social structure. Using Turner's model, correlated with Berger's and Luckmann's model of resocialization, this paper argues that John's threshold speech functions to throw Q's recipients into a state of liminality. It thus creates the conditions necessary for reception of Jesus’ wisdom which follows. These results are used to critique stratigraphies of Q which are based upon the notion that the juxtaposition of John's and Jesus’ speeches is anomalous.