Most scholars acknowledge Matthew's debt to Mark in the composition of his own Gospel, and they are fully aware of his extensive redaction and expansion of this major source. Yet few scholars pose what is an obvious question that arises from these points: What was Matthew's intention for Mark once he had composed and circulated his own revised and enlarged account of Jesus' mission? Did he intend to supplement Mark, in which case he wished his readers to continue to consult Mark as well as his own narrative, or was it his intention to replace the earlier Gospel? It is argued in this study that the evidence suggests that Matthew viewed Mark as seriously flawed, and that he wrote his own Gospel to replace the inadequate Marcan account.

The Pauline epistle known as Philemon is generally understood to be a letter written by Paul to a slaveowner on behalf of the runaway slave Onesimus requesting that the latter be allowed to return without penalty to the household in which he served. This article proposes a new interpretation of the letter that differs from the traditional in four major points: (1) the letter is written to a church, a congregation of which the individual addressed in the main body of the letter is a member; it is not a personal letter. (2) the slave Onesimus is with Paul in prison because he was sent there by the individual addressed in the main body of the letter (probably Archippus) on behalf of the Colossae church; Onesimus did not run away. (3) Paul writes to request that Onesimus be released from his obligations in Colossae in order that he might remain with Paul to work in the church in a Christian ministry. (4) Paul makes clear that Onesimus is no longer to be considered a slave within the Christian community, and separately suggests Onesimus be manumitted.

Die einzige Stelle, an der in den bis jetzt veröffentlichten Texten der neuen Höhlenfunde vom Toten Meer vom Messias gesprochen wird, ist Sekt. 9, 10–11. Es heißt da: ‘Und sie (die Mitglieder der essenischen Gemeinde) sollen sich richten lassen durch die fruheren Rechtssatzungen, durch die die Leute der Gemeinde (schon) von Anfang an sich zurechtweisen ließen, bis zum Kommen eines Prop heten und der Cesaib ten (Messias) Aarons und Israels’ () Über das ‘Kommen eines Propheten’ wird weiter unten noch zu sprechen sein. Das Auffälligste an diesem Satz ist aber, dαβ das (eindeutig lesbare) Wort im Plural cstr. ‘die Gesalbten’ erscheint. Einige Übersetzer haben diesen Plural einfach als Schreibfehler erklärt und durch Streichung des Jod zum Singular emendiert. Aber es ist natürlich höchst bedenklich, die lectio difficillima des Plural so in den geläufigen Begriff ‘des Messias’ im Singular zu verwandeln. Auch der Vorschlag, das Jod als sog. Jod compaginis zu erklären, wie es gelegentlich im A.T. vorkommt, und auf diese Weise das singularische Verständnis zu erreichen, ist sprachlich nicht moglich. Denn es gibt in den neu gefundenen Texten sonst keiner Beleg fur ein solches Jod compaginis. Die Lesung des Wortes als Plural ‘die Gesalbten Aarons und Israels’ ist sprachlich nicht zu umgehen.

The question, What did Paul know about Jesus of Nazareth?, has long been debated by students of the New Testament. The debate has not issued in any consensus. Indeed, critical appraisals of Paul's relation to the Jesus of history and to traditions about him have been unusually disparate. Thus, on the one side, W. D. Davies has argued that ‘Paul is steeped in the mind and words of his Lord.’ On the other side, R. Bultmann could claim that ‘the teaching of the historical Jesus plays no role, or practically none, in Paul’. The contrast between these two assertions is puzzling, and all the more so as neither can be regarded as idiosyncratic: Davies is not alone in avowing that sayings of and traditions about Jesus were of momentous significance for Paul, and it is not difficult to find critics at one with Bultmann. Moreover, as our two quotations do not simply represent two circles of opinion but also mark poles between which appears a variety of viewpoints, matters are even further complicated.

Since World War II a considerable number of New Testament scholars (many of them German) have come to the conclusion that Paul did not write II Thessalonians. Among these the names of Rudolf Bultmann, Günther Bornkamm, Willi Marxsen, and Helmut Koester come to mind. What is curious is that to date no single commentary has appeared in any major European language which interprets II Thessalonians as pseudonymous. C. Masson in the introduction to his commentary decides against Pauline authorship, but in the commentary itself interprets as though Paul were the author – an anomaly perhaps related to his view of pseudonymity. The forth-coming commentaries of Marxsen and Koester will therefore provide scholars with the first examples of exegesis of the letter as non-Pauline. Since the issue of authorship is evidently by no means settled, the present article examines the evidence for both positions and concludes with a discussion of pseudonymity in the ancient world.

Es ist zur Zeit eine liebgewordene Gewohnheit, auf die drückende Last des noch ungelösten johnneischen Rätsels hinzuweisen. Kein anderer als Ernst Käsemann hat dieses jüngst erneut zum Ausdruck gebracht; freilich nicht ohne zugleich seines Rätsels Lösung zu umreißen. Daß sein viel beachteter Diskussionsbeitrag vor allem Rudolf Bultmann mit seiner Deutung des Johannesevangeliums zum Gesprächspartner wählt, ist die einzing angemessene Entscheidung. Dabei läßt sich die Antwort des gegen seinen Lehrer rebellierenden Schülers in ihrer Gegensätzlichkeit zum Wort des Meisters kaum extremer denken. Solche Antithetik ist für den Exegeten allemal ein Stachel, der zu erneuter Textinterpretation reizt. Dabei gilt es festzuhalten, daß dieser Gegensatz neben dem historisch-exegetischen auch seinen theologiegeschichtlichen Aspekt besitzt: Bultmann interpretiert mit Hilfe der durch die Existentialanalyse bereitgestellten Begrifflichkeit und zu einem nicht unwesentlichen Teil auch unter Rückgriff auf die Paradoxchristologie Sören Kierkegaards. Käsemann hingegen greift auf die alte liberale Johannes-Interpretation zurück, wenn er den johanneischen Christus als über die Erde schreitenden Gott darstellt. Der Aufweis theologiegeschichtlicher Bedingtheit sollte dem Exegeten stets ein Achtungszeichen sein. Doch ist über die Angemessenheit der herangezogenen Interpretationshilfen damit noch nichtentschieden. Allerdings müssen die Denkmodelle im Blick auf den auszulegenden Text ihre Bewährungsprobe bestehen. Diese Kritik soll an einem entscheidenden Punkt johanneischer Theologie vorgeführt werden, nämalich an dem Verhältnis von Wunder und Christologie.

Bien avant de poser un problème littéraire aux exégètes modernes, la pluralité et la diversité des évangiles ont préoccupé les anciens chrétiens: il y a en effet des difficultés théologiques évidentes à reconnaître comme normatifs plusieurs témoignages divergents sur une révélation unique.1

This paper wants to address the question, why and how the term εỦαγγέλιον, originally a term for the early Christian proclamation, became the designation of a certain type of literature. Closely related problems have been discussed repeatedly in New Testament scholarship for several generations: (1) The origin of the term εỦαγγέλιον. (2) The consistency and uniformity of its meaning in its Christian usage. (3) The question of the literary genre of the writings which later became known as ‘gospels’. I shall comment on the second and third of these problems insofar as they concern the question addressed in this paper, but I shall leave aside the question of the background and origin of the term.

Recent investigation of the Pauline corpus has brought into focus several important facets of Paul's rhetorical skill. It is now generally recognized that Paul knew and used the forms and techniques of classical rhetoric. Various analyses of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Corinthians 1–4, Galatians, for example, have reinforced the conviction that Paul consciously constructed his letters using rhetorical patterns and appeals. This type of investigation does not, however, operate in opposition to the epistolary analysis that was pioneered by Robert Funk and others. Indeed, attention to epistolary clichés and formulae proves especially valuable in reconstructing the ‘rhetorical situation’ of each letter, since these provide a road map of the conversation between Paul and his partners, indicating, for example, what is prior shared knowledge, what is new information and what are the points of controversy in the matters discussed.

The following article is the result of frequent conversations between the two authors about the fragments of a scroll from the 11th Cave at Qumran, recently published by A. S. van der Woude. At a later stage the fragments as well as the material for this article were discussed in a number of meetings of the Qumran seminar in the University of Groningen. The authors wish to thank the members of that seminar (and others) for stimulating comments and suggestions and hope that their article in turn will stimulate others to further research on this interesting new document.

In a recently-published article, P. Stuhlmacher has outlined three major contemporary theories of the occasion of Paul's letter to the Romans: 1) Romans is addressed to a specific situation within the Roman community itself, 2) it is composed primarily with Paul's forthcoming delivery of the collection to Jerusalem in mind, and 3) it emerges from a convergence of the first two motivations. While not wishing to deny that the Jerusalem trip was a preoccupation of Paul as he composed Romans (see Romans 15. 25, 30–32), I intend in this study to strengthen the Roman side of the equation, first by surveying a range of arguments about the Roman situation as it relates to the letter, then by suggesting a new approach to the question.

Paul's ‘therapeutic epistle’ in 2 Cor 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 provides material for a comparative analysis of Paul's view of the emotions and emotional therapy in the context of ancient psychagogic literature. Paul's treatment of ‘remorse’ and ‘repentance’ demonstrates his familiarity with the discourse of the philosophers on the role of the passions in moral progress. Paul's account of ‘pain’ is shown to be anomalous in the context of ancient psychagogic literature shaped by a Stoicizing theory of the emotions. Paul emerges from this comparative analysis as the harbinger of change in the ancient theory of the emotions and the practice of emotional therapy.

1. What does Gal. 1–2 tell us about the relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles during the ‘tunnel’ period between his conversion and his earliest correspondence? That is one of the key questions relating to the beginnings of Christianity which has never achieved a completely satisfactory resolution. It is clear enough that in Galatians itself Paul is striving to assert his independence from Jerusalem – that is hardly to be disputed. But that explanation has always left a number of puzzling loose ends. It is certainly a necessary explanation but has proved insufficient in itself to explain all that Paul says. We may think, for example, of the admission in 2. 2 that the decision of the Jerusalem apostles regarding Paul's gospel could have rendered his missionary work useless; and the awkward syntax of 2. 3–5 has given rise to various theses at odds with the clear overall thrust of these two chapters.

In this essay I take issue with Paul Trebilco's recent argument in this journal that the Christian self-designation of ἐϰϰλησία has a background in the Septuagint. I argue that its Graeco-Roman political meaning in the sense of ‘civic assembly’ was decisive in its adoption by Paul, and that Paul wished to portray his communities as alternative organizations existing alongside the civic assemblies. At the same time, however, I am critical of Richard Horsley's anti-imperialist understanding of the Pauline communities. Paul's contrast between two types of ἐϰϰλησία is an expression of his view on two types of πολίτευμα, a distinction which finds its background in the Stoic doctrine of dual citizenship. Through a sustained analysis of ἐϰϰλησία in the Hellenistic and Roman periods I show that, in many respects, the functioning of the Christian ἐϰϰλησία mirrors the operations of the civic assemblies.

Die folgenden Erwägungen und Darlegungen sind ein besonders problematisches und deshalb des Gedankenaustauschs im Voraus sehr bedürftiges Teilstück eines Manuskriptes einer ‘Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments’, die in der Evangelischen Verlagsanstalt Berlin erscheinen wird. Für die Voraussetzungen, die im Rahmen dieses Ausschnitts nicht begründet und geklärt werden können, darf ich auf dieses hoffentlich bald gedruckt vorliegende Buch verweisen.

Amongst the many incidental issues raised by J. T. Milik in his edition of the Aramaic fragments of Enoch from Qumran1 that of the date of the Parables of Enoch is perhaps one of the most important. Although there has never been anything approaching a consensus as to the exact date of this work, I would think it fair to say that many scholars in this century, if not the majority, have taken the view that the Parables are Jewish in origin; many have also argued that they date from before A.D. 70.2 Milik's view that the Parables are Christian and date from around A.D. 270 has such enormous implications for our understanding of the development of intertestamental Judaism and of the use of the term ‘Son of Man’ in the gospels that it demands very careful consideration. It also suggests that the evidence on which the Jewish origin and pre-A.D. 70 dating has been based needs to be re-examined.

Amongst scholars who say that Paul's letters provide evidence of change and development in Paul's thinking,1 the major emphasis has been seeing this change taking place towards the later stages of Paul's writings, rather than in the earliest stages.2 However, the most significant change in Paul's thinking probably took place shortly before he wrote what are generally regarded as his earliest letters, the letters to the Thessalonians. An exegesis of these letters, together with established research revealing the stages behind the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians3 (though with modifications to certain conclusions about Paul's earliest eschatology), gives support to this suggestion. Whilst changing emphases appear in Paul's later letters, attention should be directed to the probability that the biggest change in his Christian eschatology took place with the surviving correspondence.

The question of Paul's identity is raised by his history as a diaspora Jew, then Pharisee, who became a believer in Messiah Jesus and apostle to the gentiles. How did he think of himself? The essay focuses on the categories ‘Jew’, ‘(in) Judaism’, ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Israel(ite)’, with particular reference to Rom 2.28–9, 1 Cor 9.20–1, Gal 1.13–14, 2 Cor 11.22, Phil 3.4–7 and Rom 11.1. It also contrasts Paul's devaluation of circumcision and food laws with his continued and characteristically Jewish hostility to idolatry and sexual licence. Paul's identity was evidently in transition, both rooted in his Jewish heritage and responding to fresh revelation, thus reflecting the emerging identity of Christianity.