Band 112, Heft 1

Zusammenfassung Auf der Grundlage synoptischer Traditionen bietet Joh 21 ein johanneisches Narrativ einer Nachfolgegemeinschaft von Individuen. Der Epilog ist also als ein Ausdruck johanneischen Selbstverständnisses zu verstehen, das durch die Verarbeitung der im 1Joh thematisierten Gemeindekonflikte bestimmt ist. Besondere Bedeutung kommen Petrus und dem geliebten Jünger als exemplarischen Nachfolgern zu. Petrus tritt dabei als umgekehrter Schismatiker in den Blick, der dem Zeugnis des Lieblingsjüngers folgt. Darüber hinaus wird an beiden das Zusammenspiel des Einzelnen und der Gemeinschaft erörtert, woraus sich zugleich eine neue Deutung des ‚Ich‘ in V. 25 eröffnet.

Attempts to unravel the thrice-repeated παραδίδωμι clause in Rom 1:18–32 have been surprisingly few. Against several interpreters who see God’s παραδιδόναι to be basically permissive or abandoning, the present essay seeks to show that reading the passage in light of ancient binding curses, where the verb παραδίδωμι was extensively employed as a terminus technicus , generates a cogent grasp of the text with regard to the tenor and discursive logic of Rom 1:18–32. God’s “handing over” is a divine cursing punishment, and the verb expresses God’s direct involvement in punishment.

Within the NT, the expression ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ is found only in the Pauline corpus (1Cor 1,2; 2Cor 2,14; 1Thess 1,8; 1Tim 2,8). In 1Cor 1,2, traditionally the phrase has been considered as having an adverbial sense. However, the presence of the specific adverb πανταχοῦ for conveying the same meaning in 4,17 might point to some intentionality in the use of ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ in the initial greetings and not only to preferences of style. The almost total absence of the expression ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ in extrabiblical Greek against a well-attested presence in the OT Greek as a translation of בכל־מקום, suggests that in 1Cor 1,2 the phrase is a Semitism that echoes a cultic OT usage.

When 2Cor 6,1–13 and 7,2 are viewed primarily as self-defence intended to facilitate reconciliation, it is likely that 6,14–7,1 will be handled as a digression or an interpolation. But when 6,1–13 and 7,2 are read as part of an appeal for obedience directed at reluctant readers, the appearance of purity exhortations in 6,14–7,1 becomes predictable given everything we know about the Corinthians. Leveraging a careful re-reading of 6,12–14, the present essay argues that 6,14–7,1 should be viewed as central to this section of 2 Corinthians, and Paul’s defensiveness in the surrounding text should be interpreted first and foremost in relation to objections to his purity policies.

Whether the author of Hebrews interpreted LXX Ps 8,5–7 as referring to humanity (the anthropological interpretation) or Christ (the Christological interpretation) has been widely debated. This essay strengthens the case for the Christological interpretation. After discussing the connections between Hebr 1,1–13 and 2,5–9, the article focuses on the citation and interpretation of LXX Ps 8,5–7 in Hebr 2,6–9. I contend that the author identified a three stage pattern in the psalm which he sees replicated in Jesus’ life. The next stage of the argument shows how in 2,10–18 the author only applies two stages to the lives of believers. Believers do not complete the third stage which indicates that, for the author of Hebrews, the psalm is first about Jesus and then applicable to humanity.

Despite the popular notion of Marcion’s outright rejection of the Jewish Scriptures, his gospel draws on those Scriptures not infrequently. While this might appear inconsistent with Marcion’s theological thought, a pattern is evident in the way his gospel uses Scripture: On the one hand, Marcion’s gospel includes few of the direct, marked quotations of Scripture known from canonical Luke, and in none of those cases does Jesus himself fulfill Scripture. On the other hand, Marcion’s gospel includes more frequent indirect allusions to Scripture, several of which imply Jesus’ fulfillment of scriptural prophecy. This pattern suggests a Marcionite redaction of Luke whereby problematic marked quotes were omitted, while allusions were found less troublesome or simply overlooked due to their implicit nature.

The intertextual play with Psalm 69:22 in Matt 27:34, 48 is an important aspect for adequately understanding Matthew’s crucifixion scene. In Matt 27:34 the Roman soldiers offer Jesus “wine mixed with gall”, which is an allusion to Psalm 69:22a. By acting as the praying-self’s opponents, the Roman soldiers are portrayed as the mockers of Psalm 69:22a. In Matt 27:48, the Jewish authorities offer vinegar to the crucified Jesus, which is a clear allusion to Psalm 69:22b. Therefore, the Jewish authorities are portrayed in parallel to the Roman soldiers. Considering that Matthew refers to Psalm 69:22 not in a selective manner, but in the psalm’s context, the parallel between the Roman soldiers and the Jewish authorities extends to the crucial point in Jewish self-conception of being accused of ἀνομία.