Band 115, Heft 2

Critical editions, translations, and scholarly discussions typically treat Luke 20,18 as a separate logion from the preceding quotation from Ps 118 (MT; LXX 117) in Luke 20,17 that ends Jesus’ telling of the parable of the wicked tenants. Despite its separation from the quote, scholars have typically seen in the line allusions to Isa 8,14–15 and Dan 2,34–35.44–45. This article questions both of these usual assumptions, arguing (a) that 20,18 should in fact be read as the second half of the quotation begun in 20,17 and (b) that its language of crushing and in particular “winnowing” (λικμάω) takes up a common scriptural judgment motif. Luke 20,18 represents, then, a point of convergence between explicit quotation and the third gospel’s frequent use of septuagintal language that results in a creative proof-text.

The article examines the meaning of the words Ναζαρέτ and ναζωραῖος in the Fourth Gospel. It argues that the first word plays an important role in the incarnational logic of the Gospel, while the second word is significant for John’s Christology. Through the literary device of reader entrapment, John corrects the reader’s initial misjudgement that ὁ ναζωραῖος in John 18,5.7; 19,19 depicts Jesus as coming from Nazareth. To explain the Christological significance of this phrase, the article evaluates the thesis that ναζωραῖος characterises Jesus as a Nazirite. For instance, it compares the literary characterisation of the Johannine Jesus to the Nazirite rule in Num 6,1–21 and its reception in late Second Temple sources.

The article addresses the meaning of the two notions of God’s and human δικαιοσύνη (‘justice’) as employed in Rom 3.21–5.11. Special focus is given to the function of God’s χάρις (‘gift’) and the resulting πίστις (‘trust’) in chapter 4. The core text of 3.21–5.11 is first situated within the argument of Rom 1.18–8.39 as a whole, with summarizing analyses of 1.18–3.20, 6.1–8.13, and 8.14–39. Next, the core text is addressed. The article argues for an understanding of God’s χάρις (given wholly undeservedly) and the corresponding πίστις that situates them within an overarching, fully Jewish understanding of God’s justice in deservedly rewarding ‘good works’ (including ‘works of the Law’) and punishing ‘bad acts’ (cf. 2.6–11). No specifically ‘Christian’ understanding of God’s χάρις and δικαιοσύνη as such and the corresponding human πίστις and δικαιοσύνη is involved. Once God’s χάρις has been given once and for all in the Christ event out of God’s ἀγάπη, God’s δικαιοσύνη as defined by 2.6–11 remains in place.

The Abraham tradition in the Old Testament is considered a source of Pauline universalism. The outstanding contribution made by early Jewish interpretations of Abraham, however, has been largely overlooked to date. Hymnal and liturgical texts of early Judaism provide further background about this character. Therefore, three central aspects of the apostle’s theocentric universalism will be discussed: ecclesiological (Rom 4:2–17a), christological-soteriological (8:32), and eschatological (15:7–12). The role that Gen 22 played in Jewish interpretation not only for Rom 8:32, but also for Rom 4, which has hardly been considered or discussed in detail to date, will be central. The Abraham tradition is also in the background in Rom 15:7–12 and 13, which is sometimes seen as the sum of Romans. Read in this context, a new approach to solving the linguistic problem of 15:8–9, which is often perceived as difficult, also emerges.

Some argue that Hebrews employs Psalm 8,6a—“You made him for a little while below the angels”—to serve the divergent ends of describing Jesus’ degradation and humanity’s exaltation. Against this view, this article argues that Hebrews applies these words more analogously to describe a temporary inferior status below angels for both Jesus and humanity, a status Jesus has already surpassed and humanity will rise above in the future. To make this argument, this article defends that Hebrews applies Psalm 8 to both Jesus and humanity. After examining the application to Jesus, it is argued that Hebrews presents humanity as presently lower than angels, but indicates they will attain a rank above them in the future. Finally, the article claims that the word ἐλαττόω means “to diminish,” not “to create at a lesser status.” Thus, Hebrews may understand the statement that God “diminished humanity below angels” as a reference to God’s judgment on humanity’s first sin.

This article analyzes the early reception history of 2 Peter 3:15–16. The reception historical work is carried out with a focus on two questions that remain central to the exegesis of the passage: (i) whether or not there is a critique of Paul in this text and (ii) what 2 Peter is referring to when it says that there are some things in Paul’s letters that are “hard to understand.” In the course of the article, the findings are brought to bear on scholarship operating out of the New Perspective on 2 Peter (NP2P) and a list of Pauline texts/doctrines with which patristic interpreters associated the δυσνόητος statement in 2 Peter 3:16 is assembled. The piece concludes with a reflection on the significance of this for future scholarship on these verses.

Scholars have long recognized significant similarities between Plato’s Phaedo and the Gospel of Luke. However, the absence of convincing evidence confirming that Luke was acquainted with Phaedo has prevented scholars from asserting that he drew directly from Plato’s dialogue. Notably, previously overlooked are the remarkable resemblances between the narratives of Luke 23,27–33 and Phaedo 117c. The most straightforward explanation for these similarities is the direct influence of Plato’s narrative on the Lukan text.