Volume 109, Issue 1

Abstract: An analysis of the Christological dimension of Matthean ethics that discusses only Jesus’ attitude towards the Torah, which has taken centre stage in recent Matthean research, is insufficient, as Jesus’s ethical instruction does not consist only in Torah-related teaching. Moreover, Jesus himself functions as a paradigm for his disciples’ conduct. In this connection, Matt 11,28–30 bears paradigmatic significance. This text presents Jesus not as personified Wisdom, but as the humble messianic king who invites the people to take shelter under his gentle rule. Alongside Jesus’ instruction itself, the admonition to learn from him also includes the mimetic aspect of following his example. Furthermore, an adequate analysis of Matthean ethics must take into account that the development of ethically relevant elements is interwoven in the narrative development of the Jesus story and correlated with the thematic shifts in that narrative. Matt 11,28–30 is an important building block in the macrostructure of this narrative dynamic.

Abstract: A growing strand of scholarship assumes that Mark’s account of Peter’s denial should be understood within the context of the Neronian persecution. This paper strengthens this view by arguing that the cock whose crow reminds Peter of Jesus’ words is a hidden reference to Nero. Evidence comes from Suetonius, who testifies that a cock was indeed used as a derisive metaphor for Nero and alluded to his self-representation as an Apollo-like artist. The apparent tension between three denials and only two cock-crows in Mark 14,72 can then be taken as a proleptic allusion to a third “cock-crow”, i. e. to the Neronian persecution when Peter ultimately confessed his belonging to the disciples of Jesus instead of denying it. He is thus portrayed as a positive role model for those in the Marcan community who failed to remain steadfast during the persecution.

Abstract: John 12,40, a quote from Isaiah 6,10 (albeit in a wording which differs from the Septuagint), has been acknowledged as crux interpretum . In order to make things easier to understand, some modern translations insert “God” as the subject of John 12,40a. This insertion is against all known Greek witnesses. Moreover, it is unnecessary and – since “God” is not the subject of John 12,40a – misleading. An analysis of syntax and semantics reveals the grammatical errors of the traditional view of John 12,39–40. The newly analysed text is the basis of a new translation. If this proposed new meaning of the text is used for interpretation, there is no crux interpretum .

Abstract: In the current debate on the interrelationship of Luke-Acts, the portrayal of the literary figure of Jesus in Acts is believed to function as a conceptual bond, reflecting the unity of both writings. This assumption is further strengthened by way of Peter’s Pentecostal preaching in Acts 2, which establishes the risen Christ as the sublime main character in acts and his connection to God, thus linking Acts to Luke on a narrative level.

Abstract: Paul accuses a fictive Jewish interlocutor in Rom 2,22b, claiming that he, although abhorring idols, commits temple robbery. The present article argues that Paul here alludes to traditions pertaining to the prehistory of measurements taken by Tiberius against Jews in Rome in 19 AD: According to Josephus, Ant XVIII 81–84, a Jew claiming to be a teacher of the law persuaded a lady belonging to Roman nobility to donate money for the temple, which he and his companions then embezzled. Josephus narrates this incident along with gossip pertaining to similar events among the worshippers of Isis. We can assume that the juxtaposition of scandalous stories about both the cult of Isis and Judaism witnessed by Josephus is traditional – and might be presupposed in Rom 2,22b. 

Abstract: To argue for the pseudonymity of disputed Pauline letters on the (partial) basis of their disproportional high number of hapax legomena continues to be common practice among New Testament scholars. By means of linear regression analysis, it is shown that only 1 and 2 Timothy use significantly more hapaxes than the undisputed Pauline letters. If, however, proper noun hapaxes , hapaxes taken from citations, and hapaxes which – upon removal of its preposition – have a common lexeme are not taken into consideration, it appears that none of the disputed Pauline letters use significantly more hapaxes than the undisputed Pauline letters.

Abstract: The prepositional phrase ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ in 1Thess 1,1 is usually interpreted as part of the address and therefore as a specification of the assembly addressed. In this essay a reading favoured by Ambrosiaster in the 4 th and Johann Benjamin Koppe in the 19 th century will be reconsidered: ἐν θεῷ κτλ. can be regarded as part of the greeting and understood instrumentally: by God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ grace and peace be with you. Thus the salutatio of 1Thess can be considered as Paul’s first attempt to express that in his prescripts God and Jesus Christ are the real source of χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη.