This paper addresses the judgment discourse in 1 Cor 3 with an emphasis on how to understand vv. 15-17. A suggestion made by Peter Stuhlmacher is developed further and elaborated. Although 1 Cor 3 speaks about leaders in the Corinthian church, it moves beyond them and formulates a theology on divine judgment. The passage assumes a judgment or punishment "preceding" the final judgment. Paul conceives of the first as a limited punishment aimed at preventing condemnation along with the world. Verse 15 refers to the first judgment, while vv. 16-17 are about the final judgment. Paul develops his view on judgment according to works with help from the idea of a gracious paideia. God remains both righteous and gracious through his judgment.
Rom 1:13-15 is beset with a number of difficult exegetical problems, which makes it impossible to find agreement on why Paul wrote Romans. By punctuating vv. 13-14 differently and suggesting a different syntactical reading of v. 15, this article proposes that Romans was designed to help its recipients to proclaim the gospel.
In 2Cor 12,21, Paul expresses his fear that God may humiliate him during his third visit to Corinth. The exact meaning of this concern is not entirely clear. To understand it better, it is essential to explore the connection between the divine humiliation of his ministry and his subsequent mourning for the unrepentant Corinthians. Septuagint traditions regarding divine humiliation of believers and community leaders for unforeseen purposes, along with the practice of petitionary mourning for penitential reasons, can help clarify the complexity and depth of 2Cor 12,21. In this context, Paul suggests that if he encounters a negative situation in Corinth, it will still serve a purpose in fulfilling God's plan for the Corinthians. In such a scenario, he would have to assume the responsibility and paternal role, standing in for the rebellious Corinthians in the penitential rites they have been unwilling to perform. This article ultimately draws conclusions from 2Cor 12,21 regarding Paul's understanding of his ministry and his image of God.
Luke 3:21-22 contains a prominent textual variant that Bart Ehrman has argued constitutes an "orthodox corruption of Scripture." Ehrman focuses on the divine voice at Jesus's baptism but does not consider another variant found in B4 at that same passage. This textual variant alters the form of the spirit's descent upon Jesus. This article demonstrates that the copyist of B4 exerted a Platonizing effort to distance Luke 3:21-22 from the concept of the "material spirit," an interpretation for which Luke/Acts offers some support. The manuscript dates to a time when Christians engaged in debate over the question of divine embodiment and the materiality of spirit. The text of this manuscript, therefore, may be understood as a window into this debate and an attempt to negotiate the difficulties Luke's Gospel posed to emerging orthodoxy.
P.Oxy. 7.1008 and 7.1009 (P15 and P16 in the INTF's Kurzgefasste Liste) preserve portions of 1Cor 7-8 and Phil 3-4. Since the time of their publication, these two fragmentary papyrus folia have had an ambiguous relationship. They are often considered parts of the same codex, but the INTF treats them as distinct manuscripts. A reconsideration of the published scholarship on the folia combined with access to improved digital images allows for a more compelling argument that these two folia were once part of the same codex and should be considered a single manuscript rather than two separate manuscripts.
This article challenges an interpretative trend since the 20(th) century regarding 1Cor 15,47, arguing that a Christology of pre-existence better clarifies 1Cor 15,45-49. It contends that Paul draws extensively from Genesis, reading creation and new creation through each other. Within this paradigm, the phrase "life-giving spirit" in 15,45 is read as an allusion to the "breath" in Gen 2,7, founded in Christ's mediation of both creation and new creation (cf. 1Cor 8,6). The article also revives the older interpretation of 15,47, reading the "second man from heaven" as a descending-ascending redeemer. The essay diverges from recent scholarly approaches by arguing Christ's pre-existence is logically integral to Paul's contrast between the two Adams.
Die Existenz von gemeinsamem gemeindlichem Gesang im Gottesdienst der neutestamentlichen Zeit ist eine verbreitete Annahme in Lehrbüchern und Nachschlagewerken der Praktischen Theologie, der Liturgik und der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft. Ob solches Singen primär der Gottesverehrung oder der didaktischen Unterweisung diente, ist dabei Gegenstand einer Diskussion, die unter anderem durch konfessionelle Präferenzen beeinflusst ist. Ein genauerer Blick auf die relevanten neutestamentlichen Texte zeigt allerdings, dass die Belege für gemeinschaftlichen Gesang im Gottesdienst spärlich sind. Eine tragfähige Plausibilität erhält die Annahme eines solchen Gesangs daher nur durch den Blick auf gemeinschaftliche gottesdienstliche Gesangspraxis in jüdischen und griechisch-römischen Kontexten der Mitwelt des Neuen Testaments. Ein solcher Blick legt nahe, dass das im Neuen Testament nur angedeutete gemeinschaftliche Singen eher in Kontinuität, und weniger im Kontrast, zur musikalischen Praxis des jüdischen Tempelkults verstanden werden sollte. Die wenigen neutestamentlichen Aussagen zur musikalischen Performanz des Gesangs legen dabei nahe, dass solcher Gesang zwar primär auf die Verehrung Gottes ausgerichtet war, dadurch aber mittelbar auch Funktionen der didaktischen Unterweisung und christologischen Bekenntnisbildung erfüllte.
Darüber, ob und wie Paulus das Danielbuch aufgreift, besteht gegenwärtig große Uneinigkeit innerhalb der neutestamentlichen Forschung. Diese Studie untersucht paulinische Aufnahmen von Daniel unter Berücksichtigung der komplexen Tradition dieses Buches und seiner frühjüdischen Rezeption. Dafür werden wahrscheinliche Bezüge, gemeinsame Motive und zitatähnliche Anspielungen identifiziert und Kriterien für Intertextualität diskutiert. Paulus rezipiert das Danielbuch auf verschiedene Weise und zu unterschiedlichen Zwecken produktiv, ohne es direkt zu zitieren oder Einleitungsformeln zu verwenden. Während einige Parallelen eher den gemeinsamen alttestamentlichen und frühjüdischen Kontext widerspiegeln und keine strategische Rezeption darstellen, handelt es sich bei anderen, insbesondere im ersten Korintherbrief, um weitreichende Bezüge. Der paulinische Gebrauch unterschiedlicher Abschnitte des Danielbuchs deutet auf strategische Neuinterpretationen hin und weist auf die umfassende Vertrautheit mit diesem Text sowie die gezielte Anpassung für die konkreten Argumentationskontexte des Paulus. Die Studie konzentriert sich auf die wahrscheinlichen Bezüge zu Dan 10,13 in Röm 14,21, Dan 2,21 in 1Kor 1,19, Dan 2,22 Θ in 1Kor 2,10 und Dan 7,22 in 1Kor 6,2 sowie auf die zitatähnlichen Anspielungen auf Dan 3,19–97 LXX/Θ, insbesondere Dan 3,95 LXX/Θ in 1Kor 13,3, Dan 2,46f. in 1Kor 14,25 sowie Dan 12,1–3 LXX, besonders Dan 12,3 LXX in Phil 2,14–16.
In der Forschung zum Neuen Testament und frühen Christentum wird das Lokalkolorit erzählender Texte üblicherweise mit historischem Interesse betrachtet: Zutreffendes Lokalkolorit soll entweder die historische Zuverlässigkeit der Erzählung oder die Vertrautheit des Autors mit den Schauplätzen belegen. In beiden Fällen gilt das Interesse der Welt außerhalb des Textes. Kaum jemals wird das Lokalkolorit eines Erzähltextes aber als ein Element der Raumkonzeption und Raumbewertung innerhalb des Textes betrachtet. Dieser Beitrag will nun einen Zugang zum Lokalkolorit als einem Element der Raumsemantik und -pragmatik frühchristlicher Erzählungen vorstellen. Zunächst wird ein Einblick in die Auswertung von Lokalkolorit in Neueren Philologien (und Ansätze zu einer Definition) geboten. Danach werden die vom amerikanischen Geographen Edward Soja (1940–2015) entwickelten Kategorien herangezogen, um Kriterien für die Frage nach der Funktion von Lokalkolorit zu gewinnen. Diese werden dann an drei Testfällen in der Apostelgeschichte erprobt: Lystra (Apg 14,8–20), Philippi (Apg 16,11–40) und Ephesos (18,19–19,40).
In the field of New Testament and Early Christian Studies, scholars usually approach local colour in narrative writings with a decidedly historical interest: The accuracy of local colour is supposed to indicate either that a narrative is exactly referential to the events narrated or that an author or bearer of tradition was at home in the place described. In both cases, the focus is on the world outside the text. Hardly ever do scholars study local colour as an element in the conception and evaluation of space presented in a given narrative, hence as indicative of the world in the text. This article is meant to provide an approach to local colour as an element of the spatial semantics and pragmatics in early Christian narrative. After a glance at the study of local colour in modern philology (and a sketch of approaches to a definition), categories established by the American geographer Edward Soja (1940-2015) will provide a grid for evaluating the function of local colour, which is then applied to three test cases in the canonical Acts of the Apostles: Lystra (Acts 14:8-20), Philippi (Acts 16:11-40) and Ephesos (Acts 18:19-19:40).
The existence of corporate singing as an integral part of early Christian worship is a widespread standard assumption in textbooks of Practical Theology, Liturgical and New Testament Studies as well as standard encyclopedias. A matter of debate, which is also shaped by denominational preferences, is the question whether such singing primarily serves purposes of cultic worship or rather didactic teaching. However, a closer look at the relevant New Testament text corpora shows that the evidence for such communal singing is sparse. The assumption of such singing therefore can only draw plausibility from evidence of communal religious practice in Jewish and Greco-Roman communities of the wider New Testament world. Taking this into account, communal singing in New Testament congregations should be understood in continuity, rather than contrast, to Jewish temple piety and musical practice. However, some New Testament texts also suggest that communal singing, while primarily directed to God in worship, also served as a means of early christological reflection and didactical teaching.
The book of Revelation contains various literary devices, among which the oxymoron remains one of the least studied. This article is the first to explore this figure of speech in the book of Revelation and provides a precise definition of "oxymoron" as a unique combination of contradictory words whose literal meaning creates a paradoxical tension, enriching the textual meaning and provoking reflection. The study shows that many phrases previously called oxymora are in fact other literary forms, such as paradoxes or metaphorical contrasts, in which the tension results from theological or symbolic opposition rather than from direct lexical contradiction. The article argues that of the thirteen proposed examples, only the phrase "mixed unmixed" wine in Rev 14,10 corresponds to a classic oxymoron, which is used by John to intensify the image of God's judgment. This article thus contributes to the study of the literary device of "oxymoron" in early Christian literature.
What will be argued in this article is that Jesus' faith and resulting faithfulness is his faith in his resurrection by God. Because God is the one who raises the dead, faith in God's promise to resurrect both Jesus and his siblings is at the heart of inspiring faithfulness in Hebrews. Thus, the exalted Jesus continues to exercise this faith in God's deliverance of his siblings from death at the eschaton. To make this case, the affirmation of resurrection in Hebrews, the resurrection faith among the faithful recounted in Hebrews 11, and finally, Jesus' own resurrection faith for himself and his siblings will be considered.
Scholars differ on whether and how Paul engages with Daniel. This essay examines Paul's references to Daniel, considering the book's complex tradition and early Jewish reception. Probable allusions, shared motifs, and quote-like references are identified and criteria for intertextuality are discussed. Paul engages with Daniel in various ways and for different purposes, without directly quoting it or using introductory formulas. While some parallels only reflect the shared Old Testament and early Jewish context rather than deliberate reception, others, especially in First Corinthians, are far-reaching references. Paul's uses of different sections in Daniel suggest strategic reinterpretations, demonstrating his extensive familiarity with the text and intentional adaptation for his arguments. The article focuses on the probable allusions on Dan 10:13 in Rom 14:21, Dan 2:21 in 1Cor 1:19, Dan 2:22 Theta in 1Cor 2:10 and Dan 7:22 in 1Cor 6:2, as well as on the quotation-like references to Dan 3:19-97 LXX/Theta, especially Dan 3:95 LXX/Theta in 1Cor 13:3, Dan 2:46f. in 1Cor 14:25, and Dan 12:1-3 LXX, especially Dan 12:3 LXX in Phil 2:14-16.
An incongruence in the numerus between the subject and the verb of a Greek sentence may occur when the subject represents a collective entity composed of many individuals. This applies, for instance, to lambda alpha o sigma. This fact has not been considered in interpretations of Luke 20,19. The possibility of such a numerical incongruence has significant implications for the narrative and the perceived behavior of the individuals within the pericope.
New Testament scholars discussing irony have for decades invoked a character dynamic from Greek Old Comedy between the epsilon iota rho omega nu and the alpha lambda alpha zeta omega nu, the dissembler and the braggart, to explain the relationship between different characters in the Gospels and Paul's letters. This article investigates the validity of this dynamic by analyzing its source: The Tractatus Coislinianus, a 10th century manuscript that claims to summarize Aristotle's lost work on comedy (Poetics II). The article uses Aristotle, including Poetics I, Rhetoric, and the Nicomachean Ethics, in addition to Old Comedy and Cicero to determine the likelihood that the epsilon iota rho omega nu/alpha lambda alpha zeta omega nu dynamic has its roots in Aristotelean thought and Old Comedy as described in the tractatus and argued in scholarship.
This article delves into the appropriate translation of "appointed times" (kappa alpha iota rho omicron iota) in Acts 17:26, particularly within the framework of Paul's Areopagus speech. The analysis primarily utilizes often overlooked evidence from Aratus' Phaenomena to argue for the interpretation of kappa alpha iota rho omicron iota as seasons. This argument is further supported by the parallel in Acts 14:17, which underscores the plausibility of understanding kappa alpha iota rho omicron iota as seasons in the context of natural revelation. The study reveals that a proper interpretation of kappa alpha iota rho omicron iota is essential for grasping the overarching message of the Areopagus speech.
Von der klassischen Formgeschichte bis zur Gegenwart herrschte die Auffassung vor, dass es sich beim Q-Logion Lk 17,37//Mt 24,28 um eine Art Sprichwort handelt, das in der sp & auml;ten hellenistischen Zeit weit verbreitet war. Obwohl viele Analogien genannt wurden, fehlte es bisher an Beweisen in Form von eindeutigen Parallelen. Infolgedessen stie ss die Annahme eines Sprichworts auf Skepsis ( 1). Entgegen dieser Skepsis wird Lk 17,37//Mt 24,28 in diesem Aufsatz auf ein Sprichwort zur & uuml;ckgef & uuml;hrt, das in Plutarch, Moralia 918C und Lukrez, De rerum natura IV 679-680 erhalten ist. Zu diesem Zweck werden die beiden Texte analysiert und Abweichungen in Wortwahl und Syntax als eine f & uuml;r Sprichw & ouml;rter typische Variabilit & auml;t erkl & auml;rt ( 2). Dar & uuml;ber hinaus werden Unterschiede zwischen dem von Plutarch und Lukrez bezeugten Sprichwort und dem Spruch Lk 17,37//Mt 24,28 analysiert und auf den Einfluss zur & uuml;ckgef & uuml;hrt, den die jeweiligen Alltagssprachen des hellenistischen und pal & auml;stinischen Judentums auf das bei Plutarch und Lukrez bezeugte Sprichwort in seiner Traditionsgeschichte aus & uuml;bten, bevor es in die Q-Sammlung einging ( 3). From classical form criticism to the present, the prevailing view is that the Q-saying Lk 17:37//Mt 24:28 is a type of proverb that was widespread in the late Hellenistic period. Although many analogies have been cited, there has been a lack of definitive evidence. As a result, sceptical views about the validity of the proverb theory have also been expressed ( 1). In this paper, contrary to this scepticism, it is argued that Lk 17:37//Mt 24:28 can be traced back to a common proverb found in Plutarch's Moralia 918C and Lucretius' De rerum natura IV 679 f. To this end, both texts are first analyzed, and the differences in word choice and syntax are explained in terms of the inherent variability of the proverb ( 2). Furthermore, the differences between the common proverb of Plutarch and Lucretius and the saying in Lk 17:37//Mt 24:28 are analyzed. These differences are explained by the influences that the everyday languages of Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism exerted on the Plutarch//Lucretius proverb during its tradition history before it was included in the Q collection ( 3).
Von der klassischen Formgeschichte bis zur Gegenwart herrschte die Auffassung vor, dass es sich beim Q-Logion Lk 17,37//Mt 24,28 um eine Art Sprichwort handelt, das in der späten hellenistischen Zeit weit verbreitet war. Obwohl viele Analogien genannt wurden, fehlte es bisher an Beweisen in Form von eindeutigen Parallelen. Infolgedessen stieß die Annahme eines Sprichworts auf Skepsis (§ 1). Entgegen dieser Skepsis wird Lk 17,37//Mt 24,28 in diesem Aufsatz auf ein Sprichwort zurückgeführt, das in Plutarch, Moralia 918C und Lukrez, De rerum natura IV 679–680 erhalten ist. Zu diesem Zweck werden die beiden Texte analysiert und Abweichungen in Wortwahl und Syntax als eine für Sprichwörter typische Variabilität erklärt (§ 2). Darüber hinaus werden Unterschiede zwischen dem von Plutarch und Lukrez bezeugten Sprichwort und dem Spruch Lk 17,37//Mt 24,28 analysiert und auf den Einfluss zurückgeführt, den die jeweiligen Alltagssprachen des hellenistischen und palästinischen Judentums auf das bei Plutarch und Lukrez bezeugte Sprichwort in seiner Traditionsgeschichte ausübten, bevor es in die Q-Sammlung einging (§ 3).
New Testament scholars discussing irony have for decades invoked a character dynamic from Greek Old Comedy between the εἴρων and the ἀλαζών, the dissembler and the braggart, to explain the relationship between different characters in the Gospels and Paul’s letters. This article investigates the validity of this dynamic by analyzing its source: The Tractatus Coislinianus , a 10 th century manuscript that claims to summarize Aristotle’s lost work on comedy ( Poetics II ). The article uses Aristotle, including Poetics I , Rhetoric , and the Nicomachean Ethics , in addition to Old Comedy and Cicero to determine the likelihood that the εἴρων/ἀλαζών dynamic has its roots in Aristotelean thought and Old Comedy as described in the tractatus and argued in scholarship.
