Few scholars have proposed that there is any precise OT background for Paul's view of reconciliation, even though there has been much discussion about the formulation of the doctrine. There is no Hebrew word for ‘reconciliation’ in the OT; there is general agreement that Paul obtained this word from not only the Jewish but also the Greco-Roman world. The καταλλάσσω–διαλλάσσομαι word group is found in the Septuagint (rarely), 2 and 4 Maccabees and Josephus as well as in classical, hellenistic and koine writings. The use of the word group in these writings has been well documented.

Martin Dibelius long ago described the oration on the Areopagus as ‘… a hellenistic speech about the true knowledge of God’. In this paper it will be argued that the exordium of the Areopagus speech clearly conforms to conventions of hellenistic rhetoric in regard to exordia; secondly, that this exordium functions as an introduction to a deliberation on the topic of religion; and finally, that both the exordium and the speech as a whole bear witness to what Frederick Danker has aptly described as the author's ‘broadly ranging rhetorical competence’.

That John 6 was intended as a self-contained unit is clearly signalled by the evangelist, who has commenced chapters 5, 6 and 7 with μετά ταûτα, a formula that marks a new beginning. Yet there has long been controversy regarding the unity and integrity of the chapter and its present place in the Gospel. In this paper it is argued that, though independent of the Synoptics, John has made use of Synoptic-like tradition and that chapter 6 provides evidence of a developing and yet unified interpretation of that tradition. The tradition was the basis of two editions of the chapter. Recognition and characterization of the tradition is an important beginning in the attempt to understand John 6. A second step is to note the signals indicating changes of time, place and audience which coincide with changes of literary genre. Changes are signalled from the crowd at Capernaum (6. 22–36) to the Jews in the synagogue at Capernaum (6. 41–59) to the disciples and ‘the twelve’ at some unspecified location (6. 60–71). There are two references to each audience in the narrative of these sections (6. 22, 24, 41, 52, 60, 66, 67, 71) and a Son of Man saying in each of Jesus' responses, to the crowd (6. 27), the Jews (6. 53), and the disciples (6. 62). Changes of genre from quest (6. 1–36) to rejection (6. 41–59 and 6. 60–66) to commendation (6. 67–71) stories confirm these divisions. There is also a transition from the emphasis on the emissary christology in the quest story to the soteriology of the rejection stories.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: We have attempted to indicate that the ask-logion of Matthew 7. 7a, 8a is an independent saying (probably of Jesus himself) which originally called for or described a response within the context of the earliest, eschatological preaching of the Kingdom of God. The uncontrolled and volatile possibilities inherent in this independent saying led the church to begin a process of ‘definition’ of the saying. In this process the context in which the saying is found changes and often its form undergoes changes in order to bring the saying within the church's understanding of what was possible and permissible. The pressures of the ecclesiastical and the eschatological ethical traditions are both present in the Matthean version. A very sketchy suggestion (arising from our study) for the plotting of this development is offered in the accompanying diagram.

Regarding the biblical authors, St. Augustine the rhetor remarks, ‘Thus there is a kind of eloquence fitting for men most worthy of the highest authority and clearly inspired by God.’ Whatever we may think of this bold statement, the NT does indeed contain numerous portions which exhibit a knowledge of and even a mastery of Greco-Roman rhetoric. Many of these portions of the NT remain unanalyzed from a rhetorical perspective, including the Johannine Epistles.

It is well known that earlier ways of measuring the style of Paul's epistles have in recent years been supplemented by specific tests based on calculations of the frequency of certain particles, sentence lengths, use of the subjunctive, use of specific tenses and the like. Two prominent works using such methods reach very different conclusions. In an important recent book Anthony Kenny puts forward a conclusion phrased in terms which reflect the judicious caution of one well versed in philosophy. He does not boldly assert that it is probable that Paul wrote twelve of the surviving epistles, merely that on the evidence which he collected he saw ‘no reason to reject the hypothesis that twelve of the Pauline epistles are the work of a single, unusually versatile author’.

Eher am Rande des Blickfeldes exegetischer Forschung steht das vierte Makkabäerbuch. Keine Disziplin fühlt sich, wie schon Freudenthal anmerkte, dafür so recht zuständig. Dabei wurde es nach Ausweis der alten Codices und einiger Kanonsverzeichnisse zumindest für eine kurze Zeitspanne zum christlichen Kanon der Septuaginta gezählt.

Since the first significant studies of Semitic influence on the NT published by Wyss, Pasor and Trom in the mid 17th century, there has not been a lack of interest in the topic of the language of the Greek Bible. Treatments of Semitic influence on the Greek of the NT usually concentrate on two issues: the current languages of lst-century Palestine, and various theories regarding the nature of the Greek of the NT. Whatever answers might be posited for the other books of the NT, few scholars have been completely satisfied with estimations given concerning the Apocalypse. Here most acutely the question of the languages used in Palestine during the 1st century overlaps with, if it is not dependent upon, the question of the nature of the Greek of the NT.

Die Texte, die etwas näher betrachtet werden sollen, umfassen nicht das gesamte Sondergut des ersten Evangelisten. Ausgeklammert werden von vornherein die Kindheitsgeschichten sowie die Ausschmückungen in dem Passions- und Auferstehungsbericht. Die vielen übrigen, zum Teil ausgeführten, zum Teil sehr kurzen Texte sind sehr verschieden geartet. Es sind darin Kurzgleichnisse wie jenes vom Schatz im Acker oder von der Perle (Mt 13. 44–46), ausgeführte Gleichnisse wie jenes von den Arbeitern im Weinberg (20. 1–15) oder den zehn Jungfrauen (25. 1–13), Gesetzesauslegungen wie die Antithesen (5. 21–22, 27–28, 33–37), Weisungen für die persönliche Frömmigkeit (5. 23–24; 6. 2–4, 16–18), eine Gemeinderegel (18. 15–18), ein Gerichtsgemälde (25. 31–46) und viele Einzellogien enthalten. Sowohl von der Form als auch vom Inhalt her handelt es sich um unterschiedliche Überlieferungen, und es ist kaum zufällig, daß auch die Frage, woher Mt diese Traditionen hat, auf verschiedene Weise beantwortet wurde. Rechnen einige Forscher mindestens partiell mit Sonderüberlieferungen aus mündlicher oder schriftlicher Tradition, so halten andere die Aufnahme eines Teiles derselben in eine erweiterte Q-Fassung für möglich.2 Damit ist das Problem freilich nur etwas verschoben, denn die Frage bleibt, woher sie dann in Q einflossen.

In a previous issue of NTS, Richard Bauckham suggests that Acta Thomae 146 contains a lost parable of Jesus about a vine. The second section of the article comprises a study of Odes of Solomon 38. 16–18 (17–19), in which Bauckham proposes to find certain traces of the same parable. In this short note, I shall be concerned principally with this section of Bauckham's article.

Während die lukanische Kindheitsgeschichte im ganzen recht zusammenhängend konzipiert erscheint, weist ihr matthäisches Gegenstück zahlreiche Widersprüche und Ungereimtheiten auf. Dies gilt besonders für die im zweiten Kapitel geschilderten Vorgänge. Ohne plausible Erklärung bleiben z.B. das verhängnisvolle Zusammentreffen der Magier mit Herodes und die merkwürdigen Himmelsbewegungen des Wundersterns. Engelserscheinungen im Traum dienen wiederholt dazu, entscheidende Handlungsmomente notdürftig zu motivieren. Doch in der Situation nach dem Tode des Herodes versagt selbst diese Erzählfigur. Nachdem ein ἃγγελος κυρίου Josef versichert hat, die Verfolger des Kindes seien gestorben (2. 20), verläßt die Hl. Familie Ägypten und kehrt zurück in das ‘Land Israel’. In Judäa aber stellt sich heraus, daß die tödliche Gefahr nach wie vor besteht, denn nunmehr regiert dort Archelaus, ein Sohn des Herodes (2. 22).