Strukturanalysen sind da mit Vorbehalt durchzuführen, wo die Bindung eines Verfassers an vorgegebene literarische Quellen stärker ist als seine Freiheit, den gewählten Stoff nach ihm eigenen Prinzipien syntaktisch und semantisch kohärent durchzugestalten. Sieht man bei Lukas z.B. die Akoluthie der Logienquelle treuer bewahrt als bei Matthäus, der große Teile der Wortüberlieferung nach systematischen Gesichtspunkten in Reden Jesu untergebracht hat, dann wird man beim dritten Evangelisten, der mit den Spruchfolgen der Logienquelle im großen und ganzen auch deren Struktur-muster bewahrt hat, mit einer Überlagerung solcher Muster mit den Makro-strukturen seiner Gesamtkonzeption rechnen und sich folglich vor ein-dimensionalen Strukturanalysen hüten. Trotzdem ist man überrascht, wie geschickt und kreativ Lk. mit seinen Quellen umgegangen ist und mit bescheidenen Mitteln, wie etwa der Wiederholung bestimmter redaktio-neller Signale, Umstellungen, Verknüpfungen und anderen der Verschmelzung der Stoffe dienenden Kunstgriffen, diesen seine eigene Konzeption aufzuprägen wußte. Anhand der Perikopenfolge Lk. 5. 1–6. 19, in der Lk. größtenteils seiner Mk.-Vorlage folgt, läßt sich seine kunstvolle Arbeits-weise gut illustrieren; dabei wird deutlich, daß er Ästhetik und Rhetorik als Prinzipien seiner Darstellungsweise ganz in den Dienst der Sache gestellt hat, von der er seine Hörer überzeugen will.

It is not our purpose to re-open the discussion on the linguistic character of the different Semitic elements in the New Testament and to go into the problem whether a particular word spoken by Jesus such as εφφαθα is either Hebrew or Aramaic. Neither do we again want to raise the question of how many languages Jesus could speak or understand and which of these he normally used.1 Finally it is also not our intention to ascertain the exact meaning of such a debated phrase as Mαραναθά, whether this is ‘our Lord has come’ or ‘our Lord, come’.

Anyone about to explain a text faces the vexing problem of how precisely to pose the state of the question. His initial option will determine the results of the inquiry and will also immediately capture the interest of his readers or lose it. Initial options in approaching an apocalyptic text like Rev. 11. 1–13 boggle the mind. Valuable analyses have appeared,1 but a cutting-edge of criticism is difficult to discern.2 I propose to try a new method, namely, to explain the narrated action and discourse of Rev. 11. 1–13 by considering the ‘causes’ of the text. The initial option to focus on narrative should prove welcome, if only because no one else seems methodically to have attempted it.3 This approach will require addressing the key issues of the climactic point of a given story, the way the elements of the story (who, what, where, when, etc.) build to that climactic point, and the integration of the story into a set of related, sequential narratives.

Die Korintherbriefe erlauben die Beobachtung einer sich über längere Zeit hinziehenden Rezeption des Evangeliums im synkretistischen Lebensraum einer hellenistischen Grosstadt. Die Missionierung Korinths stellt die an hermeneutischen Prozessen interessierte Auslegung vor immer neue Fragen. Die Schwierigkeiten, mit welchen sie dabei zu kämpfen hat, beruhen nicht nurauf dem fragmentarischen und tendenziösen Charakter der vorliegenden Briefe. Nicht selten behindert eine wenig reflektierte oder zu befangene theoretische Einstellung des Exegeten eine genauere Erfassung der historischen Vorgänge. Gerne erliegt man der Versuchung, sich mit Paulus zu identifizieren und dessen Verständnis des Evangeliums zu übemehmen. Trotz seiner hellenistischen Bildung blieb Paulus weitgehend den Vorstellungen seiner apokalyptischen Eschatologie verpflichtet, empfand die Verkündigung des Evangeliums als einen ihm auferlegten Zwang (Röm. 1. 5; I 9. 16; II 3. 5 f.; 5. 14, 20; Gal. 1. 11 f.) und verstand die Botschaft selber als ein autarkes Wort Gottes, das sich in eigener Dynamik (Röm. 1. 16; I 1. 18; II 4. 7; 10. 4 ff.; 1 Thess. 1. 5; 2. 13) gegen alle Widerstände des Hörers durchzusetzen vermag. Darum fragte er kaum nach den hermeneutischen Bedingungen, die das Rezeptionsfeld von ihm forderte.

So much has been written about the Prologue that it must seem unlikely that anything new could be said about it with some claim to credibility. It is not that all problems have been resolved, or that all that needs to be said has been said. But perhaps, on the basis of existing evidence, it seems that what can be said with some probability has been said. Yet many issues remain unresolved. Are the form and content of the Prologue the consequence of the evangelist's use of a source hymn? Or was the Prologue a specially written introduction for the Gospel? If the Prologue is based on a source hymn: What was the origin of the hymn? How did it come to the evangelist and why did he use it? What was in the hymn and what was added by the evangelist? Answers to these questions are fundamental to a precise understanding of the Prologue and could throw light on the history of the Johannine community.

The Synoptic Problem continues to be the subject of scholarly debate, and the traditional two-document hypothesis is not universally accepted today. One major tenet of the traditional theory is that Matthew and Luke are independent of each other, both depending on common source material, usually called ‘Q’. In a recent article entitled ‘On Putting Q to the Test’, Dr M. D. Goulder has sought to question the traditional theory by giving a number of examples which, he claims, show conclusively that Luke knew Matthew. Goulder's method is to look for parallel texts where there is an agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark, satisfying two further conditions: that Matthew's text is redactional, and that Luke's text is un-Lukan (p. 219). The first of these two conditions precludes possible appeal to Q; the second precludes appeal to independent redaction by Luke of the Markan text.

At the heart of 1 Timothy 2. 11–14, the passage prohibiting certain activities to women in the life of the church, is the verb αύθεντέω. It and διδάσκω constitute the key terms and the focal point of v. 12. This makes the understanding of this term crucial for the exegete. Two interlocked problems have beset the interpreter. The first was the paucity of occurrences of the term. The second, because of such paucity, was to ascertain its basic meaning and its various nuances.

The historian has difficulty detecting the personal influence exercised in the post-Easter community by ‘the apostles’, at least as this group is identified in Christian tradition. The only individuals from this group whose historical role in the church's missionary activity can be clearly discerned are Peter and Paul. Nevertheless, for the church of the second and succeeding centuries, the New Testament is a collection of ‘apostolic writings’: the twenty-seven books are attributed either to Paul, or to one of the twelve, or to a disciple of one of ‘the apostles’ – to Paul's disciple, Luke (Col. 4. 14), or to Peter's disciple, Mark (1 Pet. 5. 13). Moreover, as early as the year 96, Clement of Rome asserts that the apostles appointed their first converts to be bishops and deacons, with the condition that if these should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.

B. A. Mastin, in his article ‘A neglected feature of the christology of the Fourth Gospel’, points out ‘that in the construction of the Fourth Gospel prominence is given to the designation of Jesus as θεός. The Fourth Gospel appears to use the term θεός deliberately of Jesus; in “Paul”, on the other hand, the usage is much more casual, as indeed is the case in the rest of the New Testament, with the possible exception of Heb.i.8f'. Mastin demonstrates that Jn. 1. 1, 18 and 20. 28 speak of Jesus as God. ‘These three verses are placed at strategic points in the gospel, and this underlines the significance of what they say.’ Finally, Mastin states: ‘… it is reasonable to claim that the Evangelist thought it was important that the title θεός should be given to Jesus. It is probable that this feature of his christology is due to controversy with the Jews, and that as a result of this he formulated his estimate of Christ's person in this way.’ I fully agree with these results. The aim of my article is to show the scriptural background for this controversy.