In the wake of redaction-criticism it has become customary to treat the evangelists as theologians. This study is an attempt to elucidate how the Gospel of Matthew defines the impact of Jesus on salvation in a reinterpretation of tradition. Following a new trend in christological studies, emphasis has been laid not so much on the different christological titles as on the way the Jesus story is told as articulating the writer's christology. A special trait in Matthew is its meeknes Christology, and great importance is also given to Jesus as the Teacher par excellence. God being the real actor in the gospel story, the Christology of Matthew turns out to be theology in the sense of soteriology.

The question of Paul's identity is raised by his history as a diaspora Jew, then Pharisee, who became a believer in Messiah Jesus and apostle to the gentiles. How did he think of himself? The essay focuses on the categories ‘Jew’, ‘(in) Judaism’, ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Israel(ite)’, with particular reference to Rom 2.28–9, 1 Cor 9.20–1, Gal 1.13–14, 2 Cor 11.22, Phil 3.4–7 and Rom 11.1. It also contrasts Paul's devaluation of circumcision and food laws with his continued and characteristically Jewish hostility to idolatry and sexual licence. Paul's identity was evidently in transition, both rooted in his Jewish heritage and responding to fresh revelation, thus reflecting the emerging identity of Christianity.

When Paul uses the verb πρoεγραϕη in Gal 3.1 he is not referring to an earlier writing of his, nor is he appealing to prophecies written in scripture. It may be possible to see here an allusive employment of mystery vocabulary. The dominant view is that πρoγραϕη implies a purely verbal depiction of Christ, the visual language being understood metaphorically. This article argues that the visual aspect of πρoγραϕη signifies Paul's display of the crucified Christ who was living in him according to the immediately preceding verses 2.19–21. Paul displayed the crucified Christ primarily in persecution suffered for his gospel.

The epistle contains three OT quotations as well as several biblical allusions and examples; other sources (such as Ben Sira) are not discernible. James collected excerpt-material from a wide background, not just by oral tradition – hence ‘intertextuality’. In a similar way the OT quotations, all combative in nature, seem to have been taken from secondary sources, viz. from Pauline (ch. 2) and ‘Petrine’ (ch. 4) traditions. Probably James had no direct access to a full OT text or longer parts of it. Nevertheless he uses ‘scripture’ as an authority and may have had a concept of canon.

In der Forschung zur Johannesapokalypse ist die Deutung des ersten apokalyptischen Reiters (Apk 6.2) kontrovers. Neben die verbreitete negative Deutung traten in den letzten Jahren verschiedene Ansätze für ein positives christologisches Verständnis. In Auseinandersetzung damit wird ein bisher nicht berücksichtigtes Problem besonders in den Blick genommen, daß nämlich der erste Reiter einerseits positiv interpretiert werden kann, dann aber andererseits als ein Siegel am siebenfach versiegelten Buch zu deuten ist, das nicht als Buch des Gerichtes, sondern als Lebensbuch des Lammes verstanden werden muß. Schließlich wird seine konzeptuelle Bedeutung im Zusammenhang mit dem Reiter von Apk 19 beschrieben.

In one of the strangest stories in his strange Gospel, Mark records the two-stage healing of a blind man by Jesus in Bethsaida (8.22–6). Jesus’ first healing action of spitting on the man's eyes and laying hands on them is only partially successful; the man now sees something, but what he sees is people who look like walking trees (8.24). His vision is still unclear, so Jesus must repeat the therapy, this time with more felicitous results: και διεβλεψεν [sc. oτυϕγoς] και απεκατεστη και ενεβλεπεν τηλαυγως απαντα. But how exactly is this clause to be translated?

In a recent article in this journal, Michael Bachmann argued several points concerning Rev 6.1–8. I list both the important points he argues, as well as one of his major presuppositions, since I will respond to both: (1) the first horseman is to be understood in a positive sense, ‘als Hypostasierung des Erscheinens Gottes’; (2) he is strongly identified with Christ in Rev 19; and (3) the remaining horsemen are manifestly negative figures. The first point is correct, but I have reservations about the other two. Since the third point is actually not a thesis that Bachmann tries to win, but rather one that he presupposes in arguing the first two points, I am in the strange position of sometimes showing that Bachmann reaches a partially correct position ([1], not [2]) by a manifestly incorrect argument (i.e. separating the first horseman from the other three).

In his study ‘Du kataluma à la crèche’, NTS 44 (1998) 618–22, J. Winandy argues that Luke 2.7, διoτι oυκ ην αυτoις τoπoς εν τω καταλυματι, does not imply that an innkeeper sent away (for want of room, τoπoς) one about to give birth, but rather that his convivial καταλυμα was inappropriate for the event. The argument attracts. But Winandy's seven examples of τo[pi]oς do not have this meaning. Each takes τo[pi]oς in the sense of ‘the place where one would expect to find something’. To[pi]oς can indeed mean ‘the appropriate place’ (LXX Job 18.22; Eccles 1.5; 10.4), ‘home’ (LXX 2 Chron 25.10; Job 27.21, 23; Isa 14.2; Jer 4.7), or even a temporary abode (LXX Esdras 1.4). But Luke's allusion eluded Winandy, as it does many of his readers. Isa 66 figures in early Christian apologetic. Matthew's Magi can be found there. Isa 66.19 appears as a parallel to Luke 2.34, and Luke 22.68 recalls Isa 66.4.

The Fifty-third General Meeting of the Society was held at the University of Copenhagen (Panum Institute), Copenhagen, Denmark, during 4–8 August 1998 under the Presidency of Professor P. Borgen. About 353 members, spouses and guests were present.