Die neutestamentlichen Schriften blicken mehrheitlich mit erheblichem zeitlichem Abstand auf die Anfänge des frühen Christentums zurück. Dieser Blick ist in keinem Fall von einem ausschlieβlich historischen Interesse geleitet, er dient vielmehr durchgehend der Selbstvergewisserung der eigenen Gegenwart. So erscheint die Verhältnisbestimmung zum Judentum in fast alien Schriften durch eine klare Abgrenzung gekennzeichnet. Der weitgehend negative Verlauf der christlichen Mission an Juden einerseits und der Fall Jerusalems im Jahr 70 n.Chr. andererseits haben diese neutestamentliche Sicht im wesentlichen geprägt.

There are several references in the gospels of John and Matthew which indicate that members of the Pharisaic sect associated with the Jewish chief priests in a quasi-authoritative way to work for common religious or political purposes. Where these references have occurred, they have attracted attention – and indeed suspicion – as being historically inaccurate and the result of a retrojection of the role of the Pharisees in the later first century into the earlier periods of that century.

How significant is the Son of David tradition for Mark? At first blush the answer to that question would seem to be: not very significant at all. The title ‘Son of Man’ is, after all, far more frequent, and can be applied to Jesus in no fewer than three guises his earthly authority (Mark 2.10, 28), his suffering servanthood (8.31; 9.9, 12, 31; 10.33–4, 45), and his apocalyptic glory (8.38; 13.26; 14.21, 41, 62).1 The term ‘Son of God’, while used less frequently, appears at theologically strategic points in the narrative (1.12; 3.H; 15.39; See also 1.11, 24; 5.7; 9.7), and is clearly Mark's controlling title for Jesus, in whose light all the others are to be understood. ‘Son of David’, by contrast, while characteristic of Matthew (1.1, [20]; 9.27; 12.23; 15.22; 20.30–1; 21.9, 15), appears as a title for Jesus only twice in Mark (10.47, 48) – although its underlying concept is found in 11.9–10, and its messianic significance is briefly considered by Jesus in 12.35–7. So, to return to our initial question: does this infrequency of occurrence imply that the title is not important for Mark? On the contrary, one full section of the gospel, at least, 10.46–12.44, appears to be characterised by what one might call Jesus' ‘Son of David activity’. The illusion that Mark lacks interest in this field is created in two ways. First, the Evangelist quite conventionally confines this Son of David activity to the environs of Jerusalem, but in his scheme, Jerusalem does not loom into view until the last week of Jesus' life (10.46–16.8), so it is clear that the Son of David concept could not have been introduced prior to his entry into Judea (10.1). Secondly, it will be shown that, for Mark, the Davidic title is a low-key term, divested of all political overtones – but it is none the less important for that.

Scholars continue to puzzle over the meaning and rhetorical function of 1 Cor 6.12–20. For many, the burning question is historical: what prompted some Corinthian Christians to defend the use of prostitutes?1 Others have suggested that the rhetoric of the argument works only when certain Corinthian ‘slogans’ are identified and decoded. Still others ponder the predominantly individualistic focus of this section, within a letter labouring at almost every turn to shape Christian community. For several, the stumbling stone is Paul's ‘body’ language. In all of this, the precise contribution of v. 18 has been elusive.2 Increasingly popular is the view that 18b – every sin a man commits is outside the body – is a Corinthian ‘slogan’ known and cited by Paul only to be soundly debunked or at least substantially modified.3 The chief advantage of this view is obvious: a notorious Pauline crux becomes a mere Corinthian quirk. Nevertheless, a majority of interpreters (probably rightly) continue to identify all of v. 18 with Paul's own position, although there is little agreement over the nature of Paul's contrast between sexual sin and other sins. Some take Paul to be arguing for a ‘quantitative’ difference: sexual sin belongs toward the end of a continuum; whatever damage sin causes is intensified in the case of sexual sin. Others detect a sharper, ‘qualitative’ difference: sexual sin is different in kind, not just in degree, from other sins. The chart below (see over, pp. 542–3) collects and orders the principal alternatives we have outlined.4

Johannes Weiss was the first to suggest that 2 Cor 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 was once an independent work.1 Weiss saw that the tone of these chapters varied, not only from chapter 10–13, but also from the intervening text, 2.14–7.4. Here the reconciliation is not apparent, which, in chapters 1–2 and 7, is the presupposition of Paul's joy. On the contrary, Paul must still answer charges that he has wronged, corrupted, and defrauded the Corinthians, and must plead with the Corinthians to open their hearts (2.17; 4.1–2; 6.3–13; 7.2–4). This passage must have been written at the height of the conflict, before the successful conclusion of peace. Then, Paul wrote again in a cordial manner, to assure the Corinthians of his confidence, and to remove the lingering traces of doubt. The proof of this analysis Weiss discovered in the connection between 2.13 and 7.5: the account of Paul's anxious search for Titus breaks off at the decisive point (2.13) and resumes only four chapters later (7.5) at the very point where it had broken off. ‘This separation of what belongs together is unheard of and intolerable, from a literary point of view, since 2.13 and 7.5 fit onto each other as neatly as the broken pieces of a ring.’2

There has been a tendency among some exegetes to treat 2 Cor 8.1–15 as ‘merely’ an administrative and financial issue. Often this conclusion is based on Paul's use of ἐπιτελέω which, they argue, draws on the language of business and government. However, the distinction between ‘administrative’ and ‘religious’ is improper; one of the primary ways of demonstrating piety in antiquity was by the giving of money to a god. There is much inscriptional evidence for the use of ἐπιτελέω in contexts of religious duty.1 Given the social context of Paul and the Corinthians, these inscriptions provide helpful background for the way in which Paul's injunction to give generously would have been heard and understood.2

In Rom 16.18 we have a unique word, alongside another word which is used by Paul in a unique way. That is challenge enough to any student of the language of the Greek NT. ‘Faire speeches’ is the AV's rendering of εὐλογία. Elsewhere in the NT, where it occurs 16 times, εὐλογία is always used in an approving sense, of the human praise of God or of the divine bounty for which praise is due. The word is found nine times in the Pauline corpus; a little earlier in this same letter, Paul had spoken about his certainty that he will visit Rome ‘in the fullness of the blessing (εὐλογία) of Christ’ (15.29 RSV). After that and the other Pauline and the non-Pauline usage, the use at 16.18 grates on the ear.1 Its context shows that here εὐλογία is being used disparagingly, of men who flatter to deceive (ἐξαπατῶσιν) and work to mislead and divide the community. Today, we might call such men ‘smoothies’ who ‘turn on the charm’, ‘chat up’ the gullible, ‘talk up’ their policies and ‘sweet talk’ their way to success for their own selfish purposes.

At 12.28 Mark speaks of a scribe who asked Jesus ‘What is the first commandment?’ The motive for the scribe's question is not expressed, but from the way the story unfolds (12.28–34), it seems that his question was sincere, straightforward and not devious. It is very unlikely that Luke (10.25–37) was influenced by Mark in details,1 but, if Mark be the principal Lucan source, Mark's story was known to Luke and was likely instrumental, we can say, in Luke's decision to incorporate his own story about a νομικός whose encounter with Jesus has certain affinities with that of Mark's γραμματεύς

Pet 1.16–18 reflects on the transfiguration, an event narrated at greater length in the synoptic gospels (Mark 9.2–8; Matt 17.1–8; Luke 9.28–36). While it is theoretically possible that 2 Pet 1.16–18 refers to a story unknown to the gospel tradition, its obvious connections to the synoptic scene leave little doubt that 2 Peter alludes to the transfiguration, a judgment virtually unanimous among scholars. 2 Peter's description of the event differs in several ways from the synoptic scene and the former lacks some features that figure prominently in the latter. The author of 2 Peter does not give a full narration of the event, but rather assumes that his audience is familiar with it.