By any standards, discussion of Paul's reaction to slavery and slave-ownership is exceptionally complex and controversial. There are more than enough difficulties in attempting to grasp the true character and significance of slavery in the Graeco-Roman world of the first century, due not merely to the fragmentary and one-sided nature of our evidence but also to the deep-rooted political and philosophical commitments which influence almost every significant treatment of the topic. But to discuss Paul in relation to slavery is to add further complications. If, with the majority of scholars, we bracket off Col 3. 22–4. 1, Eph 6. 5–9, 1 Tim 6. 1–2 and Tit 2. 9–10 as Deutero-Pauline, we are left with comparatively few texts which refer directly to the institution of slavery: Gal 3. 28 (cf. 1 Cor 12. 13), 1 Cor 7. 21–24 and the letter to Philemon are all that remain. But even these texts contain sufficient complexities and ambiguities to render an assessment of Paul's view of slavery far from straightforward. Moreover, varying ideological commitments play a significant role in interpretation here too.

Philemon 10 gives a clear indication that the slave Onesimus and the apostle Paul came to be together in a place of imprisonment. How exactly this transpired is a matter of debate. Some have simply asserted that ‘Paul somehow got to meet Onesimus’, or that Onesimus ‘came into touch with Paul’. Others, however, have offered one or more of several hypotheses.

Chr. Maurer hat schon 1965, ‘aus der Anfechtung unserer Zeit heraus’ (S.3), dazu aufgerufen, angesichts einer ‘in der Sache begründeten Freiheit (der neutestamentlichen Zeugen), in historischer und methodologischer Hinsicht so unbekümmert zu reden’ (S.12), der ‘uns bedrängenden theo-logischen Wahrheitsfrage’ (S.11) ‘vor (uns) selbt und vor andern … in ehr-licher Weise Rede und Antwort zu stehen’ (S.8). Wenn ‘in diesem Jesus Gott selbst gehandelt hat’, dann ist er ‘von alien Mythen …, aber auch von allem, was Menschen sich unter dem letzten “Sein” vorstellen, so zu unter-scheiden wie der Schöpfer von der Schöpfung’(S. 12), und doch soil ‘dieses Geschehen denkbar sauber erarbeitet, sprachlich klar formuliert und verstandlich weitergegeben werden’ (S. 16). Darum reden die neutestamentlichen Zeugen ‘missverständlich’ und ‘nehmen die sich darbietenden unpassenden oder doch nur halbwegs passenden Bilder, Redewendungen und Vorstellungen auf’, ‘aber sie machen zugleich durchsichtig, wie missverständlich all ihr Reden notwendigerweise sein muss’ (S. 17). Damit ist das Programm umschrieben, das ich hier anhand der Redewendung ‘Gott sandte seinen Sohn, damit (er die Welt rette)’ in Gal 4. 4–5; Rom 8. 3; Joh 3. 16,17; 1 Joh 4. 9 bedenken möchte.

The interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16. 19–31) shows both how misleading extra-biblical parallels to biblical motifs can be when misused, and also how enlightening they can be when correctly used. The parable makes use of two major narrative motifs which can be paralleled in other ancient literature: (1) a reversal of fortunes experienced by a rich man and a poor man after death; (2) a dead person's return from the dead with a message for the living. Since Gressmann's monograph drew attention to one important example of (1) – the Egyptian story of Setme and Si-Osiris (together with later Jewish stories derived from it) – much discussion of the parable has been dominated by this one parallel. Both the way in which this parallel has been used in the interpretation of the parable and the restriction of interest to this one parallel have had unfortunate consequences.

The earliest New Testament account of the institution of the Eucharist is found in 1 Cor 11. 23–30. The first important point to consider is whether Paul is claiming to know about Jesus' eucharistic words through a personal revelation, or through a tradition handed down to him from the leaders of the Jerusalem Church. I shall argue that the view of earlier scholarship (e.g. Loisy and Lietzmann) that Paul is speaking here of a personal vision has been too easily dismissed.

Ob der schriftgelehrte Nachfolgekandidat in Mt 8. 19–20 von Jesus angenommen oder abgewiesen wird, ist eine umstrittene Frage. Neulich hat J. D. Kingsbury für die letztere Alternative entschieden Stellung genommen.

J. Neusner and E. P. Sanders have directed scholarly attention to Mark 11. 15–19 and its parallels. Sanders used this pericope to demonstrate his belief that this was the most trustworthy report of any of Jesus' teachings and actions, and Neusner presumed its historical validity while conjecturing that on this occasion Jesus repudiated Jewish temple sacrifice and intended to substitute for the tables in the temple the Eucharist table as a means of obtaining atonement. These are bold claims and prompt a further analysis of the relevant passage: