Since World War II a considerable number of New Testament scholars (many of them German) have come to the conclusion that Paul did not write II Thessalonians. Among these the names of Rudolf Bultmann, Günther Bornkamm, Willi Marxsen, and Helmut Koester come to mind. What is curious is that to date no single commentary has appeared in any major European language which interprets II Thessalonians as pseudonymous. C. Masson in the introduction to his commentary decides against Pauline authorship, but in the commentary itself interprets as though Paul were the author – an anomaly perhaps related to his view of pseudonymity. The forth-coming commentaries of Marxsen and Koester will therefore provide scholars with the first examples of exegesis of the letter as non-Pauline. Since the issue of authorship is evidently by no means settled, the present article examines the evidence for both positions and concludes with a discussion of pseudonymity in the ancient world.

The reasonably clear picture of the Pharisees at the time of Jesus which we thought we had is now looking decidedly unclear. J. Bowker's work questions whether the Pharisees were the predecessors of the Rabbis, and J. Neusner's massive researches have shown how precarious are statements about the Pharisees before A.d. 70 when once critical techniques long used in Gospel criticism are employed on Rabbinic sources. It therefore seems appropriate to examine afresh the NT picture of the Pharisees, and in practice this means the Gospel picture, for elsewhere they are named once only, in Phil. iii. 5. I shall hope to show that this picture is strange and by no means uniform. We may conveniently attack the problem through Luke-Acts, partly because of the time-span involved, and partly because of the often noticed fact that Luke is rather less hostile to the Pharisees than the other evangelists are.

Daß basileia tou theou ‘der beherrschende Begriff der Verkündigung Jesu’ ist, darin sind sich die Neutestamentler einig. Einig auch darin, daß der Ausdruck nicht ein ‘Reich’ oder beherrschtes Gebiet meine, sondern vielmehr ‘Königsherrschaft’ als Abstraktum im Sinne von unbeschränkter herrscherlicher Machtausübung, ‘weder ein räumlicher noch ein statischer, vielmehr ein dynamischer Begriff’. Strittig bleibt das Maß von Gegenwärtigkeit einerseits, Zukünftigkeit andererseits, das Jesus mit der göttlichen basileia verbindet; eine Strittigkeit, die weitreichende Folgen für die Theologie der Gegenwart überhaupt hat, hangt doch für viele Theologen an der Klärung ebensosehr die Bestimmung der Rolle der Kirche in Zeit und Heilsgeschichte wie die Begründung für Prinzipien der Staatsethik und vieles andere.

Dans la conclusion de son ouvrage sur ‘La structure littéraire de l'épître aux Hébreux’, A. Vanhoye constate combien ‘l'étude de la structure s'est avérée…utile pour l'éxégèse de l'Epître’ et qu' ‘elle doit normalement contribuer…à la mise en valeur des richesses contenues dans le texte’ (p. 259). C'est en partageant ces convictions que nous voudrions répondre à une autre de ses constatations: ‘Tel ou tel détail de notre exposé demanderait un examen plus approfondi’ (ibid.). Il nous semble en effet que tel est le cas pour la parénèse qui est au centre de la première partie: ii. 1–4. Re-prendre l'étude de la structure littéraire de ces quatre versets ne saurait évidemment prétendre à plus qu'à préciser quelques ‘details’. Mais l'on sait assez maintenant comme tout et parties, ensemble et détails se tiennent dans cette épître. Et à notre tour, nous espérons que malgré ‘la minutie de certaines analyses’ le lecteur une fois encore ‘ne regrettera pas son effort’ (ibid.).

I Corinthians xiv. 20–25 has long posed several cruces interpretationis for commentators. The basic problems concern the relationship of the assertions made about tongues and prophecy in υ. 22 to the quotation of Isa. xxviii. 11–12 in υ. 21 and to the illustrations concerning tongues and prophecy in υυ. 23–5. As to the quotation, J. Ruef remarks that most commentators admit to the difficulty of seeing how it substantiates Paul's conclusion that tongues are meant as a sign for the unbeliever. Concerning the illustrations, both J. Héring and J. P. M. Sweet note that in the light of the assertions we would expect them to be the reverse of what they are. While tongues are asserted to be meant as a sign for unbelievers and prophecy for believers, the illustrations depict the negative effect of tongues upon unbelievers and the positive effect of prophecy not on believers but upon unbelievers. The second assertion (υ. 22b) in particular contradicts the second illustration (υυ. 24–5) in that it clearly states that ‘prophecy is meant as a sign not for unbelievers but for believers’. This is so if σημεĩον is taken in a positive sense. If, on the other hand, it is taken in a negative sense, the logical relation of this second illustration to the second assertion becomes ambiguous.

II Corinthians xii. 1–1O gives us a glimpse into the life of Paul the visionary and the resurgence of interest in transcendental experiences has brought new attention to Paul's experience of the third heaven. Research into drug-induced experiences sheds no greater light on Paul's account but, as might be expected, relating the episode to ‘charismatic’ experiences has proved more fruitful.