Boletín de Filología Neotestamentaria 183 65. WU, D.T. CH., An Analysis of the Structure of 1 John Using Discourse Analysis. Diss., Southern Bap. Theol. Sem. 1998, 208 pp. Sum- mary, see DissAbst 59 (1998-1999) 3855A. Microfilm available in Ann Arbor, AAT 9908459. STYLISTICS 66. KRAUS, T.J., Sprache, Stil und historischer Ort des zweiten Petrusbrie- fes (WUNT 120). Tübingen (Mohr) 2001, 490 pp. The a. studies the special style and language of this letter (a testament in form of a letter), comparing it with texts of its time (papyri, profane and religious literature). The a. tries to get a literary, stylistic profile of the letter and of its author. SYNTAX 67. BURER, M.H. - WALLACE D.B., “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-Examination of Rom 6.7”, NTS 47 (2001) 76-91. “The iden- tification of Junia in Rom 16:7 has been a familiar problem in biblical interpretation. Most studies, however, are preoccupied with the gender of the name, assuming that Junia’s apostolic status is not in doubt. This art. addresses the later issue”. The a. examine ἐπίσημος with both genitive modifiers and ἐν plus dative adjuncts in biblical, patristic Greek, papyri, inscriptions, classical and Hellenistic Greek. The conclusion is that ἐπισήμιοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις does not mean ‘noteworthy among the apostles’, but ‘well known to the apostles’. Junia was not an apostle, but only a person ‘well known to the Apostles’. 68. OLLERO-GRANADOS, D., “La teoría del ‘aspecto’ y Jn 20,17a”, CFC(L) 15 (1998) 313-321. This art. makes a linguistic commentary (with especial reference to ‘aspect’) of μή μου ἅπτου and its Latin version ‘Noli me tangere’. TRANSLATION See in general the reviews Bible Translator (London) and Notes on Translation (Dallas). 69. BERDING, K., “Confusing Word and Concept in ‘Spiritual Gifts’: Have We forgotten James Barr’s Exhortations?”, JEvTS 43 (2000) 37-