Wenn ich dieses Wort vom Ende des ersten Thessalonicherbriefes meinen Ausführungen als Motto voranstelle, dann nicht, um mich selbst als Propheten anzupreisen, sondern um anzuzeigen, daβ unter dieser Rücksicht auch Paulus selbst unsere Aufmerksamkeit verdient.

The broad title of this article can be misleading. That is the reason why I have added a sub-title pointing out that I am not going to present a study of the whole complex of ideas connected with the Pauline and Johannine concept ‘to know God’. Because of the limited space that an article offers such a study could hardly be a complete one, and, in any case, the fine analyses of the knowledge of God in Paul and John which already exist make it unnecessary. As the sub-title indicates, my intention is to discuss one point only in this field, namely the Greek philosophical principle ‘like by like’ as an essential element in John's and Paul's understanding of how one gets to know God, and thus to contribute to the discussion of how the Hellenistic way of thinking influenced them or rather how two outstanding Early Church theologians adapted their argumentation to a Hellenistic pattern. By analysing primarily the two passages I Cor. ii. 6–16 and John i. 1–18 and interpreting them in the light of the Greek principle, it will be clear that the authors of these passages were familiar with the principle. It might seem strange to choose these two passages that are very much debated as chief sources of an exposition of such a complicated idea as ‘to know God’, particularly as at first sight the idea does not appear to be the most important one in I Cor. ii and the conclusive verb γινώσκειν occurs only once in the Prologue, i. 10. Nevertheless I think that both passages give evidence of a usage of (or an adaptation of the theological reasoning for) the principle ‘like by like’. This has not been stressed sufficiently in earlier studies.

Fifteen years ago, at the meeting in Gwatt, Switzerland (1967), when I read my first paper before the Society, I gave it the title: ‘Les femmes au tombeau. Etude de la rédaction matthéenne’. It was a redactional study of Mt. 28. 1–10, with a special concentration on the verses 9–10, the appearance of Jesus to the women, and its parallel in Jn. 20. 17. My paper today could be entitled: Fifteen years later. Many things have changed in the course of these years. An important exegetical contribution has been devoted to the empty tomb stories in the gospels and, more significantly, the scholarly discussion on ‘John and the Synoptics’ has been brought to the foreground. To mention only the Journal of our Society: July 1980, ‘John and the Synoptics: Some Dimensions of the Problem’, by D. M. Smith; April 1981, ‘John and the Synoptic Gospels: A Test Case’, by B. Lindars.

Ever since its publication by Bryennios in 1883 the Didache has been welcomed as a witness to our gospels. ‘We are surprised at the amount of testimony…. that it bears to the Canon’, wrote Bishop Lightfoot in 1885. Forty years later B. H. Streeter hesitated to claim it as a witness to Luke, but insisted that its author seemed ‘not only to have read Matthew, but also, like Ignatius, to refer to it under the title of “The Gospel”’. More positively still in 1957 Philip Carrington described it as ‘an appendix to Matthew, to which [its] readers…are explicitly referred no less than four times’.

My purpose here is to suggest the possibility that Matthew used Mark and a primitive version of Luke in the composition of his Gospel. Although I can only point to some thematic and structural patterns, I find that both word studies and detailed analysis of passages support this possibility. The hypothetical primitive version of Luke resembles what we know of Marcion's Gospel both in content and in arrangement. It consists of the bulk of the material in Luke between the pericopes on John the Baptist and the Passion narrative, inclusive. It contains all the Marcan material in Luke, all the material common to Matthew and Luke, and much of the material peculiar to Luke. I shall refer to it as ‘Primitive Luke’.

F. Chr. Baur sah in dem ‘Mangel an einem selbständigen Inhalt’ ein untrügliches Kennzeichen für den unapostolischen Charakter des 1 Thess. Die Bedeutungslosigkeit des Schreibens und das Fehlen dogmatischer Ideen waren für ihn das Hauptargument für die Annahme, der erste Thessalonicherbrief sei ein in paulinischer Form nachgebildeter Brief mit dem Zweck, die Idee der Parusie ‘dem christlichen Bewußtsein näher zu bringen’. Wird auch heute diese These Baurs nicht mehr vertreten, so macht dennoch sein Verdikt der theologischen Belanglosigkeit des 1 Thess auf ein nach wie vor aktuelles Problem aufmerksam: das Fehlen wichtiger Begriffe und Theologumena anderer Paulusbriefe im 1 Thess. So sind die anthropologischen Termini σάρξ άμαρτία, θάντος, σμα, έλενθερία und ζωή nicht belegt, fehlen der δικ -Stamms und der στανρ -Stamm und erscheint schließlich νόμος im 1 Thess nicht. Die theologischen Konzeptionen der Rechtfertigungslehre, der Kreuzestheologie, der Kirche als Leib Christi und der Taufe als eines Begräbnisses mit Christus sind dem 1 Thess offensichtlich unbekannt. Zudem spielt das AT keine Rolle, sind die eschatologischen Aussagen von denen anderer Briefe erheblich unterschieden und ist die Polemik Pauli gegen die Juden in 1 Thess 2. 14 ff. einzigartig.

It is often held that where a word or passage is not found in all the manuscripts, but occupies different places in the manuscripts in which it does occur, that is a sign (though not an incontestable proof) that it was not in the original text but has been interpolated.

A close comparison with Plutarch's De amore prolis and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics shows the author of 4 Maccabees to have used common topics from Greek ethical reflection on love for offspring as a means of commending Torah-observance as the means by which one is enabled to secure one's children's eternal well-being, fulfilling the natural goal of love for offspring more completely. The author shows how trust in God's future enables the mother to view even the death of her children as the fulfillment rather than the negation of her maternal investment, as in the laments of Euripides's heroines in Trojan Women and Hecuba, from which the author explicitly distances her, enabling her exemplary courage.

In 1997 T. C. Skeat, at 90 years of age, published an important article entitled ‘The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?’ in New Testament Studies.T. C. Skeat, ‘The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?’, NTS 43 (1997) 1–34. This article has recently been reprinted in J. K. Elliott (ed.), The Collected Biblical Writings of T. C. Skeat (NovTSup 113; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 158–92. Skeat was born on 15 Feb 1907, so I suppose there is a chance that the first issue of the year may have been published when he was but 89. He died on 25 June 2003. For an obituary by J. K. Elliott (reprinted from The Independent of 8 July 2003), see TC 8 (2003): http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol08/Skeat2003obit.html. In this article Skeat put forward a number of important arguments concerning the papyrus fragments P64 and P67 (which have long been recognised as fragments of Matthew's Gospel from the same original manuscript) and P4 (which comprises material from Luke's Gospel). Skeat argued that all these fragments came from the same original manuscript – a position already advocated by some other scholars; he went further, to argue that this original manuscript was a single-quire codex containing Matthew, John, Luke and Mark (probably in that order, although this is not a central feature of the argument) dating from late in the second century, and thus indeed was ‘The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels’.

In the autumn of 1947 Togo Mina, Director of the Coptic Museum in Old Cairo, showed to Jean Doresse a Coptic manuscript acquired the previous year, which we today call Codex III. Doresse recognized its gnostic character and its importance, and began inquiries as to whether there were other manuscripts in the same find, a find dated ‘about 1945’. Parts of one other codex—today called Codex I—were located in the possession of a Belgian antiquities dealer Albert Eid. This incomplete codex was subsequently taken out of Egypt and, via America and Benelux, emerged in Zürich, where it was purchased for the Jung Institute by Mr George H. Page and named the Jung Codex. It was presented to Jung as a birthday gift, and is not, as one usually infers from the literature, the possession of the Jung Institute, but rather of the heirs of C. G. Jung. An agreement to return it to Egypt after its publication has been made in principle. The Gospel of Truth (1, 2) has been turned over to the Egyptian Embassy in Berne, and from there wad returned to the Coptic Museum; however, the tractate On the Resurrection (1, 3), though published, ahs not been thus far returned. What is still in Zürich is in the Leu Bank.

The parable of the Two Sons occurs in three variant textual forms. Despite the tendency among commentators to follow the Nestle-Aland text, which is based on the Sinaiticus textual form, the strong support in the tradition for each type of variant reading requires the textual question be reassessed. It is argued that although the Sinaiticus reading represents the pre-Matthean form of the parable, it was Matthew, and not a later scribe, who changed the order of the sons in order to privilege the second son. This aligns with the evangelist's concern to depict the rejection and replacement of the Jewish leadership. Yet, although the Vaticanus reading reflects the authentic Matthean form of the parable, the earlier Sinaiticus form resurfaced and intruded itself back into the MSS tradition.

This article demonstrates that according to the Acts of the Apostles, the major charges brought against Peter, Stephen, and Paul—as well as, in later Christian texts, against James—are violations of the Temple's sacredness, both by means of statements about and actions within it. On the narrative level, in their portrayal of the conflicts and trials of these early Christian leaders, the ancient Christian sources argued that because the early Christian community in Jerusalem sought to partake in the Temple worship in its own way, Jesus' followers were falsely accused of violating the Temple's sacredness. On the historical level, it may be concluded that these events were authentic, and that they were affected by two factors: (a) The assumption, on the part of the Jewish community, that Jesus represented an anti-Temple stance. This assumption was based on Jesus' ‘cleansing’ action at the Temple, and the saying attributed to him regarding the destruction of the Temple and the erection of a new one ‘not made with [human] hands’. As such, Jesus' followers were viewed as posing a threat to the Temple as well. (b) The meticulous approach to Temple rituals held by the Sadducean high priests in charge of the prosecutions. According to their approach, any deviance from the proscribed procedure desecrated the sacrificial cult and was to be avoided at any cost.

The Jerusalem church called itself oι πτωχoι (Gal 2.10), probably from Isa 61.1, and held a prophetic Christology (Acts 3, 7). The Ebionites in Irenaeus and Epiphanius traced their name to Acts 2–5, and held Jesus to have been a prophetic figure, conceived naturally and possessed by the Spirit/‘Christ’ from baptism till before the passion. The same prophetic/possessionist Christology seems to be taught by Jewish Christians opposed by Justin and Ignatius: the ‘docetists’ believed that Christ (not Jesus) seemed to have suffered. It is also opposed by Polycarp, by John (especially in 1 John 4–5), by Paul (dramatically in 1 Cor 12.1–3), and in the pre-Marcan traditions.

The presentation of Jesus in his appearance in Rev 12.5 includes his birth and his ascension, but it does not mention his death, despite its important role elsewhere in the book. The present study, after surveying some typical explanations of this lack, suggests a twofold solution. First, the comparison of the christophanies in the Apocalypse reveals a characteristic sequence in their description into which the messianic appearance in ch. 12 fits well. Second, the fact that John sharply separates the depiction of the satanic intent to kill the Messiah from Jesus' death contributes to the Christology of Revelation. The protagonist of the book is unequivocally superior both to the devil and to all popular mythical figures who must face the forces of chaos.

New information coming from the excavations at Sepphoris has redefined the understanding of life in central Galilee during the first century. Beginning in 3 BC, Herod Antipas built Sepphoris into a beautiful and fortified capital city, called by Josephus ‘the ornament of all Galilee’. Jesus grew up in Nazareth which was less than 4 miles south of Sepphoris, an hour's walk away. This paper focuses on the challenges to NT scholarship that arise from this new and exciting evidence.

This article is concerned with material aspects of the ‘Jesus’ Wife' fragment. Following an analysis of the papyrus which confirms that it is indeed of ancient manufacture, the scientific tests carried out on both the papyrus and the ink are critically assessed and shown to be of little or no value in determining the date of the writing.

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?

The usual understanding of Gaius in Rom 16.23 as a ‘host’ of the Corinthian Christ group (or the host of travellers to Corinth) is fraught with several difficulties: it implausibly renders ξένος as ‘host’ rather than the much more common ‘guest’; it fails to explain why a ‘host’ would have been named so far down Paul's list of those sending greetings; and it fails to explain why Paul refers to this person by his praenomen instead of the more common cognomen. Gaius is not a Corinthian ‘host’, but a Roman ‘guest’ of the Christ group in Corinth. This also implies that Gaius is not a wealthy patron of the Christ group at Corinth.

Interpreters of Paul's Letter to the Romans frequently identify preparations for the Spanish mission—mentioned within only two verses at the end of the letter—as the primary reason for writing. Paul's extensive use of Isaiah suggests to some that he viewed Spain as the fulfillment of the reference to ‘Tarshish’ in Isa 66.19. The Hebrew Bible, however, does not provide any evidence that Tarshish is in Spain rather than in Cilicia. Evidence is lacking in the Hellenistic and Roman eras for a Spanish Tartessos–Tarshish connection. The Spanish mission thesis also overemphasizes the importance of Rom 15.24, 28.