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?

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.

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.

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’.

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.

My task is twofold. First, I want to uncover some puzzles and ambiguities in the notion of conscience. Reflection upon the history of words associated with this notion, and upon our current usage, will help us bring some useful distinctions to Paul's text. Second, I wish to examine two passages in Paul, 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. 23–11. 1, in order to determine how we are best to understand Paul's appeal to what is commonly translated as ‘conscience’. The result should be not only a clearer appreciation of Paul's meaning but also the resolution of a puzzle about his ethical advice.

In this article I catalogue and analyse every form of the title – inscriptions, subscriptions and kephalaia – that appears in the New Testament papyri, bringing together this material for the first time. The titles provide new evidence for examining questions related to traditions of entitling in antiquity more broadly and offer a space to consider the dynamic relationships between medium, materiality, book-forms, paratextuality and interpretation, both in antiquity and in our own scholarly culture that stands between print and digital forms. The material also highlights interesting divergences in labelling strategies between the titles of works in the various New Testament sub-corpora and suggests that the kat’ andra formula is not the only way to entitle a Gospel.

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.

1 Corinthians presents many problems, whose difficulty consists in large measure in their interrelatedness; but the major problem of the first four chapters is the nature of the σοφία against which Paul polemicizes. This is especially mysterious because the apostle treats it with unquestionable seriousness, and yet it does not apparently recur in any other letter, not even in 2 Corinthians. As it is so closely linked in the text with the σχίσματα which are the topic of 1.12–17, 3.1–17 and 3.22–3, if not other verses, it is necessary to begin with a brief discussion of that question.

Joseph Tyson's The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts and Robert Tannehill's The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, published in 1986, are good examples of the interpretive wealth being mined by scholars who are adopting literary-critical methods for approaching the Lukan writings. What most distinguishes these critics' approaches from older, more familiar ones is the claim that the Bible's historical narratives are imaginative re-enactments of history – thus, in form, more akin to fiction than to theology, biography, or history. Robert Alter called the Biblical stories ‘historicized fiction’, meaning in our case that the author of Luke and Acts employed the artifices of fiction-writing, among others, supplying feeling and motives and creating speeches and dialogue for his characters. Professors Tyson and Tannehill, and other literary scholars like them, are helping us better discern how these techniques were used in Luke and Acts, thus opening new windows to the characters, the way that the author ascribes intentions to them, the plot, themes, nuances, points of view, uses of irony, and word-plays and associations in the writings.

The appearance of another article on this fascinating and yet controversial subject needs some justification. After all, has not everything already been said? Since the publication of Rengstorf's famous study in Kittel have not the lines been drawn, the varying positions taken up and the evidence minutely sifted for every clue which might help us unravel a complicated New Testament crux interpretum? Is there really anything new to be said?

Nur dem unbefangenen Leser kann unser Thema als Tautologie erscheinen; die historisch-kritisch arbeitende Exegese weiß seit Johann Salomo Semier (1725–1791), daß der Autor der Johannesapokalypse nicht mit demjenigen des Johannesevangeliums identisch sein kann. Zwei Jahrhunderte lang haben protestantische Ausleger die sprachlichen und theologischen Unterschiede zwischen Evangelium und Briefen des Johannes einerseits und der Offenbarung des Johannes andererseits zusammengestelit und ausgewertet; die scharfsinnigen Beobachtungen wichtiger Gemeinsamkeiten und Berührungspunkte durch katholische Kommentatoren schienen entwertet durch das apologetische Bemöhen, den Apostel und Zebedaiden Johannes als den Autor des Evangeliums, der Briefe und der Apokalypse des Johannes zu erweisen.

The death of Christ has not been prominent in the significant recent debate about the centre of Paul's theology, between E. P. Sanders and H. Hübner. Sanders characterizes Paul's pattern of religion as a ‘participationist eschatology’ as compared to the ‘covenantal nomism’ of the contemporary Judaism. H. Hübner champions the centrality of ‘justification by faith’, over against a ‘mystical identification with the crucified and risen Christ’. The former comes from Luther, and the latter from Albert Schweitzer. Hübner says of Sanders' book that in several passages it sounds as if Schweitzer redivivus were speaking. Sanders tends to make Paul's religion too intellectual — a change of world view, rather than a response to experience. Hübner does not take seriously enough the convincing evidence that Paul's problem with the Mosaic law was not the same as Luther's, namely that it promoted a ‘works righteousness’ which caused pride, but rather that in its social role as the guardian of the boundaries of the Jewish community, it excluded the Gentiles. Both, however, do not take the Cross seriously enough.

Was δικαιοσύνη θεο⋯ bei Paulus besagt, ist immer noch umstritten. Bis in die jüngste Zeit hinein blieb dieser Begriff kontrovers. Aus der Fülle der Veröffentlichungen über diese Thematik sei nur auf die Monographien von Peter Stuhlmacher, Karl Kertelge, J. A. Ziesler und Elke Plutta-Messerschmidt hingewiesen. Doch sollen uns diese neueren Publikationen höchstens am Rande beschäftigen. Im Mittelpunkt unserer Überlegungen steht vielmehr der soeben erschienene Römerbriefkommentar Ernst Käsemanns. In ihm ist zusammengefaßt, was dieser Schüler Bultmanns im Laufe der letzten Jahrzehnte über Paulus und speziell über die δ.θ. gesagt hat. Es ist bekannt, daß Bultmann und Käsemanns in diesem Punkte differieren. Daß es aber gerade zwei der angesehensten und profiliertesten Neutestamentler sind, die eine Kontroverse über einen so zentralen Begriff der biblischen Verkündigung führen, macht wieder einmal deutlich, wie sehr Theologie immer wieder von neuem ihre Mitte bedenken muß; macht deutlich, wie wenig Theologie ein vorhandenes Etwas ist, das man sich als völlig Begriffenes in einem Akte aneignen kann. Theologie ist ja niemals statischer Besitz, Theologie ist immer wieder je neuer Vollzug, je neues Engagement, je neues Wagnis, je neues Sich-selbst-in-Frage-stellen. Deshalb lohnt sich der wissenschaftliche Streit um ihr Zentrum. Gerade hier sollte das Wort von Albert Einstein gelten: ‘Richtig streiten kann man nur mit seinen Brüdern und nahen Freunden; die andern sind einem zu fremd.’ Der notwendige theologische Streit um die δ.θ. verbindet allein schon dadurch, daß der Theologe als Theologe nur dann von ihr verantwortlich sprechen kann, wenn er es im Bewußtsein darum tut, ihr seine Existenz zu verdanken.

The mainstream approaches to the Synoptic Problem all agree: there are no extant instances of Q. The shape of ‘Q’ changes, however, if, as proposed in the companion article, ‘Streeter's “Other” Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis’, Matthew sometimes conflates Luke with Luke's own source. Where this happens Luke's source qualifies as an instance of ‘Q’ – inasmuch as it preserves sayings of Jesus used, ultimately, by both Luke and Matthew. This fresh conception of ‘Q’ opens up the possibility that examples of ‘Q’ are, after all, available. An extant text meeting this description is Didache 1.2–5a.

Much of the study of the New Testament in the recent decades of the present century has emphasized that we encounter in scripture, not so much a record of the data on which opinion about Jesus and belief in him are grounded, as the forms which these traditions and affirmations have assumed in their use, transmission and development within the early church. From the first impact of the form-critical method, this emphasis has been made more and more until its validity has been acknowledged even in many quarters where at first it might have been vociferously rejected.

My intention is to discuss some problems of biblical exegesis using as model the pericope on the Syrophoenician woman according to Mark. I assume the priority of Mark (the two sources theory) in spite of the fact that the Matthean parallel bears some traces of independent origin. They are most probably influenced by oral tradition, which was alive at least until the end of the second century, and partially also by the Matthean redaction (Matt 15.24).

Scholarly consensus generally assumes that the Gospel of the Ebionites as preserved by Epiphanius is either a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels or excerpted mainly from Matthew. A synopsis of the texts, however, demonstrates that the Epiphanius quotations show stronger affinity with Luke than with Matthew or Mark. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Epiphanius's references to the Gospel of the Ebionites are not excerpted from Luke, but rather from a Greek translation of the elusive Hebrew Gospel attested by a number of church fathers, and thus one of the sources of Luke mentioned in the prologue of his Gospel.