Arguments for the Q hypothesis have changed little since B. H. Streeter. The purpose of this article is not to advocate an alternative hypothesis but to argue that, if the Q hypothesis is to be sustained, the unlikelihood of Luke's dependence on Matthew must be demonstrated by a systematic and comprehensive reconstruction of the redactional procedures entailed in the two hypotheses. The Q hypothesis will have been verified if (and only if) it generates a more plausible account of the Matthean and Lukan redaction of Mark and Q than the corresponding account of Luke's use of Mark and Matthew.

The exegetical and textual problems in the opening verses of Mark's Gospel are well known. The punctuation of 1.1–4 has exercised editors of critical editions as it has translators. Does one, for example, put a full stop at the end of v. 1 or not? How does the quotation of vv. 2–3 relate to its context? There are also two main text-critical problems: (1) there is a choice between a longer and a shorter reading in v. 1, and (2) the MSS are divided between εν τω ‘Ησαια and εν τοις προϕηταις in v. 2.

Der Streit zwischen Paulus und Petrus in Antiochien war ein Ereignis, dessen Bedeutung für die Geschichte des christlichen Glaubens nicht überschätzt werden kann. Hier haben sich nicht persönliche Spannungen entladen, sondern es sind Weichen für das Verhältnis der jungen heidenchristlichen Gemeinde zu Judentum und Judenchristentum gestellt worden, die für die Geschichte der christlichen Kirche entscheidend waren.

For some time the present writer has been impressed by certain verbal and phraseological correspondences between a number of ancient inscriptions, relating to temple building and public works, and a rather extensive metaphor in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. This paper will address some parallel features of form and content shared by a particular inscription of the 4th century B.C. from Arcadian Tegea and the Pauline metaphor (1 Cor 3. 9b–17), features which offer tangible assistance in the interpretation of the latter.

So much has been written about the Prologue that it must seem unlikely that anything new could be said about it with some claim to credibility. It is not that all problems have been resolved, or that all that needs to be said has been said. But perhaps, on the basis of existing evidence, it seems that what can be said with some probability has been said. Yet many issues remain unresolved. Are the form and content of the Prologue the consequence of the evangelist's use of a source hymn? Or was the Prologue a specially written introduction for the Gospel? If the Prologue is based on a source hymn: What was the origin of the hymn? How did it come to the evangelist and why did he use it? What was in the hymn and what was added by the evangelist? Answers to these questions are fundamental to a precise understanding of the Prologue and could throw light on the history of the Johannine community.

Regarding the biblical authors, St. Augustine the rhetor remarks, ‘Thus there is a kind of eloquence fitting for men most worthy of the highest authority and clearly inspired by God.’ Whatever we may think of this bold statement, the NT does indeed contain numerous portions which exhibit a knowledge of and even a mastery of Greco-Roman rhetoric. Many of these portions of the NT remain unanalyzed from a rhetorical perspective, including the Johannine Epistles.

Within the story of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple there are un-mistakable tensions. Two themes compete for the attention of the reader: on the one hand, the surprising intelligence of the young Jesus (47); on the other hand, his awareness that God, as his real Father, has claims upon him, to which his parents have to take second place (49). Luke could have given Jesus' statement on his obligations to his Father without describing the way in which he astonished the learned men in the temple. Alternatively, he could have brought out the intelligence of the child Jesus without quoting the words of 49, which seem to disparage his parents. One can see a relation-ship between the two themes, though it is not given in the narrative itself. The interpretation of the pericope stands or falls on the elucidation of the relationship between the two elements of the episode.

Discussion of the meaning of σκєυ>ος in 1 Thess. 4. 4 has traditionally centred on two possible connotations, ‘body’ and ‘wife’ (cf. respectively, B. Rigaux, Les Epitres aux Thessaloniciens, 1956, pp. 503–7; E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 1972, pp. 160–5).

Among the New Testament Gospels, Matthew most emphatically stresses the continued presence of Jesus throughout his ministry and with his disciples after Easter. This is despite sensitivity to the challenge of the cross and experiences of absence or deprivation. Structurally, the Gospel develops this affirmation in relation to the narrative of Jesus’ birth and incarnation, to his ministry, to the governance of the Christian community in its apostolic mission to Israel and the nations. Matthew never quite articulates how this continued presence actually works, whether in spatial or sacramental or pneumatological terms. And yet the emphatic correlation of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Emmanuel’ confirms that each is constituted by the other: being ‘God with us’ (Matt 1.23) means precisely to ‘save his people’ (1.21), and vice versa.

This paper offers a detailed investigation of the LXX texts underlying the seven OT citations in Hebrews chapter 1, taking account of significant twentieth-century manuscript discoveries and recent developments in the field of Septuagintal Studies. The findings are then related to the study of the use of the OT in the NT more generally, and to some important current issues in the study of the LXX, such as the value of Lucianic readings. This investigation supports the growing consensus that the author of Hebrews reproduced his scriptural citations faithfully, so that the burden of proof should now rest with those who argue for a deliberate alteration of his source.

The ‘Jerusalem decrees’ of Acts 15.20, 29 and 21.25 can be interpreted both as ‘Noachide commandments’, implicitly keeping the separation between Jews and Gentiles, and as analogous to the decrees for resident aliens in Lev 17–18 and elsewhere, implicitly allowing Gentiles to associate with Jews under certain conditions. What is at stake is the status to be assigned to Gentiles by the community of Jewish believers in Jesus. These interpretations correspond to the attitudes towards Gentile believers at Antioch manifested, according to Gal 2.11–14, respectively by James and by Cephas.

Luke depicts the problem of incorporating Gentiles into the Church as rooted in conflicting definitions of purity. Apart from the principal Torah distinction between clean and unclean animals, a third category is mentioned: ‘common’, referring to doubtfully pure food. Parallels to this usage are found in a range of Jewish literature, from the Hasmonaean to the Rabbinic period. The notion of doubtfully pure food can help explain Peter's refusal to slaughter and eat from the mixed group of animals in his vision. Categorizing people like Cornelius as ‘potentially defiled’ may have constituted a human ‘fence’ between scrupulous Jews and unclean pagans. Adherence to the stipulations of the apostolic decree by Gentile Christians removed the last hindrance to Jewish Christians having table fellowship with them.

In the Journal of Biblical Literature LXIV H. A. Rigg carefully developed the remarkable theory that Jesus of Nazareth was known to his contemporaries as Jesus bar Abba and that crowds of people called for his release at the time of his trial.1 Twenty-five years later, in New Testament Studies XVI (1970), H. Z. Maccoby independently arrived at a virtually identical conclusion.2 Both men based their arguments on the fact that the tradition of the privilegium paschale is unlikely to have had any historical foundation.3 Rigg, further, makes a case that the reading ‘Jesus who is called Barabbas’, found in some early texts of Matthew, is authentic.4 The intention of this short study is not to rehearse their arguments—and both men adduce more than mentioned above—but to show that there is even more evidence in support of their theory than their articles presented and that their theory is worthy of very serious consideration.

Während der letzten zwanzig Jahre – mit Ausnahme von einigen Jahren, in denen ich krankheitshalber meine Forschungsarbeit unterbrechen mußte – habe ich in meinem Fach ständig sozusagen ‘zwei Hasen’ gejagt. Mit dem einen meine ich die Erforschung der gnostischen Schriften, mit dem anderen die Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen, insbesondere lukanischen Schriften. Die Zwischenergebnisse dieser Studien habe ich im letzten Jahr in meinem japanischen Aufsatzband Studies in the New Testament and Gnosticism (Tokyo: Iwanami) veröffentlicht. Freilich gibt es in Japan ein Sprichwort, das lautet: Verfolgt man zwei Hasen, fängt man keinen. Entgegen dieser Lebensweisheit jedoch werde ich auch in den kommenden Jahren den zwei Hasen weiterhin nachjagen. Und ich habe die Hoffnung noch nicht auf-gegeben, sie auch tatsächlich zu erlegen und ihre Beziehung zueinder zu klären, damit ihre Bedeutung in der Geschichte der frühen Christenheit deutlicher dargestellt werden kann.

The purpose of this paper is to consider four topics which are raised in or by the book of the Revelation and which have received varying degrees of attention in recent scholarly discussion. They are: (i) those features which are prophetic rather than apocalyptic, and their importance in assessing the character of the book; (ii) the identity of the prophets referred to in the book and (if they are Christian prophets) their place in the order of the church; (iii) the relation of prophets and prophecy to the ‘testimony of Jesus’ (ή μαρτυρία l'ησο⋯); and (iv) the evidence which the Revelation provides concerning the activity and contents of Christian prophecy. It is obvious that these topics are all closely interrelated, but for the sake of clarity we shall attempt to treat them separately and in order.