The debate over the meaning of πίστις Χριστοῦ has been continuing for some time and shows no signs of abating, yet one conclusion has remained constant: the Church Fathers, generally, did not understand πίστις Χριστοῦ in the Pauline materials in the subjective sense as the ‘faithfulness of Christ’. Furthermore, there has heretofore been no text that correlates Jesus' faithfulness with his death on the cross in patristic writings. In light of that, the aim of this study is (1) to offer a critique of recent work on πίστις Χριστοῦ in the Church Fathers, and (2) to break the longstanding silence by presenting overlooked evidence from Hippolytus's De Christo et Antichristo that unambiguously relates Jesus' faithfulness to his death on the cross.

The perfect tense-form verb ἀναβέβηκεν in John 3.13 is usually interpreted in light of traditional verb theory, as a ‘past action with present results’. This interpretation introduces an apparent problematic chronology in that the Son of Man ascends before descending; however, recent developments in Greek grammar, particularly verbal aspect theory, provide a viable solution to this grammatical ‘problem’ and indicate that the Son of Man's descent precedes his ascent.

Die Gewiβheit, mit den üblichen traditions- und redaktionsge-schichtlichen Methoden eine vorsynoptische Traditionsgeschichte objektiv rekonstruieren zu können, schwindet immer mehr (s.u. 3). So wird es erforderlich, unter Einbezug der gegenwartig herrschenden texttheoretischen Methoden ein offenes Methoden-Modell zu konstruieren, das eine Rekonstruktion der Tradition plausibel ermöglicht (s.u. 4). Allerdings stammen die gewählten texttheoretischen Methoden aus unterschiedlichen texttheoretischen Modellen wie dem Strukturalismus, der Erzähltextanalyse (narrative criticism) und der historischen Gattungsanalyse (rhetoric criticism). Diese Modelle schlieβen sich aber nicht gegenseitig aus, sondern konvergieren in vielen Punkten miteinander. So wird es möglich, die historisch-kritische Methode um einzelne Elemente aus diesen Modellen zu bereichern, zu verändern und auf diese Weise weiterzuentwickeln (s.u. 1–2).

On s'accorde en général pour penser que Paul a envoyé au moins quatre lettres aux Corinthiens. Avant l'envoi de celle figure qui dans le Nouveau Testament sous le nom de ‘premiére’, Paul en adressa une autre, à laquelle il fait allusion en 1 Co 5.9–11: pouréviter les confusions de numérotation, on peut l'appeler Lettre A. Les Corinthiens ont d'ailleurs répondu à cette lettre, par une missive que Paul mentionne en 1 Co 7.1. Envoyée ensuite, certainement après la réception par Paul de la réponse que les Corinthiens lui ont adressée, existe notre première lettre canonique que l'on peut appeler Lettre B. Cependant, entre la première épître canonique et la seconde, il convient d'en intercaler une autre, qui serait donc au moins la troisième (Lettre C), dont il est fait mention en 2 Co 2.3–9 et 7.8–12. La façon dont Paul en parle la fait communément nommer ‘Lettre dans les larmes’. Quant à la deuxième épître canonique, il convient alors de la situer chronologiquement en quatriréme position, et de l'appeler lettre D.

Mc (et, en partie, Mt et EvHe) montrent que le Jourdain a été le cadre d'une double scène au début de la vie de Jésus: son baptême par le Baptiste et une vision sans témoins qui l'aurait suivi. Le baptême de Jean, à l'eau, scèlle la conversion présente et prépare le pardon, le don eschatologique futur, comme le montre la formule ‘baptême de conversion pour le pardon des péchés’. De son côté, Jésus a accepté de recevoir ce signe, le ‘baptême de Jean’, parce qu'il l'a reconnu comme l'expression de l'arrivée du kairos. D'autre part, la vision de type prophétique qu'il a eu après son baptême l'a confirmé dans son choix.

Die Talio ist keineswegs nur in der Heiligen Schrift der Juden und Christen belegt,2 sondern findet sich in vielen Kulturräumen der Antike. Auf das Abendland bezogen sind hier vor allem Griechen-land3 und das Römische Reich zu nennen, in denen die Talio breit bezeugt ist, aber auch die Ägypter, Altbabylonier, Perser und Germanen haben sie gekannt.4 Im Iran kann sich noch heute ein Mörder durch die Zahlung des sog. Blutgeldes an die Angehörigen des Opfers (arab. diyah, pers. dieh) Strafmilderung oder in be-stimmten Fällen sogar Straffreiheit ‘erkaufen’, obwohl im Islam normalerweise Mord grundsätzlich durch den Tod des Mörders gesühnt wird.5 An dieser Regelung ist der Charakter der Talio als Milderung (gegenüber der Ausübung der unbeschränkten Rache) noch erkennbar.6

Traditionally, Pauline exegesis has tended to reduce the Judaism which the apostle encounters in his argumentation to a legalist and particularistic religion; a religion from which Paul would have distanced himself, inventing a Christianity of universal grace in his critique of the Torah. If the New Perspective on Paul allowed us to correct this legalistic reduction of Second Temple Judaism, by highlighting the dimension of election with the foundation of the covenant of Israel, the instigators of this exegetical programme have, however, assented to the hypothesis of a supersession of Jewish particularism by Christian universalism. Hence the critique voiced on this issue by the adherents of what is now called the Radical New Perspective. We are especially indebted to Denise Kimber Buell and Caroline Johnson Hodge for this wave of protest, for both authors identify the use of an ‘ethnic reasoning’ in the Pauline reworking of the Gentiles’ identity. While this critique deserves to be heard, the thesis of a logic of ethnicity and kinship at work under the pen of the apostle cannot be ratified without discussion, since it is not consistent with a rigorous examination of the letter to the Galatians. In that context, indeed, the discourse of identity is not mainly ethnic but anthropological and cosmological, since the believers – Jews quite as much as Gentiles – through baptism have to become not a ‘new people’ but rather a ‘new creation’ (Gal 6.15).

Although it is widely recognised that οἱ πιστεύοντες was a self-designation of the early Christ groups, this is not reflected in scholarship on Romans and Galatians, where the participle is usually taken as a generic substantive. Such a rendering obscures the force of Paul's rhetoric, which presupposes the status of οἱ πιστεύοντες as a shared self-designation and mobilises it in an effort to naturalise Paul's claims regarding the exclusive justificatory value of his addressees’ πίστις. Accordingly, in Rom 3.22 and Gal 3.22, where οἱ πιστεύοντες appears in close connection with πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, it is unlikely that the latter phrase designates Christ's own faithfulness.

Acts states in 13.13–14a that Paul sailed on his outward journey from Paphos in Cyprus to Pergê in Pamphylia (Περγη), proceeding then to Pisidian Antioch – literally, Antioch-towards-Pisidia. (Pamphylia is the westernmost of two alluvial coastal shelves on the south coast of present-day Turkey; a relatively self-contained geographical area.) Acts states that John-Mark left for Jerusalem from this point after a disagreement, and also does not mention the coastal port of Attaleia (‘Ατταλεια), present-day Antalya. On the return journey, however, noted in 14.24–26a, the remaining missionaries are said to preach in Pergê and then proceed to Attaleia, from which point they sail on to Syrian Antioch, presumably actually disembarking at Seleucia. Now this all looks a little odd at first glance, especially since Pergê is some distance inland for any arrival on the first leg of this journey, and most interpreters have reacted accordingly. I want to suggest here, however, that the author's comments about these two traverses through Pamphylia, although brief and initially a little puzzling, are deliberately asymmetrical, and it is this that betrays their almost certain accuracy in historical terms.

Spicq's impressive list of theological features shared by St John's Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and peculiar to them among the writings of the New Testament, has been neglected in the continuing attempt to solve the ‘riddle’ of the religious background of the latter document. The conclusions Spicq drew from this list read strangely today: few would share the confidence with which he deduced the dependence of Hebrews on a ‘catechesis’ lying behind the Johannine writings, and in turn the influence of the Author to the Hebrews on St John when he came to write his gospel. Nevertheless, the cumulative weight of so many affinities between works apparently so different is remarkable. They occur with striking frequency in Hebrews 2. 10–18, where, indeed, Spicq's list can be extended. Since these verses are of considerable christological and soteriological importance, it may be useful to review the resemblances to Johannine thought and expressions which occur here, and to offer an alternative explanation.

Die Berührungspunkte zwischen den zwei Wundergeschichten Mt 8.5–13 (über den Hauptmann in Kafarnaum) und 15.21–8 (über die kanaanäische Frau) einerseits und dem Herrenwort Lk 4.25–7 (über die Witwe in Sarepta und den Syrer Naaman) andererseits sind so auffällig, daß eine bisher geheime Beziehung zwischen den Matthäustexten und dem Lukastext anzunehmen ist. Genauer: die matthäische Redaktion der zwei Wundergeschichten dürfte von Lk 4.25–7 abhängig sein. Daraus folgt, daß die Zwei-Quellen-Theorie zur Entstehung der synoptischen Evangelien modifiziert werden muß; denn laut dieser Theorie sollte die Gestaltung zweier Matthäustexte nicht vom lukanischen Sondergut (Lk 4.25–7) beeinflußt sein. Wahrscheinlich hat Matthäus das ganze Lukasevangelium gekannt und gelegentlich benutzt. In seiner Illustration des Spruches Lk 4.25–7 durch das Erzählungspaar Mt 8.5–13; 15.21–8 erweist sich Matthäus aber theologisch enger mit Paulus als mit Lukas verwandt.

Several recent studies have proposed that according to Paul gentiles join Abraham's lineage in a quasi-physiological way by being infused with material πνɛῦμα. This article assesses that proposal, finding it to be an inaccurate description of Paul's language and rationale, and sets forth an alternative proposal based on Romans 4 and Paul's descriptions of baptism. This alternative proposal is that Paul understood the forging of an Abrahamic and divine pedigree for gentiles to be a divine act of creation from nothing, that is concomitant with believers’ proleptic death and resurrection in solidarity with the messiah.

As one of its rules, thoroughgoing eclecticism in New Testament textual criticism puts great store by an author's consistency of language, style and usage when assessing variation. This article examines the theoretical justification for such a rule and sets out a number of examples from throughout the New Testament to show how such an application works, even when the preferred solutions may go against traditional principles of text-critics such as the age, quality or quantity of witnesses in supporting a selected initial text. One section deals with conjectural emendation.

The recently discovered Gospel of Judas has created much controversy among scholars. While it is clear that Judas is liable for Jesus' crucifixion in this text, it is much debated whether his actions should be understood positively or negatively. This article suggests that focusing on how the Gospel of Judas evaluates the salvific meaning of Jesus' crucifixion alongside the New Testament gospels and other early Christian writings may provide a key for solving this problem. In this way, the Gospel of Judas can be seen as a rare attempt to unravel what Irenaeus aptly termed ‘the mystery of the betrayal’.

Picking up on the revived interest in the Song of Songs in biblical scholarship, the article focuses on the significance of the Song in the tradition of Jesus’ teachings. After a survey of rabbinic midrash on the Song, five examples show that Jesus as remembered in the gospel tradition expresses an unusual interest in the Song with a discreet mystical emphasis. The nuptial Christology that subsequently surfaces in Revelation and in Hippolytus and Origen suggests a continuous development as from the Jesus tradition. This continuity may explain the remarkable parallels between the interest of the Church Fathers in the Song and that of the Rabbis.

In Gal 3.16 Paul asserts that Abraham's seed is the messiah. While some have suggested that the rationale for this assertion is Paul's identification of Abraham's seed with David's seed, few have identified evidence for this rationale in the immediate context of Galatians 3, and none have genuinely argued for it. Noting that the reappropriation of scriptural idioms is a common feature of ancient messiah discourse, I demonstrate that Gal 3.19 entails a reappropriation of the wording of Gen 49.10, an oracle often interpreted as Davidic-messianic, and thereby I elucidate the scriptural reasoning undergirding Gal 3.16.