Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus has been the neglected member of the family of great uncials. Photographic facsimiles have been produced of ℵ, A, B, D, and others, but only a sample page or two of the valuable palimpsest is available in textbooks. All the important codices have been studied and collated more than once. But as regards Codex C only Tischendorf has transcribed its text and edited it according to modern standards. In textbooks on textual criticism Codex C has been given—almost without excepdon—less than half the space of any of the other main uncials. To be sure, it is a difficult manuscript to read, and many lacunae exist. Yet because of its age and the quality of its text, as well as the fact that it contains portions of all the sections of the New Testament, every possible detail should be accurately extracted from this once beautiful codex. Owing to this unwarranted neglect of Codex C, especially the fact that no one had tested the accuracy of Tischendorf's work, a new study was undertaken and a new edition is being prepared. The present article will include (1) a brief history Of thern manuscript and its use by textual critics; (2) introductory items on which new light may be shed or on which previous statements need to be corrected; and finally, (3) a list of the more significant errors found in Tischendorf's edition.

Stephen's speech undoubtedly stands apart among the speeches found in the Acts of the Apostles.1 The two main problems which have to be solved are: (i) its meaning and (2) its origin and background.

(i) With regard to its meaning two ideas are to be noticed. Some scholars consider this speech in the first place as an attack on the Jerusalem temple and its cult.2 On the other hand others consider it as an effort to show the Jews that they are always rebelling against God's will.3

Les données lucaniennes viennent remettre en question les lectures du personnage de Judas qui cherchent à le déculpabiliser, voire à le déresponsabiliser, pour en faire un ami de Jésus. Le présent article se propose d'utiliser l'analyse narrative pour étudier la personnification de Judas dans la séquence narrative de Lc 22.1–62, en lisant notamment Lc 22.21–2 dans son contexte. Il en résulte la mise en évidence de la dimension symbolique du personnage de Judas: cette dimension ouvre à la perception d'une anthropologie ouverte et risquée dans l'œuvre de Luc.

This article interacts with Peter J. Gurry's recent estimate of the total textual variants in the Greek New Testament (NTS 62 (2016)) by (i) employing a different (and complementary) method using data from the Editio Critica Maior and (ii) producing an estimate that is narrowly confined to the ‘key’ manuscript witnesses for Acts and the Catholic Letters (a mix of majuscules and minuscules, both Byzantine and non-Byzantine). The results prove more useful for framing the development and distribution of textual variants in this group of key witnesses.

This article discusses the Pauline anacoluthon in Romans 8.12. The usual interpretations consider it a communicative accident on the part of Paul or as a case of laudable laconicism. Against such an understanding the present author proposes to consider the anacoluthon as a figure of speech, deliberately chosen by the Apostle both to emphasize the total character of the filial relationship of Christians to God, as opposed to their past dependences, and to help them discover this particularity of their new status on their own.

This article deals with how to conceive of sin in Romans 5–8. Currently there are two main views concerning the understanding of sin in these chapters. The apocalyptic school describes sin as a power extrinsic to the person. The moral philosophical interpretation, by contrast, contends that sin is a representation of action or the passions. While these schools are usually opposed to each other, this article proposes that the major concerns of the apocalyptic school – to understand sin as a reality that is universally determinative, that precedes human action and exceeds human strength, and from which only God can deliver humanity – are compatible with the interpretation of sin as action in some passages and as the passions in others. There may therefore be space for further collaboration between two views that are often opposed.

The New Testament conception of history goes back to that of the Old Testament; and this differs from the Greek conception of history. There are, of course, no such differences at primitive stages among all peoples. In the Orient as well as in Greece historical writing begins with chronological enumerations of important events and deeds of rulers and so on; and at the same time with myths and legends in poetical form and with stories. Real historical narrative arises when the stage of chronicle, myth and legend is left behind, and when a course of history begins to be presented as a unity, by the observation of the connexion of events and through reflection on the powers moving the course of events. That occurs when a people experiences the historical processes by which it is shaped into a nation or state.

The Acts narrative's characterisation of Julius evokes the circumstances of Socrates, specifically the end of his life, at which point his prison guard – who exhibits a fondness for Socrates – allows his friends to visit and care for him. The credibility of this reading is strengthened by situating Acts 27 amid other Socratic characterisations of Paul in Acts 17–26, 28. By understanding Julius’ characterisation in this way, readers can regard Paul as a Socratic figure even during his sea voyage and shipwreck. This reading is more credible than others that attribute the characterisation of Julius to the narrative's positive disposition towards centurions.

‘Now Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told him about her at once. He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up. Then the fever left her, and she began to serve them.’1 Does the author of the Gospel of Mark believe that the fever in Mark 1.30 is demonic? Or does he trace it to the power of God? It is also possible that he looks at the fever as a result of medical causes. It could be the case he author has no clear perception of the cause of the fever. In the Greco-Roman culture of Mark's audience, the fever could be seen as the result of medical, astrological, divine, or demonic causes. This set of facts will be established below. The text in Mark can then be read in four different ways depending on the understanding of fever that the scholar chooses to adopt. Given the cultural possibilities for understanding fever, Mark's text takes on a certain ambiguity. The ambiguity should be carefully upheld in light of recent attempts to precisely identify the Markan etiology of the fever.

The letter to the Colossians—most probably a deuteropauline document—reflects a theology of memory. Far from having the ambition of saying something new, the author aims at offering the addressed community a re-reading—paradoxically highly original in its form and content—of its own religious tradition so that the addressees will be able to interpret in a persuasive way their present situation, a situation that became more and more opaque and conflictual. The explicit confrontation with the ‘Colossian philosophy’ seems to be secondary at first sight, but a multiple reading of the letter allows one to discover strong ties between the non-polemical and the polemical parts of the letter. Read in this perspective, Col 2 reveals between the lines a conflict of interpretation about some central notions, such as ‘humility’, ‘intelligence’, ‘wisdom’, among others.