It has long been noted by interpreters that Luke's birth narrative offers a comparative portrayal of Jesus and John, with the effect that Jesus is seen as the greater of the two (a feature of the text commonly called ‘step-parallelism’). Several explanations for this narrative device have been offered by commentators, including the proposal that the step-parallelism serves as an apologetic response to a messianic sect proclaiming John the Baptist as the Christ. This paper argues that while apologetic concerns may play a role, the primary motivation for the contrast Luke composes between the two characters is christological. In short, the point of the step-parallelism is to show that in preparing the way for God, John is really preparing the way for Jesus, because Jesus represents Yahweh in his mission and person.

This article considers Mark's account of the cursing of the fig tree, read in conjunction with Jesus’ temple action. Having reviewed recent proposals on the literary shape of Mark 11.1–12.12, the article proposes a fresh reading of the section's structure. Triple introductions at 11.11, 11.15 and 11.27 are shown to match triple conclusions at 11.11, 11.19 and 12.12, these constituents framing interwoven units running from 11.11 to 12.12. The pattern of triple intercalation suggests that the cursing of the fig tree and Jesus’ temple action should be interpreted one in light of the other. The article then considers the intertextual relationship between Mark's narrative and the scriptural texts it evokes. The study uncovers previously neglected echoes vital for understanding the significance of Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree and temple action. The ‘casting out’ motif in Jeremiah 7–8, as dramatically portrayed in Jesus’ temple action, is set forth as heralding a ‘renewed exile’ for those who reject Jesus’ message, while the mirror motif of ‘ingathering’ in Isa 56.1–8, accentuated by the ‘withered tree’ imagery of 56.3, heralds new opportunity, with those who were previously outsiders to the temple made insiders in the eschatological house of prayer.

Le rapport de continuité observé dans les développements de thématiques qui se prolongent du troisième évangile au livre des Actes des Apôtres sont des manifestations de l’unité du double ouvrage lucanien. À partir du lien établi entre les contenus de Lc 12.10–12 et d’Ac 4.16–18, cet article démontre: (1) que le rejet par le Sanhédrin du miracle opéré par Pierre et Jean, en Actes, est l’accomplissement de l’annonce du péché contre l’Esprit par Jésus, en Luc; (2) que ce rapport d’accomplissement est un lieu de vérification de l’unité théologique de Luc/Actes.

Generally speaking, J. Louis Martyn is rather dubious regarding recent attempts to interpret Paul's Galatian letter in terms of ancient rhetorical canons. He does, however, express considerable interest in the rhetorical strategies employed in Galatians. Of particular concern in the present study is Martyn's understanding of Paul's rhetorical use of ‘we’ (ημεις) in Gal 2.15–17.

During the first and second centuries of the Common Era the Christ cult spread from rural Palestine to the large cities of the Empire. This article draws insights from social network theory and from epidemiology, arguing that the Christ cult was not a simple contagion, spread by simple contact, but a ‘complex contagion’ that required persuasion, especially because adherence to the Christ cult entailed potential social costs and demanded high signalling costs.

In seiner Studie ‘Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17’ hat Ernst Käsemann ein Bild des Johannesevangeliums als das eines Dokuments einer Christo-logie des auf Erden schreitenden göttlichen Logos entworfen. Worte, die auf die Inkarnation hinweisen, wie 1. 14, deutet ernicht als Ausdruck der Selbsterniedrigung des Erlösers, sondern als ein Zeugnis seiner triumphie-renden Herrlichkeit, die die Barriere der Weltlichkeit überwindet und auch den sündigen Menschen erreicht.

It is by no means an exaggeration to claim that the tendency of modern textual critics and exegetes is to regard the long disputed text-critical issue of Luke's final pericope (Luke 24.50–3) as more or less settled in favour of the authenticity of the so-called ‘longer (non-Western) text’ (i.e. containing the phrases κα⋯ ⋯νεφέρετο εἰς τ⋯ν ούρανόν, v. 51 and προσκυνήσαντες αύτόν, v. 52). Typical of the scholarly consensus is the almost unanimous adoption of the disputed words by modern Greek text editions, translations and exegetical studies, a trend which is not least inspired by the fact that the disputed words are attested in the oldest surviving copy of the Gospel of Luke, Papyrus 75 ($$$ = Papyrus Bodmer XIV), an early third-century MS closely affiliated with Codex Vaticanus (B). In the opening chapter of Acts the Textual situation is not essentially different. Despite continuing scholarly debate concerning the antiquity and origin of the Western text tradition (infra), in general, contemporary scholarship supports the ‘Alexandrian’ text.

The importance of the OT theophanies in relation to NT conceptions of the End has never been sufficiently realized. Again and again the prophets and psalmists spoke not merely of the Day of the Lord but they spelled this out in terms of a divine coming. Thus in Mic 1. 3 we read that ‘the Lord cometh forth out of his place, and will come down …’ Psa 96. 13 declares, ‘He cometh to judge the earth.’

The present study of the oldest and most relevant extant manuscripts that contain 1 Cor 14.33b–35 shows that v. 33b (ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων) is not connected with vv. 34–5. Scribes would consider 33b to be a part of 33a. Manuscripts א, A, B, Fuldensis, D, F, G, ms. 88* clearly read 1 Cor 14.34–5 as a separate paragraph. In these manuscripts, where vv. 34–5 are found after v. 40, v. 33b closely follows 33a. P46 and P123 are damaged and require reconstruction. Moreover, Greek New Testament editions that link v. 33b with v. 34 reflect exegetical decisions and are not based on external evidence.

The present article first presents and explains the theses that emerge from Régis Burnet's monograph ‘Exegesis and History of Reception’ (Tübingen 2021) and from his SNTS Main Paper published in NTS 2023, ‘Why “Reception History” Is Not Just Another Exegetical Method: The Case of Mark's Ending’ (Leuven 2022). It then develops questions and perspectives that result from the dialogue between Burnet's approach and my own approach and continue this productive, unfinished discussion. It should be postulated that the history of interpretation and the reception history belong to the field of theological encyclopaedia and have the potential to lead to an ‘aesthetic theology’.

Rom 4.17d is often read as referring to creation, perhaps even creatio ex nihilo. Others argue that this doctrine was not yet conceptually available. After exploring what ‘nothing’ means in similar phrases in Paul's ancient context (2 Macc 7.28 and Philo), the first conclusion is that if Rom 4.17d refers to creation then Paul's ‘nothings’ most likely do not refer to an absolute nihil. However, after exploring Rom 4.17 in the context of Paul's argument, the final conclusion is that in Rom 4.17d Paul does present absolute ‘nothings’, though in God's speech to Abraham, not at creation. Paul's theology encompasses God's authority and causation ex nihilo.

The form-critical method found an English-speaking champion in R. H. Lightfoot of Oxford University. Through multiple publications he promoted the ideas of Rudolf Bultmann, Martin Dibelius and Ernst Lohmeyer. However, a close comparison of their texts reveals that Lightfoot sometimes simply translated the words of Dibelius and Lohmeyer, at times without appropriate attribution, and presented their ideas as his own. Recently discovered letters in the Lightfoot archive at Oxford University provide a more complete picture of Lightfoot's travels and interaction with German NT scholars. These discoveries call for a reassessment of Lightfoot's place in the history of NT scholarship.

Wer die Bildworte der Bibel liebt, hat sicher schon die Schwierigkeiten empfunden, die aus dem Zitat Ps 118.22 im NT (Mk 12.10f. par; Eph 2.20; 1 Petr 2.6) erwachsen: Christus sei der ‘Eckstein’ (κεϕαλη γωνιας oder griechischer: λιθος ακρογωνιαιος) jenes Baues, den die Kirche darstellt. Die landessprachlichen Übersetzungen und die kirchliche Lehrtradition wollen gern einen ‘Grundstein’ daraus machen; denn darauf soll ja der ganze Bau – wie man meint – ruhen.

The key for conceptualizing both the Galatians' former pagan religion and an existence ‘under the Jewish law’ as ‘serving the στοιχεια’ (Gal 4.3, 9) lies in their characterization as ‘weak and impotent’ in Gal 4.9. As suggested by passages in the writings of Philo, the στοιχεια do not possess inherent creative power and thus are unable to solve the anthropological problem of sin. To overcome the passion of σαρξ, Philo suggests a process of forming and strengthening the immortal soul by way of the Mosaic law. Paul, by contrast, denies the renewing, life-giving power of the νομος and thus categorizes the law as στοιχεια του κοσμου.

Nous ignorons tout des conditions dans lesquelles les premiers chrétiens ont adopté la pratique du baptême d'eau en usage chez les disciples de Jean. Rappelons seulement quelques-unes des constatations qu'on peut faire à cet égard.

Le baptême de Jésus au Jourdain ne joue aucun rôle perceptible dans son ministère. Certes, si l'on fait fond sur Jn 3. 22–30 et 4. 1s, Jésus aurait temporairement participé à une activité baptismale parallèle à celle de Jean; nous en reparlerons plus loin. Cependant la tradition synoptique ne fait état pour sa part d'aucune pratique de ce genre et elle ne fait pas davantage mention d'un quelconque propos de Jésus à ce sujet dans sa prédication prépascale. L'absence est particulièrement significative dans les consignes données aux disciples lorsqu'ils sont envoyés par Jésus dans les villages (Mc 6. 7–13 et par.). C'est seulement après la Résurrection que, dans un texte particulier à Mt, Jésus donne l'ordre de baptiser à ceux qu'il envoie (Mt 28. 19), mais cet ordre suppose, de façon surprenante, qu'ils savent déjà de quoi il s'agit et le propos est marqué dans sa forme trinaire par l'usage ultérieur de l'Eglise. Nous n'avons en tout cas pour le baptême aucune tradition qui corresponde de près ou de loin à l'institution eucharistique.

In a recent edition of New Testament Studies D. B. Wallace has argued for a procedural change in New Testament textual criticism, namely that textual critics consider using the recently published The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text as a baseline for collation studies. The following study demonstrates the sound value of such a move for intra-Byzantine studies. It further shows that while the Majority Text is a valuable asset for the study of texttypes, the theory which motivated its editors does not stand up to the rigour of this ‘preliminary’ collation study.