Timothy 3.11 has long been recognized as an anomalous element in the discussion of deacons in 3.8–13, to which topic the author of the Pastorals has turned his attention as the second of the two offices described in the first half of chapter 3. Interpreters have struggled to identify the women addressed in this verse. Answers have scarcely been lacking, responses notable for their variety and for the unspoken assumptions delimiting the possibilities entertained. This paper, by scrutinizing the syntax of 3.11 and the structure of the passage on διάκονοι, ‘deacons’, discerns new evidence for the identification of these women as partners in ministry with the explicitly named men of the passage.

These are perhaps the most important verses in the Synoptic Gospels. Discussing them in 1927, the late Claude Montefiore2 candidly confessed that, as a Jew, he would like to prove them spurious because, if it could be shown that Jesus had really uttered them, orthodox Christianity would have received notable encouragement. This however, he judged very unlikely, and he went on to predict that, as the years went by, the voices raised in defence of their authenticity would grow feebler and fewer.

En 1514, le premier N.T. grec imprimé sortait des presses à Alcala. En 1516, Froben et Erasme publiaient, à Bâle, le second N.T. grec imprimé. La critique textuelle moderne et contemporaine du N.T. est donc une personne vénérable qui célèbre son quatre-cent-cinquantième anniversaire. A cette occasion, je voudrais vous proposer, à la lumière d'un bref bilan du passé, quelques réflexions sur la situation actuelle de la critique du texte et sur certains des problèmes qui sont posés par cette situation.

According to the most generally accepted text, the angels of Lk 2. 11 announced the birth of Jesus to the Judean shepherds and designated him σωτηρ ος εοτω χριστος κυριος, commonly translated ‘a saviour, who is Christ the Lord’. Familiarity with these words as part of the Christmas story obscures the fact that the title χριστος κυριος is unique in the NT to Lk 2. 11. This title is not without precedent, however, and appears as a messianic title in the readings of the MSS of PsSol 17. 32. This paper will examine the use of χριστος κυριος in PsSol 17. 32, and will propose that it is one of several new messianic titles combining ‘messiah’ with a political honorific used as an appositional modifier.

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.

Almost all students of Luke-Acts have called attention to the special place of scripture in these documents. The fundamental Lukan strategy seems to be presented in the closing chapter of the gospel. In his post-resurrection appearance to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, Jesus assumes the role of the authoritative interpreter of scripture and shows that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer. He interprets all the scriptures ‘beginning with Moses and all the prophets’ (Luke 24. 27; cf. 24. 35, 45). This chapter suggests to the reader that, although the scriptures are authoritative, they must be rightly, i.e. Christologically, interpreted. This widely acknowledged principle has certain implications that require investigation.

Le brusque changement de ton que l'on observe, dans l'épître aux Hébreux, entre les dernières phrases du ch. xii et les premières du ch. xiii a porté certains exégètes à contester l'authenticité du ch. xiii et à considérer celui-ci, en tout ou en partie, comme un morceau hétérogène, ajouté maladroitement au beau discours de Héb. i–xii. D'autres auteurs se sont mis en peine de défendre l'authenticité du chapitre, mais, comme il arrive dans les controverses, ils sont restés tributaires de la façon dont le problème avait été posé: le ch. xiii continue pour eux à constituer un morceau à part, que l'on peut étudier séparément. C'est ainsi que deux monographies récentes, dont les auteurs prennent position en faveur de l'authenticité d'Héb xiii, considèrent cependant ce chapitre comme une unité littéraire distincte et le prennent comme sujet d'étude.

Das letzte Buch der Bibel hat sowohl der Verkündigung der Kirche wie auch der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft eine Vielzahl von Problemen und schwer zu lösenden Rätseln aufgegeben, die bis heute recht unterschiedlich bewertet werden. Schon in der Zeit der alten Kirche war man kontroverser Auffassung in der Frage, welche Persönlichkeit als Verfasser des Buches in Anspruch genommen werden könnte. Bischof Dionys von Alexandrien hat um die Mitte des dritten Jahrhunderts eine ausführliche Stellungnahme abgegeben, die uns durch Euseb überkommen ist. Darin wird auf die erheblichen Differenzen aufmerksam gemacht, die zwischen dem vierten Evangelium und der Apokalypse bestehen. In keiner der beiden Schriften werde auf die andere in erkenn-barer Weise Bezug genommen. Vielmehr seien sowohl die verwendete Begrifflichkeit wie auch der sprachliche Ausdruck von ganz verschiedener Art. Während dem Evangelisten das gute Zeugnis ausgestellt wird, er habe ein fehlerloses Griechisch geschrieben, in höchster Gewandtheit des Ausdrucks, der Gedankenentwicklung und der Satzverbindung, widerfährt dem Verfasser der Apokalypse eine weit weniger günstige Beurteilung: seine Rede und Sprache seien nicht rein griechisch, er gebrauche gelegentlich barbarische Wendungen und mache sich bisweilen auch grober Sprachfehler schuldig. Dionys spricht diese Einschätzung nicht leichten Herzens aus. Denn er fügt die Versicherung hinzu, niemand möge glauben, er habe seine Meinung in spöttischer Absicht formuliert. Vielmehr habe er nur die Ungleichheiten dieser Schriften dartun wollen. In der neueren Diskussion sind zwar immer wieder Versuche unternommen worden, ein größeres Maß an Beziehungen oder gar Übereinstimmungen zwischen dem vierten Evangelium und der Apokalypse aufzuweisen. Doch ist kritische Forschung gut beraten, wenn sie die Argumente des Dionys auch heute mit der gebotenen Sorgfalt zur Kenntnis nimmt und bedenkt.

The infrequent use of the Jesus-tradition in Acts is seldom noted, but it has implications for the use of the Jesus-tradition in early Christianity. It is widely assumed that the Jesus-tradition served to justify and to legitimate changing Christian belief and practice. However, the church in Acts does not normally seek justification for its practices or beliefs from the teaching or example of Jesus. The assumptions of gospel criticism about the function of the Jesus-tradition need to be tested against the observable phenomena of the one writer whose interest spanned the life of Jesus and the life of the church.

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.

Chapter 9 is the pivot of Luke's gospel containing, as it does, the transfiguration as well as marking the transition from the Galilee ministry to the journey to Jerusalem. Not only is it rich in incident, it is also rich in the range of titles given to Jesus. It includes the first recognition, outside the infancy narrative, of Jesus' messianic role (9. 20), the first passion prediction of the Son of Man (9. 22) as well as the first mention of the future Son of Man (9. 26). Furthermore, the chapter contains two titles peculiar to Luke, Master (έπιστάτες, 9. 33, 49) and Chosen One (έκλελγμένος, 9. 35). Luke presents this wealth of christological material in answer to the question posed by Herod, ‘Who is this about whom I hear such things?’ (9. 9). The complexity of the christology in Luke 9 stems not only from the variety of the explicit titles but also from Luke's direct mention of, or allusions to, OT prophets who are used as antetypes for the prophetic role of Jesus. The prophetic ideas in the Lucan writings have been set out by Tiede but the importance of the prophetic element in Luke 9 seems to have been somewhat overlooked in the more detailed studies of this chapter. Ellis, in his essay on the sources of the christology of Luke 9, has noted the Moses typology and possible allusions to Isaiah's servant, although it is doubtful whether the use of κλελεγμέ in 9. 35 (cf κλεκτόζ, Isa 42. 1) and the prediction of Jesus' suffering and rejection are sufficient to make the presence of the servant idea here more than speculative.

The prophetic concept of a new covenant appears to be the key to the question of how the Gospel of Matthew depicts the life of believers in obedience to the commandments of God. This is made possible by the fact that God forgives all sins and puts his Spirit in the hearts of people, so that they are enabled to fulfil his will. Even though the new covenant is hardly mentioned in Matthew's Gospel, that is because it is written to a community of baptized believers in which the new covenant is presupposed as the foundation of their Christian life.  The essential obligation also to forgive others is stressed in 6.14–15 and in the parable of the unforgiving servant (18.23–35), and the necessity of heart-transformation can be seen besides in the Matthean use of the metaphor of the heart.