Ein dunkles, viel umrätseltes und mißdeutetes Wort nennt Walter Schmithals den kurzen Abschnitt von den zwei Schwertern (Lk 22.35–8), der die testamentarische Rede Jesu in Lk 22 abschließt:

(35) Und er sagte zu ihnen: ‘Als ich euch ohne Geldbeutel und Vorratssack und Sandalen aussandte, hat euch jemals etwas gefehlt?’ Sie antworteten: ‘Nichts’. (36) Er aber sagte zu ihnen: ‘Jetzt aber, wer einen Geldbeutel hat, nehme ihn und ebenso einen Vorratssack und wer nicht hat, verkaufe sein Obergewand und kaufe ein Schwert. (37) Denn ich sage euch: dieses Schriftwort muß in mir erfüllt werden; “Und er ist zu den Gesetzlosen gezählt”; denn, was mir bestimmt ist, kommt zu seiner Vollendung.’ (38) Sie aber sagten: ‘Herr, siehe, hier sind zwei Schwerter.’ Er aber sagte zu ihnen: ‘Es ist genug.’

Of all the New Testament writings, it is the Fourth Gospel which raises in their most acute form the problems which were to vex the Church in the Trinitarian controversies of the third and fourth centuries. Many of the arguments set forth both by the heterodox and by their orthodox opponents consisted of exegesis of Johannine texts, and at the centre of the Monarchian controversies of the third century and the Arian controversy of the fourth was the question of the correct exegesis of John x. 30, I and the Father are one (ὡ ἕ ).

In a recent Short Study I suggested that St Paul was not discussing virginity in I Cor. vii but dealing with the subject of second marriages and, more specifically in υυ. 36 ff., with levirate marriage. The present article is an examination of early patristic exegesis of I Cor. vii to show that consecrated virginity was not a customary way of life in the most primitive Christian communities. I have given special attention to the Jewish background of Montanism and Tertullian's exegesis during his Montanist period which seems to provide the most substantial evidence that the recipients of St Paul's letter were not posing questions concerning celibacy and perhaps had no conception of this practice for women.

The Gospel of Peter (GP), often claimed to be theologically unsophisticated, offers a theological reflection upon the saving work of the Lord in his resurrection. GP receives the synoptic tradition, which itself has no narration of the resurrection (but only narrations of ‘appearances’), and fills in this lacuna. The narration of the resurrection is patterned upon GP's narration of the crucifixion, thereby suggesting that the resurrection and the crucifixion are two coordinated salvific events. GP's reception of the synoptic tradition is thus not only apologetic or polemical, but also theological.

Paul's address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 stands at the center of an extended treatment of the internal life of the church (20.1–21.17), and constitutes Luke's last portrait of the believing community. In this section, scenes of community life (20.7–12, 17–38; 21.8–14) alternate with travel episodes (20.1–6, 13–16; 21.1–7, 15–17) to show the relationship among groups of believers scattered around the Aegean and back to Caesarea. The resulting portrait of believing communities echoes some important features of the early descriptions of community life in Jerusalem. In this larger literary context, the speech to the Ephesian elders takes on a different appearance from its usual characterization as the farewell address of Luke's hero, Paul. The speech repeatedly connects the church to God, introducing Luke's larger themes of God's plan, the action of the Holy Spirit, and the instruction of Jesus himself. These features show that the church's future, in Luke's view, has less to do with its imitation of Paul than with its relationship to the God who calls it into being.

It is a common notion among modern biblical scholars that Origen doubted Paul's authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This article offers an examination of Origen's writings on this question, and shows that the evidence is wildly misrepresented in contemporary discussions. It does this by beginning with Origen's Letter to Africanus, continuing with an overview of his Hebrews citations across his writing career, and concluding with an analysis of his oft-cited comments in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. This examination shows that while Origen suspects Hebrews’ composition to involve more than Paul alone, his surprisingly consistent testimony is that the epistle is indeed Paul's.

Previous reconstructions of the ‘Miracle on the Jordan River’ (Papyrus Egerton 2, 2v.6–14) are unconvincing because they lack clear parallels with known texts. This short article proposes a new transcription, based on the apparent parallels with Elisha's miracles in 2 Kings and Josephus, Jewish War 4.460–4. It concludes that the author of the Egerton Gospel used Elisha typology in the depiction of Jesus’ miracle on the Jordan.

Although an increasing number of works are focusing on depictions of God in the New Testament, none so far specifically focus on how these depictions rely on anthropomorphic language in their presentation of God. This article attends to this oversight by turning to the Synoptic Gospels (and the book of Acts) as a test case. Not only do these narratives lack an explicit anti-anthropomorphic agenda, but they also rely on divine anthropomorphisms that are derived from Jewish Scripture. To demonstrate this claim, the article concentrates on how Matthew and Luke expand Mark's anthropomorphic presentation of God and how Luke's presentation emerges as the most anthropomorphic of all. It also discusses how Mark, Matthew, and Luke's respective narratives depict God's human, or human-like, characteristics according to the following four categories: (1) God's human roles and titles, (2) God's depiction as an acting subject who speaks and desires to be in relationship with humans, (3) God's concrete presence located in space, and finally, (4) God's description as a character with recognisable body parts and other markers of corporeality. In the end, we shall see that anthropomorphism is a central component of God's characterisation in the Synoptics and that this anthropomorphic characterisation better enables readers to see the Jewish, scriptural shape of God as a personal deity who desires to be in relationship with humans.

This essay is a social-scientific study of Paul's deployment of holiness language in 1 Corinthians. Specifically, an interpretation of holiness is offered to explain Paul's argument in 1 Cor 7.12–16 in favour of non-separation in the case of a believer married to a non-believer. For Paul, holiness involves participation in the oneness of God interpreted christologically. This participation is embodied in the holiness-as-oneness of the church. In relations between believers and unbelievers, purity rules to do with sex and marriage carry a significant symbolic burden. In some cases, clear lines of demarcation are drawn. Other cases constitute grey areas; and the suggestion here is that ‘mixed marriages’ are one such. For Paul, holiness is a matter of neither genealogical nor cultic purity. Rather, it has a boundary-transcending quality. In the case of a mixed marriage, the unbelieving partner, together with the children, is sanctified by remaining in oneness with the believing partner. Paul's concern for the oneness of the church spills over into a concern for the oneness of the household.

Dale Allison is right to assert that ‘the twelve tribes in the Diaspora’ invokes Jewish ideas about the Ten Lost Tribes, but wrong to disassociate this thesis from the scholarly consensus that the pseudepigraphal author sees the church as Israel. For James, rather, the restored Israel consists of members of the Two Tribes of Judah and Benjamin (= Jewish Christians) plus members of the Ten Tribes. The latter, rather than being far away in some mythical, inaccessible realm, have been living since the Assyrian invasion in known Diaspora realms, where they lost their Israelite identity until it was reawakened by their recent encounter with the Gospel. Gentiles who respond positively to the Christian message, then, are for James the Ten Lost Tribes.

Romans 3. 1–8 is one of the most puzzling passages in the epistle. It is commonly assumed that Paul is here using the ‘diatribe’ style of contemporary philosophers. In the diatribe, arguments are put into the mouth of imaginary objectors, and the writer replies to them in the form of a dialogue. But we must confess that, if Paul is really using the diatribe style in this passage, he is using it in a very strange way. Normally, in the diatribe, the objector's point is stated briefly, and replied to in detail. But in Romans 3. 1–8, as commonly interpreted, the objections are stated in detail, and Paul's replies are brief and inadequate. Various explanations are given for this by the commentators. According to Dodd, ‘the whole argument of 3. 1–8 is obscure and feeble’ because Paul is ‘defending a poor case’. Other scholars are more charitable, saying that the questions raised by the imaginary objector are in fact adequately answered later in the epistle. But they fail to explain why Paul should state at this stage in the epistle detailed objections, to which he is either not willing or not able to give an immediate answer.

The problem of whether the meal conducted by Jesus (Mt. 26. 17–30: Mk. 14. 12–26; Lk. 22. 7–22; Jn. 13), was a Passover Seder is a matter of long-standing discussion and need not be entered into or documented here.1 What deserves further attention, however, is the light shed on this question by 1 Cor. 10. 16, which was recently considered in the pages of this journal.2 In this discussion the author cites the view of others that the cup of Mt. 26. 27 refers to the cup of blessing accompanying the Grace After Meals, birkhat hamazon, or in terms of the cup-sequence of the Passover Seder, the third cup.3 The author further indicates that the same scholars generally view ‘the cup of blessing’ at 1 Cor. 10. 16, to be the kosshel berakhah, and take this term to be a technical one that refers to the cup of thanksgiving for food, birkhat hamazon, or again, the third cup of the Passover Seder. Cohn-Sherbok argues, however, that Mt. 26. 27 refers to the fourth cup of the Seder, which accompanies the birkhat hashir, the blessing of song, which comes at the end of Hallel (M. Pes. 10. 7; B. Pes. 118 a).4 Finally, in discussing Paul's phrase, to poterion tes eulogias (1 Cor. 10. 16), Cohn-Sherbok argues that it need not refer to any particular cup of the Seder, and might mean generally a cup consecrated by Jesus.5 16, to be the kosshel berakhah, and take this term to be a technical one that refers to the cup of thanksgiving for food, birkhat hamazon, or again, the third cup of the Passover Seder. Cohn-Sherbok argues, however, that Mt. 26. 27 refers to the fourth cup of the Seder, which accompanies the birkhat hashir, the blessing of song, which comes at the end of Hallel (M. Pes. 10. 7; B. Pes. 118 a).4 Finally, in discussing Paul's phrase, to poterion tes eulogias (1 Cor. 10. 16), Cohn-Sherbok argues that it need not refer to any particular cup of the Seder, and might mean generally a cup consecrated by Jesus.5