The view that the Holy Spirit as the source of prophecy was believed by Jews during the tannaitic period to have withdrawn from Israel, to return only in the eschatological future, is built upon a pastiche of texts: Ps 74.9; 1 Macc 4.46, 9.27 and 14.41; Josephus's Ap. 1.37—41; 2 Apoc. Bar. 85.3; Pr Azar 15; and t. Soṭa 13.2—4. On the basis of such texts, E. Sjöberg referred to ‘a widespread theological conviction’ about the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit and J. Vos to ‘die verbreitete Tradition’. C. K. Barrett quoted G. F. Moore approvingly: ‘The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy … The Holy Spirit is so specifically prophetic inspiration that when Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the last prophets, died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.’ W. D. Davies suggested cautiously, after a thorough analysis of the data, ‘… we may now assume that Paul was reared within a Judaism which, to use very moderate language, tended to relegate the activity of the Holy Spirit to the past’. G. W. H. Lampe generalized, ‘In the main, the Spirit continues to be thought of as being, pre-eminently, the Spirit of prophecy, manifested in the distant past in such great figures as Elijah (Ecclus. 48.12) or Isaiah (vs. 24), but which was now no longer present in Israel.’ J. Jeremias subtitled section nine of his New Testament Theology ‘The Return of the Quenched Spirit’, and

In John 2. 4 there is a peculiar Greek idiom which has not only given almost every translator difficulty, but which is, in the opinion of the writer, both a key to the way in which the author of the Fourth Gospel used his sources, and to his interpretation of Jesus. The verse reads ‘And Jesus said to her: τί έμοί καί σοί; woman, my hour has not yet come.’

Luke's account of the anointing of Jesus (Luke 7. 36–50) seems to be one of the gospel stories which critics have examined somewhat in isolation from the context of the surrounding material. One reason for this may be that Luke has told his story almost too well, if that is possible, so that the account of the woman's act of overflowing love and its contrast with the Pharisee's lack of care for his invited guest can easily be read as a self-contained unit. It has certainly provided useful ammunition for those who have sought to denigrate the Pharisaic outlook by comparing it with Christian love; moreover, as Dibelius recognised, the woman's action and Luke's six-fold repetition which emphasises forgiveness would have made the story very valuable for illustrating sermons.

Bishop Butler, in the Advertisement to the first edition of his Analogy of Religion, says with reference to the subject of his book: ‘It is come to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry, but that it is, now at length, discovered to be fictitious.’ It is with a similar awareness that I am going against the tide of general opinion that I embark upon my present theme, and I could only wish that the similarity which I presume to claim between myself and that acute and learned bishop went further than that. For this paper is designed, in the fond and partial judgement which every parent has for his offspring, to contribute to a reopening of the question of the historical truth of some of the narrative portions of the Fourth Gospel. Such a subject may well appear not only exhausted but (a far graver condemnation) old-fashioned, so as to be no longer ‘so much as a subject of inquiry’. This is why I wish I shared the robust confidence of Bishop Butler in the soundness of his thesis, and could go on to say with him, ‘On the contrary, thus much, at least, will be here found, not taken for granted, but proved, that any reasonable man, who will thoroughly consider the matter, may be as much assured, as he is of his own being, that it is not, however, so clear a case, that there is nothing in it. There is, I think, strong evidence of its truth; but it is certain no one can, upon principles of reason, be satisfied of the contrary.’ For my own part, I make no claim to proof, but nevertheless hope that I may at least put forward some considerations such as to induce some who are of the contrary opinion to reconsider the questions I shall put before you.

A magisterial and highly critical review by T. W. Manson of S. C. E. Legg's edition of Matthew in the J.T.S. of 1942 became a significant factor in causing the proposed series of critical apparatuses that was intended to cover the entire New Testament to be abandoned after only two volumes had been issued. Legg's edition of Mark had appeared in 1935, Matthew was the second volume to appear: the third volume (on Luke) was prepared but was not accepted for publication largely as a result of Manson's article.

These three short papers were delivered at the 72nd General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, held in Pretoria, South Africa, on 8–11 August 2017. The ‘Quaestiones disputatae’ session was chaired by the President of the Society, Professor Michael Wolter. The first two papers engage with Teresa Morgan's book, Roman Faith and Christian Faith, and Professor Morgan responds to them in the third.

This article seeks to explain Matthew's description of Joseph as righteous (δίκαιος) by investigating Matt 1.18–25 within its ancient context, especially Judean practices of marriage and divorce as illuminated by Judean legal papyri from the Dead Sea region in the first and second centuries ce and from the Judean politeuma of Herakleopolis in the mid-second century bce. The examination will demonstrate the importance of these papyri for understanding the narrative in Matt 1.18–25 in its original social setting where honour was a dominant value, especially the extent to which it reveals Joseph to be an exemplar of Matthean righteousness.

Matt 5. 27–32, from the Sermon on the Mount, and Mark 9. 42–10.12 are passages that contain similar material, although neither is directly dependent on the other. Both have sayings that deal with ‘offences’ caused by certain body members (the verb used is σκανδαλίζω), and both contain a version of Jesus' prohibition of divorce. Between these two passages and a third, b. Nid. 13b, from the Babylonian Talmud, there also exist several similarities. Despite this intriguing configuration of materials, which might indicate that all three passages are dependent on a common set of traditions, scholars have approached these texts from a very different perspective. Those who posit a connection between the synoptic and the rabbinic materials do so only with respect to Matt 5, never Mark 9; and several scholars have instead sought parallels to the synoptic passages in Hellenistic gnomic literature, disregarding or ignoring the rabbinic material altogether. In the present study I intend to challenge the validity of these approaches and propose that there is indeed a common set of traditions to which all three of these texts are indebted. I will begin my investigation by highlighting three peculiarities of Mark 9. 42–48, and then posit a relation between this passage and b. Nid. 13b. Following this I will bring the material from Matt 5. 27–32 and Mark 9. 49–10. 12 into consideration. One of the results of this study, as I shall explain more thoroughly in the conclusion, will be the identification of a discussion on male sexuality that took place in Jewish and Christian circles sometime in the middle of the first century C.E

Le texte d'Habacuc (ii. 4.): ó δίκαιος έκ πίστεως ήσεται semble avoir joué un grand role dans la réflexion théologique de saint Paul: it apparaît d'abord en Gal. iii. 11, puis en Rom. i. 17; et les deux fois comme une sorte de résumé de la doctrine paulinienne sur la foi. C'est à déterminer son importance pour l'intelligence de Rom. i-viii qu'est consacrée la présente monographie.

In the NT there are two occurrences each of ¡λàσкєσθαĮ,¡λàσµÓà¡λ¡λλĮ and ¡λàσ. Of these, ίλaσμός in 1 In. 2. 2, 4. 10 and ίλaσυήπϖν in Rom. 3. 25 have special exegetical and theological importance. It is generally agreed that LXX usage should make a serious contribution to their interpretation and NT scholars are familiar with standard treatments of the subject: C. H. Dodd's 1931 article in JTS XXXII, reprinted in The Bible and the Greeks (1935), pp. 82–95, the contributions of Büchsel and Herr- mann in TWNT III (1938), L. Morris's chapter on ‘Propitiation (1)’ in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (1955), pp. 125–60, and D. Hill's treatment of ‘The Interpretation of ίλáσκєσθaί and Related Words in the Septuagint and in the New Testament’ in Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (1967), pp. 23–36. These valuable studies, however, are not satisfactory for various reasons. The section in TWNT cannot take account of discussion in the last forty years and the form in which its material is presented does not directly help NT exegetes. Dodd's treatment was too narrowly confined to the question whether the root should be translated by ‘propitiation’ or ‘expiation’, and Morris's partly justifiable reply is too much occupied with rejection of Dodd's conclusion and commendation of the wrath of God. Hill's investigation in this respect leans too heavily on Morris.

The identity of the κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7 has been debated among Western scholars for over five hundred years. Proposals have ranged from an inn to a guest room. This article argues that the term κατάλυμα has a generic sense of ‘place to stay’ and that the final clause of Luke 2.7 should be rendered ‘because they had no space in their place to stay’. Moreover, three clues in the context—Joseph's compliance with the census order, the betrothal of Mary, and the manger—suggest that the accommodations presupposed by Luke are a marital chamber too small for giving birth.