This article proposes that the Synoptic Gospels’ pronouncements of Isa 40.3 (Matt 4.3; Mark 1.2–3; Luke 3.4–6) invite a comparison with the Roman road system and its extensive broadcast of Roman imperial ideology. Heralding the sovereignty of a coming king on newly constructed roads through difficult terrain, Matthew, Mark and Luke portray the coming of the kingdom of God in terms analogous to the laying of Roman roads followed by the enforcement of Roman rule throughout the Roman Empire. If Isa 40.3 heralded the arrival of the true God through the ministry of Jesus, as the Synoptic Gospels proclaim, then Rome's pretentions were by implication counterfeit. The engineering feats of raising ravines, levelling heights, smoothing terrain and making straight highways denoted Roman expansion, conquest and the standardisation of Roman imperial ideology. In contradistinction, the Synoptic Gospels’ citations of Isa 40.3 presage the triumph of God, while simultaneously parodying Roman imperial ideology.

The dispute ‘about purification’ between the disciples of John the Baptist and a Jew (John 3.25) has to do with the priority of ethical purity as effected through baptism over the ritual washing prescribed by the Torah, e.g. before entering the Jerusalem temple. This issue is referred to in John 13.10 and 15.3, and also in P.Oxy. 840. It is presupposed here that the circle of Jesus’ disciples received John's baptism of repentance either from John the Baptist or from Jesus (John 3.22, 26; 4.1). The Gospel of John thus engages with an ongoing debate within Jewish Christianity about the obligatory nature of ritual washing.

In recent years, a number of New Testament and early Christian scholars have begun to use cognitive science approaches in their work. In this paper, I situate those efforts within the larger framework of the changing humanities, and the increased interest among humanistic scholars and social scientists in drawing on the growing body of knowledge on the cognitive and evolutionary roots of human thinking and behaviour. I also suggest how cognitive historiography can be helpful in shedding new light on issues discussed by New Testament scholars, by elaborating a case study: an analysis of the rite introduced by John the Baptist.

This essay focuses on the figure of John the Baptist in prison and the question he sent his disciples to ask Christ: was he ‘the one who is to come’ (Matthew 11: 2–3)? Having observed how the Fathers strove to distance John from the perils of doubt in their readings of this passage, it traces the way their arguments were picked up by twelfth- and thirteenth-century biblical exegetes and then by authors of anti-heretical dispute texts in urban Italy, where the Baptist was a popular patron saint. So as to give force to their own counter-arguments, learned polemicists, clerical and lay, made much of heretics’ hostility to John, powerfully ventriloquizing a doubting, sceptical standpoint. One counter-argument was to assign any doubts to John's disciples, for whose benefit he therefore sent to ask for confirmation of the means of Christ's return, neatly moving doubt from questions of faith to epistemology. Such ideas may have seeped beyond the bounds of a university-trained elite, as is perhaps visible in a fourteenth-century fresco representing John in prison engaging with anxious disciples. But place, audience and genre determined where doubt was energetically debated and where it was more usually avoided, as in sermons for the laity on the feast of a popular saint.

The Benedictus is Luke's own composition. Its syntax is perspicuous, provided that 1.71 is understood as zeugma and 1.73 as hyperbaton. It has three parts in 3 + 5 + 5 double lines; their topics are eschatological (1.68–70: messianic hopes), ecclesiological (1.71–75: God's covenant) and soteriological (1.76–79: remission of sins). The oath sworn to Abraham and granted to ‘us’ (1.73) forms the centre. The hymn originates in Luke's sophisticated theological reflection, his knowledge of LXX, and his literary skill which is confirmed by the stichometric proportions of the passage.

Scholars continue to divide over whether John the Baptist acclaims Jesus as ‘the Son of God’ or ‘the Chosen One of God’ at John 1.34. This article argues that transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, supported by the testimony of a few early manuscripts, favour the latter reading. However, in adopting this reading, the claims that (a) the variation took place in the course of a battle against adoptionism and (b) ‘the Chosen One of God’ supplies corroboration that the original tradition underlying the Synoptic baptismal accounts was based solely on Isa 42.1, are found to be unnecessary and methodologically problematic respectively.

L'attention de la majorité des commentateurs qui se sont penchés sur l'étude de Jn 3.29 a été focalisée par le contenu de l'expression ο ϕιλος του νυμϕιου, expression souvent rapprochée du “garçon d’honneur” de la tradition juive, et la signification théologique profonde du verset s’en est souvent trouvée occultée. Le présent article se propose de montrer – notamment à travers un examen des prédéterminations et du schéma eschatologiques de ce verset – que la joie accomplie du Baptiste apparaît ici comme étant le résultat du salut effectif, opéré par la révélation plénière et définitive apportée par Jésus. En ce sens, il constitue l'une des expressions de l'eschatologie inaugurée du quatrième Évangile.