It is possible to construct both ‘ontological’ and ‘chronological’ scales on which Mark's Christology is then plotted. In neither case, however, does the method correspond to Mark's own christological method, which uses narrative to juxtapose pictures of Jesus as both ‘truly human’ and ‘truly divine’. This essay explicates the ‘truly divine’ side of Mark's presentation, arguing that a number of Markan texts express a ‘high’ Christology without compromising either Jesus’ humanity or a truly monotheistic doctrine of God.

Die Traditionsgeschichte der Spruchquelle Q ist nach wie vor ebenso umstritten wie die Frage nach ihrem Tradentenkreis. Der vorliegende Aufsatz versucht, am Beispiel der Wehesprüche sichtbar zu machen, daß es sinn-voll ist, die Frage nach den historischen Ereignissen, in denen sich die Tradenten von Q im 1. Jahrhundert notwendigerweise bewegten, mit der Frage nach der Traditionsgeschichte von Q zu verbinden, und daß es möglich ist, auf diesem Wege zu begründeten Feststellungen über die Geschichte der Spruchüberlieferung und über ihre Tradenten zu kommen.

The paper provides a study of the disciples and family of Jesus in Mark 3.13–35. It argues, against the prevailing interpretations, that (1) Mark 3.13–35 should be viewed as a subsection of 3.13–6.13, thus 3.20–35 should not be read in isolation from 3.13–19. (2) Recognising the connection of 3.13–19 to 3.22–35 by 3.20–21 points the way to identifying the twelve as those who sought to restrain Jesus. (3) On this basis an outline reading of 3.20–35 is given. Four groups fall under critique here: the twelve, the crowd, the scribes from Jerusalem and the family, the last of these less severely than the other three groups. (4) Family is redefined in terms of discipleship and discipleship in terms of family. (5) The study also argues that, according to Mark, the households of supporters were the strategic centres of the Jesus movement. These are contrasted with synagogues and Temple, which are places of opposition to the Jesus movement.

The article explores Gal 1.14 and Acts 22.3, two statements where Paul is said to be a ζηλωτη´ς. The term is a noun, meaning ‘Zealot’. However, interpreters and commentators have always interpreted the term as an adjective, meaning ‘zealous’. By understanding Paul's statement as an adjective, interpreters and commentators have dissociated Paul from the Zealot movement which was emerging during this period of time within Judaism. However, Paul appears in these passages to claim that the Zealot movement was a powerful influence upon his formative Jewish life and theology and was a motivating factor in his persecution of the Christians. This article proposes that we seriously consider Zealot influences in the formative years of Paul.

Considerations of language, context, and ideational content suggest that Rom 1.18–2.29 is a non-Pauline interpolation: (1) the language of 1.18–32 and, to a lesser extent, that of chap. 2 is not typically Pauline; (2) it is difficult to relate Rom 1.18–2.29 convincingly to Rom 1.1–17, and its relation to chap. 3 is at best strained; and (3) much of the ideational content of chap. 2 and, to a somewhat lesser extent, that of 1.18–32 is non-Pauline and even anti-Pauline. In addition, it is possible that the text of Romans used by Marcion did not contain 1.19–2.1.

Taking the ‘first resurrection’ (Rev 20.4–6) as ‘heaven’ accords with early Christian, non-chiliast views of martyrs and other blessed. Exegetical development of this interpretation requires plotting (in line with the literary structure of Rev 4–22) the convergence of complementary eschatologies: first, the millennium brings to a climax a series of images expressing ‘vertical’ eschatology (the life of God's witnesses after death); second, the whole narrative focuses fulfilment of the Creator's scroll (‘what must take place [γενε´σθαι] hereafter’) on the very end of the end-time (i.e. ‘horizontally’, on the moment marked by the enthroned's voice in 16.17, γη´γoνην, and 21.6, γη´oναν: ‘It/They has/have taken place’), and on God's victory over those gathered by powers of deception for ‘the war’ at Armageddon (16.12–16; 19.19–21; 20.7–10). Christ's kingdom in heaven is followed by the advent of God's sacred kingdom on earth.

In this essay in speculative biblical theology on immortality/resurrection, the anthropological presuppositions need to be examined in both Hebrew and Greek usages, requiring an understanding of the absolute nature of death in its biblical context. While the notion of the resurrection took hold in post-Exilic Palestine, Socrates exulted in the immortality of his soul and the body–soul dichotomy, in terms of which early Christianity read the NT. Yet the NT itself neither teaches nor presupposes this immortality of the soul, but rather that identifiably the same ‘I’, who dies wholly and totally, is raised up to a newness of life, a new creation.

In an earlier article, ‘The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos’, I proposed that the prevailing explanations of the background and origin of the celebrated Logos concept/title of the Gospel of John are misguided in their attempts to trace the title to some extraneous source. I argued, rather, that the development of the christological title Logos had a beginning, middle, and end, and that this may be demonstrated from the Gospel and First Epistle themselves. Crucial to my argument was the chronological ordering of the three documents: the Gospel of John ‘proper’ (John 1.19–20.31), the First Epistle, and then the substance of the Prologue (John 1.1–18). The thesis itself, more specifically, was that (1) λóγoς and ρημα were employed in the Gospel ‘proper’ with a demonstrably ‘christological transparency’, (2) λóγoς was employed with a quasi-titular force in the first verses of 1 John, and (3) λóγoς reflects a full-fledged christological title in the Prologue material, which was composed still later. At the end of that article I suggested that a similar development could be traced in the case of the Johannine term αρχη´ – immediately related to λóγoς in the very first line of the Gospel – and that, if so, this would surely enhance my argument concerning λóγoς. Here I attempt to make the argument for a similar christological development of the Johannine αρχη´. Even aside from its relevance for my thesis about λóγoς, the prominent and recurring αρχη´ justifies the attention. And it does confront us, after all, with the majestic phrase with which the Gospel opens: ‘In the beginning’.

Le mot πνικτóς utilisé en Ac 15.29 est l’adjectif verbal du verbe πνι´γω dont la signification de base est étouffer, suffoquer, étrangler. Il s’agit donc d’une façon de tuer soit un homme, soit un animal. Des quatre termes du Décret établis lors du Concile de Jérusalem, il est sans doute le terme le plus énigmatique et le plus important dans une tentative de compréhension du sens des restrictions. L’article ici présenté ne se veut pas une recherche sur la signification de l’ensemble du Décret mais est une proposition d’une autre lecture du mot πνικτóς. Cette lecture fait suite à une interrogation sur la position traditionnelle pour laquelle, dans le contexte du Concile, le terme πνικτóς signifie la viande d’un animal étouffé et qui n’a donc pas été complètement vidé de son sang.