Mit dem Erscheinen des Greek New Testament 1966 gleichzeitig in New York, London, Edinburgh, Amsterdam und Stuttgart (GNT) zeichnete sich bereits das Bemühen ab, einen Standardtext zu erstellen, der für die exegetische Arbeit die Grundlage bieten soll. Dieses Bemühen wurde von dem internationalen Komitee unter der Federföhrung von K. Aland weitergeführt und brachte mit der 3. Auflage (GNT) 1975 und der 26. völlig neu bearbeiteten Auflage des seit 1898 eingeführten Nestle Textes (N26) den Abschluß, der textkritischen Arbeit des Komitees. Der Fortschritt nicht nur in der Textgestaltung, sondern ebenso in der Qualität des gebotenen Textes ist unübersehbar. Neu gefundene Zeugen, vor allem Papyri, wie eine bessere Kollationierung der vorhandenen haben uns dem Urtext sicher ein erhebliches Stück näher gebracht. Es muß jedoch einerseits gefragt werden, ob es berechtigt ist, diesen Text nunmehr als Standardtext in den Rangeines neuen textus receptus zu erheben, der allen Konkordanzen und Wörterbüchern, allen Übersetzungen und Kommentaren den verbindlichen Maßstab setzt. Zum anderen ist zu fragen, ob das Prinzip des Komitees, die mithilfe des Computers erfolgte Kollationierung der zahlreichen Minuskeln für den Text wenn nicht bestimmend, so doch wesentlich entscheidend sein zu lassen, textkritisch gerechtfertigt ist.

Galatians 3. 28 illustrates the fact that all too often meaning is in the eye of the beholder and that without proper care and attention to the context, text becomes pretext. We are told by some commentators that Gal. 3. 28 is the ‘Magna Carta of Humanity’, and especially the ‘Emancipation Proclamation for Women’. Others insist just as strongly that this text is dealing with one's position Coram Deo and has no implications for social relations within the Body of Christ. One scholar has even suggested that Paul's male–female terminology and his mentioning of baptism means that Paul is arguing for infant, as well as adult, baptism. In light of the present confusion concerning this text, it will perhaps be best to attempt to set this verse in its historical and literary context before proceeding to examine the exegetical intricacies involved.

Papias von Hierapolis, der Sammler übergangener Traditionen aus dem Urchristentum, ist von der Tradition seinerseits vernachlässigt worden. Theologische opinion leaders von Eusebius bis zu Adolf Harnack und semen Nachfolgern haben den unliebsamen Apokalyptiker in den Hintergrund gedrängt. ‘Von seinem fünfbändigen Werk sind nur ganz wenige, kümmerliche Fragmente geblieben; sie lassen den Verlust des Werkes als erträglich erscheinen. Der Historiker Euseb bescheinigt ihm geistige Schwachheit.’ So Hans Conzelmann, der die psychiatrische ‘Bescheinigung’ des Eusebius mit dessen Autorität als Historiker unterlegt, nicht achtend, daß es sich urn ein Tendenzurteil handelt. So fällt es ihm leicht, zu sagen, die Papias-Fragmente seien ‘samt und sonders geschichtlich wertlos’.

In a previous study, the present writer has made an analysis of aspects of the Qumran baptismal doctrine, pointing to a distinction between the washing with water and the purification by Spirit. When a further examination of the stages and conditions of initiation at Qumran is added, a relevance may be seen to certain aspects of the history of baptism in Acts, suggesting a means of dealing with some recognized difficulties.

In 1964, Enrico Cerulli published a treatise On the Resurrection of the Dead which he had found in Ms. Palat. Orient. 148 of the Bibliotheca Mediceo–Laurenziana at Florence. The text of this treatise turned out to be a very important theological treatment of the final resurrection. Since the text dated from the fourteenth century, it was thought that it would shed some fresh light on the theological discussions of the Ethiopian church of that age. The treatise deals with an existing heresy which called in question certain orthodox opinions with respect to resurrection. Therefore, Cerulli concludes, there must have been a group of people which had spread heretical ideas with respect to the doctrine concerning resurrection in Ethiopia at that time; and he suggests that they may have been connected with a gnostic movement which, it can be demonstrated, existed in Ethiopia during the fourteenth century. I am not qualified to judge the correctness of the theological Sitz im Leben which Cerulli gives to this text. Whether or not the Ethiopic text gives us a clue to a better understanding of the historical conditions of the Ethiopian Church in that period, I am not able to decide. What I wish to demonstrate in this short note is that from another angle Cerulli's publication is most welcome.

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.

A study of the use of the Old Testament in (by) the New should have a privileged place in our attempts to discover the hermeneutical processes which stood behind the growth of the New Testament as literature. Studies of this nature are not speculating upon the possible interior dispositions or mental processes of the communities and individuals who formed our New Testament books. These factors will always remain outside our scientific control. A study of the use of an Old Testament passage in the New gives us the raw material of the author's positive use of Israel's authoritative word of God to describe the event of Christ. The recent ‘prolegomena and response’ in New Testament Studies between Barnabas Lindars and Peder Borgen has shown that there is still a great deal to be learnt from such a discussion.

Ce verset (Mc. 16. 5) figure dans le récit final (16. 1–8) de l’évangile de Marc, qui rapporte la venue des femmes au tombeau de Jésus. Au cours des dernières années, ce verset a d’abord fait l’objet d’une interprétation christologique, puis d’une interprétation baptismale. Un certain nombre d’exégètes ont vu en effet dans le jeune homme qui s’y trouve mentionné une représentation symbolique soit du Christ ressuscité lui-même, soit du chrétien, associé par le baptême à la résurrection de ce dernier.

As we read those parts of Josephus'1 works which coincide with the Apostolic Age (in round figures A.D. 30–70) we encounter a number of references to certain prophetic figures. In the absence of existing descriptive titles we will refer to them as the Jewish Sign Prophets.

One of the most puzzling aspects of our much overworked field of New Testament studies – puzzling particularly at a time when individualism and personal religious experience have become central themes in our culture – is the fact that so little attention has been given to the most obvious, indeed the only clearly accessible instance of a personal religious experience in the New Testament. While some exegetes have shunned psychological contributions almost as if they might somehow impugn the authenticity of the event itself, others have undoubtedly reacted to the excesses of earlier attempts to psychoanalyse Paul's personality. But whatever the justification, the decision to follow a literary path, to the exclusion of the psychological, has meant that exegetes have lost touch with the dynamic, experiential dimension of Paul's conversion and have been forced to isolate it from other facets of his career.

Assuming that the Last Supper is to be set within a Passover framework, the Passover ritual outlined in Mishnah Pesachim 10. 1–7 is the earliest evidence for reconstructing the order of service followed by Jesus and his disciples. According to the Mishnah the Passover is celebrated as follows: (a) A benediction is said over the first cup. (b) Food seasoned with lettuce is eaten. Unleavened bread, lettuce, and haroseth is brought before the leader. (c) A second cup is mixed. The son asks the father about the meaning of the Passover ritual and his father answers him. (d) The first part of the Hallel (Pss. 113–118) is recited. According to the School of Shammai it is recited up to the end of Psalm 113; according to the School of Hillel it is recited up to the end of Ps. 114. This is followed by the Ge'ullah (a benediction recounting God's redemption of his people out of the hands of the Egyptians). (e) After the third cup is mixed, the benediction over the meal (commonly referred to as the ) is recited. (f) The leader recites the second part of the Hallel over the fourth cup. (g) A benediction over song is recited.