Attending to basic questions may yield a fresh perspective on the Synoptic ‘Son of Man’. How does the term function, for example, in the narrative logic of Mark's Gospel? The paper argues that: ‘the Son of Man’ serves essentially as a paradoxical incognito. It belongs to a whole pattern of speech that the Markan Jesus employs to resist disclosure of his identity as ‘the Son of God’. And it allows Jesus – a systematic theologian might say – to conceal his person while he reveals his work. If valid, this literary-critical result is not without implication for our historical understanding of the term.

Das geheime Markusevangelium beleuchtet das verbreitete Phänomen, dass über eine Figur aus größter Nähe zum irdischen Jesus der Zugang zu dessen authentischer Überlieferung legitimiert werden soll, wenn deren Anliegen anders nicht zur Geltung kommen kann. Es ist singulär, dass dieses Konzept in Zusätzen zu einem überkommenen Evangelium entfaltet wird, die sich einer literarisch und theologisch äußerst anspruchsvollen Exegese der ‘Vorlage’ verdanken. Wir erhalten dadurch Einblick in das konflikthafte Mit- und Gegeneinander von Gemeindechristentum und seinem ‘inneren Kreis’ in Alexandrien, für das in erster Linie eine Kontroverse über die Geschlechtlichkeit des Menschen verantwortlich zu sein scheint, die sich an der Gestalt der Salome entzündete.

Luke depicts the problem of incorporating Gentiles into the Church as rooted in conflicting definitions of purity. Apart from the principal Torah distinction between clean and unclean animals, a third category is mentioned: ‘common’, referring to doubtfully pure food. Parallels to this usage are found in a range of Jewish literature, from the Hasmonaean to the Rabbinic period. The notion of doubtfully pure food can help explain Peter's refusal to slaughter and eat from the mixed group of animals in his vision. Categorizing people like Cornelius as ‘potentially defiled’ may have constituted a human ‘fence’ between scrupulous Jews and unclean pagans. Adherence to the stipulations of the apostolic decree by Gentile Christians removed the last hindrance to Jewish Christians having table fellowship with them.

In 1 Thess 1–3, five times Paul directly connects the success of the gospel/the faith of the Thessalonians with his εισοδος. This new observation along with an appreciation of the close parallelism between 1 Thess 1–3 and 2 Cor 1–7 in occasion, tone, style, and content (especially the demonstrations of the integrity of his apostolic ministry in 1 Thess 2.1–12 and 2 Cor 1–7) helps us discern in 1 Thess 2.1–12 Paul's comprehensive apologetic purpose rather than a mere paraenetic purpose.

Interpretation of the opening of Hebrews is vital to understanding the rest of the author's argument predicated upon his principal declaration. Commentators disagree about whether the introductory proposition of 1.1–2a contrasts revelation through the son with an assumed inferiority of earlier means of revelation, or merely compares them. The complete absence, however, of comparison language here makes sustaining either of those models difficult. A more natural reading is that the earlier stages of revelation referred to in 1.1 lead directly into the revelation in the son (1.2). In Hebrews, both of these forms of divine communication are affirmed.

This article introduces extra-canonical traditions into the debate about the purpose of the gospels and the risks of sociological mirror-reading. Often seen as reflecting sectarian communities, some of these texts are actually no more ‘heterodox’ than their canonical counterparts, and might just as well have been written ‘for all Christians’. However, applying similar criteria, we find that canonical as well as extra-canonical gospels are best understood as intended for a group of churches with similar outlook. Why certain gospels came to be widely distributed had more to do with power structures; intention and reception should not be confused.

After surveying the debate over the relation of the Gospel of Thomas to the NT gospels, this essay argues that Gos. Thom. merits comparison with second-century Christian literature, in order to discern the similarity or dissimilarity with regard to the use of NT material. The second-century sources considered are found to manifest various types of literary dependence on the canonical gospels. A comparison suggests that Gos. Thom. does show many of the characteristics of this Christian literature known to depend on NT material, and, moreover, that Gos. Thom. appears to draw from all four of the canonical gospels. In fact, the significance of Gos. Thom. may not be as a witness to the historical Jesus, as some have hoped, but as one of the earliest witnesses to a four-gospel collection.