The Church drew no distinction between such utterances by Christian prophets (ascribed to the ascended Christ) and the sayings of Jesus in the tradition, for the reason that even the dominical sayings in the tradition were not the pronouncements of a past authority, but sayings of the risen Lord, who is always a contemporary for the Church.

This paper will deal with a number of passages in the Fourth Gospel in which Jews express Jewish beliefs concerning the Messiah. Three of these are found in the debates among various groups in Jerusalem which are recorded in chapter vii; they all deal with the coming of the Messiah.

The discussion about the meaning of the title ‘Son of Man’ continues to be a lively part of the quest for the historical Jesus. Nevertheless the discussion gives the impression of having come to a kind of stalemate; and this suggests that we ought to examine the method by which it has been pursued, to see if a fruitful alternative method can be found. The method usually followed is dominated by these three characteristics:

(1) Diligent investigation is devoted to trying to distinguish which of the Son of Man sayings in the gospels (if any) are genuine sayings of Jesus.

(2) It is accepted that the synoptic Son of Man sayings fall into three distinct groups, referring (a) to Jesus during his earthly life as Son of Man, (b) to predictions of Jesus' death and resurrection as Son of Man, and (c) to the future coming of the Son of Man at the end of the age. Since the meaning of the title is understood to differ from group to group, and especially between the last group and the other two, the discussion of genuineness has mostly taken the form of asking within which group or groups the genuine sayings are to be sought.

(3) With respect to the meaning of the title, attention is concentrated on the status which it connotes (e.g. lowliness, suffering, exaltation, authority, vindication, heavenly enthronement, etc.), but little inquiry is made concerning the function which the Son of Man performs.

The choice of the topic for this lecture* has been influenced by the publication, in the course of last year, of some significant new monographs on questions related to John 21. In several quarters of Johannine studies, we can observe a reconsideration of Chapter 21 in its relation to the Gospel, with renewed interest in the problem of the Beloved Disciple. There is alsoa revival of the source-critical approach, with new reconstructions of the traditional miracle story behind the verses 1–14. And, of course, there is continuing debate on Joh's use of the Synoptics, from which, to say the least, John 21 is not wholly absent. I begin my presentation with the first part of the Chapter, verses 1–14, and the hypothesis of a ‘pre-Johannine’ source.

Do we find the principle of ‘loving one's enemies’ or precursors thereof in pre-Christian antiquity? In the Greco-Roman tradition we find as a common maxim ‘helping friends and harming enemies’ combined with the talio and the Golden Rule. Only Socrates and some Roman stoics recommend never to take revenge. In the OT Lev 19.18 may possibly be interpreted as a commandment of loving one's enemies. The first to have understood Lev 19.18 in this sense seems to be Jesus. Christians have too rarely lived up to his commandment.

Throughout the history of Johannine studies the fact has been noted repeatedly that John employs numerous ambiguous expressions or terms of double meaning. Nonetheless, this topic has attracted surprisingly little attention, while the function these expressions serve within the gospel has gone virtually unexplored. It will, therefore, be the goal of this study to present a brief list of important contributions to this area, then to explore a substantial number and variety of ‘expressions of double meaning’ in view of understanding their nature, structure, and function, and finally to dwell in summary fashion upon more general considerations: the nature and origin of these expressions, sources, and theology.

Markan intercalation has been recognized in the scholarly literature for more than sixty years. It is a literary technique in which one Markan story is begun but is then interrupted by another. After the conclusion of this ‘inner’ story the first story is rejoined and completed. The majority of investigators of this storytelling pattern agree that it occurs at least six times in Mark as follows:

This essay argues that the common understanding of imperial divine sonship among biblical scholars can be reframed by emphasizing the importance of adoption in Roman society and imperial ideology. A case study from the Gospel of Mark—the portrayal of Jesus' baptism—demonstrates some of the pay-off for reading the NT with a newly contextualized perspective on divine sonship. Through engagement with diverse sources from the Hellenistic and Roman eras, the dove will be interpreted as an omen and counter-symbol to the Roman eagle, which was a public portent of divine favor, election, and ascension to power.

In a recent article on the interpretation of the Old Testament in the New Testament Traugott Holtz takes as his point of departure the twice repeated kata tas graphas of I Cor. xv. 3, 5. C. H. Dodd took the same words for the title of his influential book, According to the Scriptures. So we may suitably start with this for our consideration of the place of the Old Testament in the formation of New Testament theology. Paul's use of this phrase in the credo of I Cor. xv is remarkable. For one thing, it is the clearest possible case in the New Testament of appeal to the scriptures in order to provide the basis of a theological interpretation of the Christ-event. This at once alerts us to expect the importance of the Old Testament for New Testament theology to be in the realm of christology, or rather of the person and work of Christ. It can be expected to be the most important factor in the primitive church's understanding of its own faith. But another point about I Cor. xv. 3, 5 is even more significant. In this instance Paul does not even consider it necessary to adduce the relevant texts. It is implied that he could do so, if he wished, and scholars have made various suggestions about which texts he actually had in mind. But the point is that he can presuppose that it is sufficient for his argument merely to allude to the possibility of adducing scriptures. And this implies that they are common ground between him and his readers. The scriptures are, then, an agreed basis for discussion. They have an authority which is unquestioned. Consequently it can be taken as axiomatic that they will play a most important, indeed indispensable, part in the formation of New Testament theology.

In der Forschung zur Johannesapokalypse ist die Deutung des ersten apokalyptischen Reiters (Apk 6.2) kontrovers. Neben die verbreitete negative Deutung traten in den letzten Jahren verschiedene Ansätze für ein positives christologisches Verständnis. In Auseinandersetzung damit wird ein bisher nicht berücksichtigtes Problem besonders in den Blick genommen, daß nämlich der erste Reiter einerseits positiv interpretiert werden kann, dann aber andererseits als ein Siegel am siebenfach versiegelten Buch zu deuten ist, das nicht als Buch des Gerichtes, sondern als Lebensbuch des Lammes verstanden werden muß. Schließlich wird seine konzeptuelle Bedeutung im Zusammenhang mit dem Reiter von Apk 19 beschrieben.

According to a growing number of scholars, when Paul makes use of the phrase ‘peace and security’ in 1 Thess 5.3, he is alluding to a well-known slogan in Roman propaganda that summed up the benefits of the Pax Romana. While there can be no doubt that ‘peace’ played an important role in Rome's imperial ideology, it is less clear that this was the case for ‘security’, and a review of the evidence presented by the proponents of this view calls into question their conclusion that ‘peace and security’ had the character of a slogan.

The question whether John used one or more of the Synoptic Gospels continues to be hotly debated. It is obvious that John is indebted to other sources for much of his information. But where his material overlaps the Synoptic Gospels, it is more difficult to decide whether he is using independent traditions or not. In one case, however, it can be shown that he had a saying of Jesus which he received in a Greek form transmitted independently of the forms in Mark and Q. All go back to a common Aramaic original. The saying in question is Jn. 3. 3, 5.

The Qumrân texts have brought to light a feature of Jewish thought about angels which helps us to interpret the meaning of the phrase διά τούς άγγΈλους in I Cor. xi. 10. This phrase has been the subject of many interpretations from the time of Tertullian on. The evidence from Qumrân, however, does not just add another interpretation to the many that have already been given; rather it adds a detail to one interpretation already rather common, thus supporting it and rendering the other interpretations less probable. It is our purpose in this study to indicate the bearing of the new evidence from Qumrân on this Pauline expression.

The first text in the Akhmîm codex discovered in Upper Egypt in 1886–87 was confidently identified as the Gospel of Peter, mentioned by Eusebius in his description of the activities of the second-century bishop Serapion. Although the Akhmîm text is dated palaeographically between the seventh and ninth centuries, it is seen as being a witness to a text that dates from at least as early as the second century. This position appeared to have been strengthened by the identification of a number of early papyrus fragments as belonging to the Gospel of Peter. This paper calls into question such identifications, and consequently suggests caution should be exercised before too quickly making the conclusion that the text from Akhmîm is to be identified with the second-century Gospel of Peter.

In den folgenden Beobachtungen sollen jüdische Texte für bisher nicht geklärte Vorfragen über die Verwendung christologischer Titel neu erschlossen oder jedenfalls in einen traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang mit christlichen Aussagen gestellt werden. Obwohl eine Verbindung von Titeln dieser Art auch häufig schon vorchristlich nachweisbar ist, wird die Orientierung an einzelnen Hoheitstiteln beibehalten, da es sich häufig auch in dem jüdischen Material bereits um traditionsgeschichtliche Synthesen handelt. Wegen der Kürze des Raumes kann es sich lediglich um Hinweise handeln.

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.

Against the contentions of a number of NT scholars, the present article aims to demonstrate that the apostle Paul's gospel language never refers to ongoing Christian instruction and only ever connotes announcements which are news to those who hear them. This conclusion, which is maintained even in connection with Rom 1.15, a key text for the ‘broad-ranging’ view of ευαγγελ-, is shown to conform to the wholly consistent usage of gospel terminology throughout Graeco-Roman, Jewish and early Christian literature: ‘gospel’ is news.

The title of this short study is modelled on that of Bruce W. Longenecker, ‘ΠΙΣΤΙΣ in Romans 3.25: Neglected Evidence for the “Faithfulness of Christ”?’, which appeared in this journal in 1993. My reasons for evoking that earlier study are twofold. Longenecker well remarks on how, in all the toing and froing of the debate over πιστις Χριστου in Paul, one can easily get lost in inconclusive details when one focuses just on the disputed genitive phrases (Gal 2.16, 20; 3.22; Phil 3.9; Rom 3.22, 26), and his turn to Rom 3.25 is a model for searching the surrounding contexts for clues to factor into the debate. But more than this general connection, there is a material one from that study to this, from Rom 3.25 to Gal 3.26, which allows me both to cast an alternative light on the former text and, more importantly, to introduce some ‘neglected evidence’ of my own for the objective genitive reading of πιστις Χριστου (‘faith in Christ’). In order to set the evidence of Rom 3.25 in a different light, I draw briefly upon the text of Gal 3.26; the neglected evidence for the reading ‘faith in Christ’ lies in the P46 variant reading of Gal 3.26.