In meiner Arbeit über die Christologie des EV (=Evangelium Veritatis) bin ich zu dem Schuß gelangt, daß diese sekundär ist. Als Gründe führte ich unter anderem an, daß sie bzw. die kaum gnostische Auffassung der Person christi in die kaum gnostiche Auffassung der Person Christi in die Voraussetzungen einer Christologie, nämlich in die kosmologie, Anthropologie und Soteriologie, nicht ganz hineinpaßt. Diese Schlußfolgerung wurde neulic zwar angegriffern, aber ich halte weiterhin daran fest, daß die Christologie des EV ein Fremdkörper im gesamten Text bleibt, zumal dasselbe Ergebnis auch für andere gnostische Schriften gelten könnte. Ich werde im folgenden versuchen, festzustellen, daß auch die Christologie oder die Gestalt Jesu Christi im AJ (=Apokryphon des Johannes) sekundär ist. Allerdings werde ich in der vorliegenden Untersuchung nicht mehr die Methode anwenden, die ich in meiner obengenannten Arbeit durchgeführt habe, zumal diese angezweifelt wurde. Ich werde hier die allgemein anerkannte, literarkritische Methode aufnehmen, da uns glücklicherweise vier Versionen des AJ zur Verfügung stehen.

Cet écrit prend la relève de deux articles déjà parus dans New Testament Studies. Le premier est celui d'Albert Vanhoye, ‘Structure du Benedictus’. Le second est celui de Pierre Auffret, ‘Note sur la structure littéraire de Lc 1, 68–79’. Le deuxième est une critique systématique du premier et fait sûrement avancer la recherche sur plusieurs points. Le présent article est le résultat à la fois d'une analyse détaillée des deux articles en question et d'une analyse personnelle du texte même du cantique de Zacharie. Notre analyse fournira deux structures nouvelles qui s'ajouteront à celles d'A. Vanhoye et de P. Auffret. Trois de ces quatre structures se présenteront comme complémentaires en ce sens qu'elles orienteront vers un contenu de pensée de première importance.

1 Cor 14.34–5 appears to silence women in church. Philip Payne's recent paper attempts to add to the evidence that Paul did not write these verses. He claims that codex Vaticanus has an obelos at the start of 1 Cor 14.34 (as well as a distigme), indicating added text. However, the bar in Vaticanus at 1 Cor 14.34 is indistinguishable from paragraphoi and Payne's case that it is an obelos is based on systematic measurement errors.

Cette critique de la rédaction de Lc 24 découpe le chapitre en six unités: les femmes au tombeau (1–11), Pierre au tombeau (12), Emmaüs (13–32), la christophanie à Pierre (33–5), la christophanie aux Onze (36–49) et l'ascension (50–3). Chaque unité a sa fonction propre dans la mise en place des bases essentielles à la continuité théologique, éthique et missionnaire entre Luc et Actes. Par l'enchaînement de ses récits dans une progression calculée, Lc 24 jette la passerelle nécessaire à la perpétuation du message de Jésus de Nazareth à travers l'Église primitive.

A survey of the current state of research shows that scholars are at an impasse regarding the text of Matt 16.2b–3. A fresh application of reasoned eclecticism to the unit uncovers new evidence supporting the longer reading. A reappraisal of the Greek manuscripts, early versions and early Christian literature shows that the longer and shorter readings are of approximately equal antiquity as far as can be established from presently available evidence. Analysis of the Eusebian apparatus strongly suggests that the shorter reading was often the result of intentional scribal change. Of the various explanations for such change, the most persuasive view is that proposed by Scrivener, Tregelles and Weiss – the shorter reading was probably an assimilation to Matt 12.39.

B. A. Mastin, in his article ‘A neglected feature of the christology of the Fourth Gospel’, points out ‘that in the construction of the Fourth Gospel prominence is given to the designation of Jesus as θεός. The Fourth Gospel appears to use the term θεός deliberately of Jesus; in “Paul”, on the other hand, the usage is much more casual, as indeed is the case in the rest of the New Testament, with the possible exception of Heb.i.8f'. Mastin demonstrates that Jn. 1. 1, 18 and 20. 28 speak of Jesus as God. ‘These three verses are placed at strategic points in the gospel, and this underlines the significance of what they say.’ Finally, Mastin states: ‘… it is reasonable to claim that the Evangelist thought it was important that the title θεός should be given to Jesus. It is probable that this feature of his christology is due to controversy with the Jews, and that as a result of this he formulated his estimate of Christ's person in this way.’ I fully agree with these results. The aim of my article is to show the scriptural background for this controversy.

Chapter 9 is the pivot of Luke's gospel containing, as it does, the transfiguration as well as marking the transition from the Galilee ministry to the journey to Jerusalem. Not only is it rich in incident, it is also rich in the range of titles given to Jesus. It includes the first recognition, outside the infancy narrative, of Jesus' messianic role (9. 20), the first passion prediction of the Son of Man (9. 22) as well as the first mention of the future Son of Man (9. 26). Furthermore, the chapter contains two titles peculiar to Luke, Master (έπιστάτες, 9. 33, 49) and Chosen One (έκλελγμένος, 9. 35). Luke presents this wealth of christological material in answer to the question posed by Herod, ‘Who is this about whom I hear such things?’ (9. 9). The complexity of the christology in Luke 9 stems not only from the variety of the explicit titles but also from Luke's direct mention of, or allusions to, OT prophets who are used as antetypes for the prophetic role of Jesus. The prophetic ideas in the Lucan writings have been set out by Tiede but the importance of the prophetic element in Luke 9 seems to have been somewhat overlooked in the more detailed studies of this chapter. Ellis, in his essay on the sources of the christology of Luke 9, has noted the Moses typology and possible allusions to Isaiah's servant, although it is doubtful whether the use of κλελεγμέ in 9. 35 (cf κλεκτόζ, Isa 42. 1) and the prediction of Jesus' suffering and rejection are sufficient to make the presence of the servant idea here more than speculative.

Rome or Syria? This article addresses the issue of the provenance of Mark's Gospel by exploring affinities between the second Gospel and Jewish sectarian groups of the first centuries bce and ce. It is argued that Mark displays certain sectarian tendencies, and that these tendencies, most notably seen in the Gospel's negative evaluation of the Jerusalem temple and its priestly overseers, strongly suggest that the Gospel was written in close geographical proximity to Jerusalem and its temple. Accordingly, an area in the Syrian Decapolis is a much more likely place of origin for Mark's Gospel than that of Rome.

Nous ignorons tout des conditions dans lesquelles les premiers chrétiens ont adopté la pratique du baptême d'eau en usage chez les disciples de Jean. Rappelons seulement quelques-unes des constatations qu'on peut faire à cet égard.

Le baptême de Jésus au Jourdain ne joue aucun rôle perceptible dans son ministère. Certes, si l'on fait fond sur Jn 3. 22–30 et 4. 1s, Jésus aurait temporairement participé à une activité baptismale parallèle à celle de Jean; nous en reparlerons plus loin. Cependant la tradition synoptique ne fait état pour sa part d'aucune pratique de ce genre et elle ne fait pas davantage mention d'un quelconque propos de Jésus à ce sujet dans sa prédication prépascale. L'absence est particulièrement significative dans les consignes données aux disciples lorsqu'ils sont envoyés par Jésus dans les villages (Mc 6. 7–13 et par.). C'est seulement après la Résurrection que, dans un texte particulier à Mt, Jésus donne l'ordre de baptiser à ceux qu'il envoie (Mt 28. 19), mais cet ordre suppose, de façon surprenante, qu'ils savent déjà de quoi il s'agit et le propos est marqué dans sa forme trinaire par l'usage ultérieur de l'Eglise. Nous n'avons en tout cas pour le baptême aucune tradition qui corresponde de près ou de loin à l'institution eucharistique.

Almost all students of Luke-Acts have called attention to the special place of scripture in these documents. The fundamental Lukan strategy seems to be presented in the closing chapter of the gospel. In his post-resurrection appearance to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, Jesus assumes the role of the authoritative interpreter of scripture and shows that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer. He interprets all the scriptures ‘beginning with Moses and all the prophets’ (Luke 24. 27; cf. 24. 35, 45). This chapter suggests to the reader that, although the scriptures are authoritative, they must be rightly, i.e. Christologically, interpreted. This widely acknowledged principle has certain implications that require investigation.

It is by no means an exaggeration to claim that the tendency of modern textual critics and exegetes is to regard the long disputed text-critical issue of Luke's final pericope (Luke 24.50–3) as more or less settled in favour of the authenticity of the so-called ‘longer (non-Western) text’ (i.e. containing the phrases κα⋯ ⋯νεφέρετο εἰς τ⋯ν ούρανόν, v. 51 and προσκυνήσαντες αύτόν, v. 52). Typical of the scholarly consensus is the almost unanimous adoption of the disputed words by modern Greek text editions, translations and exegetical studies, a trend which is not least inspired by the fact that the disputed words are attested in the oldest surviving copy of the Gospel of Luke, Papyrus 75 ($$$ = Papyrus Bodmer XIV), an early third-century MS closely affiliated with Codex Vaticanus (B). In the opening chapter of Acts the Textual situation is not essentially different. Despite continuing scholarly debate concerning the antiquity and origin of the Western text tradition (infra), in general, contemporary scholarship supports the ‘Alexandrian’ text.

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.

This article analyzes the widely misunderstood concept of ‘payback’ or ‘repayment’ (ἀντιμισθία) that, according to the so-called Second Letter of Clement, believers owe to Christ. Much of the secondary literature is laden with theological polemics (e.g. the author perverts Paul's gospel of grace), rather than an attempt to understand this concept relative to social relationships in antiquity. I argue that Second Clement presents Christ as salvific benefactor and patron. Christ offers salvation to those who accept the terms of his patronage, terms that include the obligation to render ‘payback’—for example, in the form of praise, witness, loyalty, and almsgiving. A failure to accept these terms would jeopardize the relationship between Christ and his earthly clients and thus call their salvation into question. As a corollary, I propose that a likely purpose for Second Clement was to convince a Christian audience that the benefits of salvation come with recurring obligations to Christ, their salvific patron.

This article seeks a fresh assessment of Paul's pompa triumphalis imagery at 2 Cor. 2.14–16a by probing a number of neglected aspects of both lexical and cultural background. Included are (1) an analysis of the use of θριαμβεύω in the Greco-Roman literature, with special attention given to claims made concerning the word's use with direct objects; (2) a lexicology of ὀσμή and εὐωδία in literatures of the period; and (3) a probing of the language of ‘salvation’ in the passage, with attention given to a feature of the triumphal procession parades that has until now failed to garner attention in investigations of the passage.