The agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (as we usually describe it in English, in typically eclectic fashion, for the agony comes from Luke, the garden from John, and Gethsemane from Mark and Matthew) holds an important place within the Passion narrative. But what is that place? There are strong grounds for holding that the original Passion narrative which lies behind the Marcan and Matthean records began with the arrest of Jesus; the same is probably true of Luke, and very possibly of the Fourth Gospel also. The Gethsemane scene stands outside, or on the fringe of, such primitive Passion narratives, and in certain respects does not accord well with them; it may well be, as Bultmann,2 Kuhn3 and others have supposed, that it was adopted into the Passion narrative at a fairly late stage and inserted between the story of the Last Supper (itself not an integral part of the primitive Passion narrative) and the arrest, If this be so, we must ask to what extent, and in what way, the introduction of the Gethsemane scene into the Passion story and the handling of it within that context reflect the theologies of the evangelists of their immediate predecessors.

Bishop Butler, in the Advertisement to the first edition of his Analogy of Religion, says with reference to the subject of his book: ‘It is come to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry, but that it is, now at length, discovered to be fictitious.’ It is with a similar awareness that I am going against the tide of general opinion that I embark upon my present theme, and I could only wish that the similarity which I presume to claim between myself and that acute and learned bishop went further than that. For this paper is designed, in the fond and partial judgement which every parent has for his offspring, to contribute to a reopening of the question of the historical truth of some of the narrative portions of the Fourth Gospel. Such a subject may well appear not only exhausted but (a far graver condemnation) old-fashioned, so as to be no longer ‘so much as a subject of inquiry’. This is why I wish I shared the robust confidence of Bishop Butler in the soundness of his thesis, and could go on to say with him, ‘On the contrary, thus much, at least, will be here found, not taken for granted, but proved, that any reasonable man, who will thoroughly consider the matter, may be as much assured, as he is of his own being, that it is not, however, so clear a case, that there is nothing in it. There is, I think, strong evidence of its truth; but it is certain no one can, upon principles of reason, be satisfied of the contrary.’ For my own part, I make no claim to proof, but nevertheless hope that I may at least put forward some considerations such as to induce some who are of the contrary opinion to reconsider the questions I shall put before you.

Während die lukanische Kindheitsgeschichte im ganzen recht zusammenhängend konzipiert erscheint, weist ihr matthäisches Gegenstück zahlreiche Widersprüche und Ungereimtheiten auf. Dies gilt besonders für die im zweiten Kapitel geschilderten Vorgänge. Ohne plausible Erklärung bleiben z.B. das verhängnisvolle Zusammentreffen der Magier mit Herodes und die merkwürdigen Himmelsbewegungen des Wundersterns. Engelserscheinungen im Traum dienen wiederholt dazu, entscheidende Handlungsmomente notdürftig zu motivieren. Doch in der Situation nach dem Tode des Herodes versagt selbst diese Erzählfigur. Nachdem ein ἃγγελος κυρίου Josef versichert hat, die Verfolger des Kindes seien gestorben (2. 20), verläßt die Hl. Familie Ägypten und kehrt zurück in das ‘Land Israel’. In Judäa aber stellt sich heraus, daß die tödliche Gefahr nach wie vor besteht, denn nunmehr regiert dort Archelaus, ein Sohn des Herodes (2. 22).

L'éude des traditions patristiques et liturgiques relatives à la date de la Cène amène à examiner les témoignages anciens qui se rattachent au mercredi saint. Cet inventaire a permis de retrouver des textes qui n'avaient pas été signalés auparavant; on ne peut naturellement assurer qu'il soit exhaustif.

The identity of the κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7 has been debated among Western scholars for over five hundred years. Proposals have ranged from an inn to a guest room. This article argues that the term κατάλυμα has a generic sense of ‘place to stay’ and that the final clause of Luke 2.7 should be rendered ‘because they had no space in their place to stay’. Moreover, three clues in the context—Joseph's compliance with the census order, the betrothal of Mary, and the manger—suggest that the accommodations presupposed by Luke are a marital chamber too small for giving birth.

This article problematises the widespread assumption that the God of early Christianity is an invisible God. This assumption is found in both popular and academic discourse and often appeals to biblical critiques of divine images to make its case. Yet while Hebrew Bible scholars have recently questioned this axiomatic belief, New Testament scholars have yet to do the same. To address this oversight, this article first looks at divine images and idol polemic in the ancient world and then turns to Luke's depiction of divine images in the book of Acts as a test case. Here I demonstrate how Acts depicts God as a visible – and even embodied – being, while at the same time critiquing visual representations of the divine. With Acts, we find that not all Christians ‘imaged’ God as invisible.

This article discusses two characteristics of the Jewish-Christian source in Recognitions 1.27–71, namely its fierce opposition to sacrifices and its emphasis on the historical ties between the Jews and the land of Judea. There is reason to think that this document expresses the reaction of Jewish-Christians of Judaea to the disaster of the Bar-Kokhba uprising. On the one hand, they considered the military defeat and its consequences as a divine punishment for the rebels’ attempt to renew the sacrificial cult; and, on the other hand, they fought the paganisation of Judea by defending the historical right of the Jews to possess this land.

The speeches in Acts continue to arouse a variety of opinions; however, there is almost universal agreement that the style of the speeches belongs to Luke rather than to the persons to whom the speeches are attributed. This seems like a reasonable enough position given the convention among ancient historians to provide a précis of speeches rather than a verbatim transcription. However, Dibelius in his seminal essay on the speeches took Lukan style to be an indication of his unreliability: ‘Admittedly the speeches do, on the whole, reflect his (Luke's) style as regards vocabulary and phraseology; and it is this very fact which must constantly lead us to doubt their authenticity.’

Matt 5. 27–32, from the Sermon on the Mount, and Mark 9. 42–10.12 are passages that contain similar material, although neither is directly dependent on the other. Both have sayings that deal with ‘offences’ caused by certain body members (the verb used is σκανδαλίζω), and both contain a version of Jesus' prohibition of divorce. Between these two passages and a third, b. Nid. 13b, from the Babylonian Talmud, there also exist several similarities. Despite this intriguing configuration of materials, which might indicate that all three passages are dependent on a common set of traditions, scholars have approached these texts from a very different perspective. Those who posit a connection between the synoptic and the rabbinic materials do so only with respect to Matt 5, never Mark 9; and several scholars have instead sought parallels to the synoptic passages in Hellenistic gnomic literature, disregarding or ignoring the rabbinic material altogether. In the present study I intend to challenge the validity of these approaches and propose that there is indeed a common set of traditions to which all three of these texts are indebted. I will begin my investigation by highlighting three peculiarities of Mark 9. 42–48, and then posit a relation between this passage and b. Nid. 13b. Following this I will bring the material from Matt 5. 27–32 and Mark 9. 49–10. 12 into consideration. One of the results of this study, as I shall explain more thoroughly in the conclusion, will be the identification of a discussion on male sexuality that took place in Jewish and Christian circles sometime in the middle of the first century C.E

A magisterial and highly critical review by T. W. Manson of S. C. E. Legg's edition of Matthew in the J.T.S. of 1942 became a significant factor in causing the proposed series of critical apparatuses that was intended to cover the entire New Testament to be abandoned after only two volumes had been issued. Legg's edition of Mark had appeared in 1935, Matthew was the second volume to appear: the third volume (on Luke) was prepared but was not accepted for publication largely as a result of Manson's article.

1970 erschien von Klaus Koch, Professor für Altes Testament und Altorientalische Religionsgeschichte an der Universität Hamburg, eine Monographie mit dem Titel: ‘Ratlos vor der Apokalyptik’. Im Untertitel bestimmt der Autor näher der Zweck und das Ziel seiner Darlegungen: ‘Eine Streitschrift über ein vernachlässigtes Gebiet der Bibelwissenschaft und die schädlichen Auswirkungen auf Theologie und Philosophie’. Klaus Koch ist der Überzeugung, daß bei den Exegeten ‘ein tieferes geschichtliches Bewußtsein‘ nur ‘selten vorhanden sei, wenn sie über die Apokalyptik positiv oder negativ handeln‘. Dieser Zustand sie unhaltbar und um ihn zu ändern, lege er nicht einen ‘neutralen Forschungsbericht’ vor, sondern – wie er ausdrücklich betont – eine ‘Streitschrift’ die zu Änderungen reizen will, und sei es durch Widerspruch.

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.