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.

Paul's address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 stands at the center of an extended treatment of the internal life of the church (20.1–21.17), and constitutes Luke's last portrait of the believing community. In this section, scenes of community life (20.7–12, 17–38; 21.8–14) alternate with travel episodes (20.1–6, 13–16; 21.1–7, 15–17) to show the relationship among groups of believers scattered around the Aegean and back to Caesarea. The resulting portrait of believing communities echoes some important features of the early descriptions of community life in Jerusalem. In this larger literary context, the speech to the Ephesian elders takes on a different appearance from its usual characterization as the farewell address of Luke's hero, Paul. The speech repeatedly connects the church to God, introducing Luke's larger themes of God's plan, the action of the Holy Spirit, and the instruction of Jesus himself. These features show that the church's future, in Luke's view, has less to do with its imitation of Paul than with its relationship to the God who calls it into being.

Previous reconstructions of the ‘Miracle on the Jordan River’ (Papyrus Egerton 2, 2v.6–14) are unconvincing because they lack clear parallels with known texts. This short article proposes a new transcription, based on the apparent parallels with Elisha's miracles in 2 Kings and Josephus, Jewish War 4.460–4. It concludes that the author of the Egerton Gospel used Elisha typology in the depiction of Jesus’ miracle on the Jordan.

This article reads Acts 27–28.10 as an ‘aquatic display’ that offers Christ-believers a spectacle of navigating the stormy imperial world. It argues that Pliny's Panegyricus similarly employs aquatic displays to instruct in negotiating the emperor Trajan's power. It identifies four means in Acts 27 that assert Rome's power – judicial, military, economic, and the sea as a contested site where the sovereignties of God and Rome compete and cooperate – and which Christ-believers must negotiate by various means including submission, awareness of danger, courage, social interaction, agency, contribution to well-being, and discernment of and contestive allegiance to God's greater sovereignty.

Cambridge people, incorrigible as they are, like to sing the praises of Cambridge. Sharing this obligation I select a subject that may be in tune with this theme. As a New Testament man I do not have to compass land and sea in order to find an association. What may fairly be described as a unique challenge given by Cambridge to New Testament studies is to be found in the University library. It is what may be called the pericope Cantabrigiensis, the addition to Luke 6. 4 in the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, which runs as follows: On the same day he saw someone working on the Sabbath and said to him: man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed, if you do not know, you are cursed and a law-breaker (τυτ ⋯μέρᾳ θεασάμενός, τιναᾳγαζόμενον τ σαββάτ επεναυτ ἅνθρωπε ε μįν οδας τί ποιεις, μακάριος ε ε δį μεοįδας, ᾳπικατάρατος κᾳι παραβάτης ε τοū νόμον).

Anyone who wants to say something about the earliest Christian use of Christos should start with the oldest written sources: the (genuine) letters of Paul.

1.1.1. Paul's use χριοτòς has been set out convincingly by N. A. Dahl1 and W. Kramer.2 The apostle uses the term very frequently: 270 out of the 531 occurrences of the word in the New Testament are found in the genuine letters of Paul.3 He also uses it in combinations with other words: Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, Jesus Christ the Lord; but never in the combination κúρως χριτóς.4 Certain patterns can be recognized in the use of Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus and also in the use of the article with χριτóςbut nowhere with a clear difference in meaning.5 Dahl says: χριτóς is never a general term; the word is also never used as a predicate. Paul never feels the necessity to state ‘Jesus is the Christ’; a genitive is never added (Paul does not use χριτòς κυριου or related expressions) and also Ίηιοṽςò Χριιτóς is not found.6

Was meint Paulus mit den Ausdrücken ‘Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Röm. 3. 27) und ‘das Gesetz des Geistes des Lebens’ (Röm. 8. 2)? Lange Zeit waren die Interpreten fast einmütig: Paulus spielt mit Worten und gebraucht den Terminus νόμος in einem allgemeinen, übertragenen bzw. uneigentlichen Sinne. Das Wort bezeichnet an beiden Stellen nicht die alttestamentliche Torah, sondern es ist etwa mit ‘Regel’, ‘Ordnung’, ‘Norm’, ‘System’ oder ‘ ‘Prinzip’ wiederzugeben. Das sind die hauptsächlichen Übersetzungsvor-schläge zu 3. 27. Zu 8. 2 wird ein noch weiteres Spektrum geboten. Außer den schon genannten werden u. a. ‘Herrschaft’, ‘Religion’, ‘Kraft’, ‘Autorität’, ‘Äone’, ‘Sphäre’, ‘régime’ und ‘pattern’ vorgeschlagen. An 3. 27 geben auch einige moderne englische Bibelausgaben νόμος mit ‘principle’ wieder (RSV, NEB); an 8. 2 sind die Übersetzungen mehr reserviert.

Out of all the NT books, the Gospel of John has the most witnesses among the papyrus MSS – twenty-two to date (P2, 5, 6, 22, 28,36, 39, 44, 45, 52, 55, 60, 63, 66, 75, 76, 80, 84, 90, 93, and 95). Two of these MSS, P66 and P75, contain a good portion of this gospel by themselves; and when all the MSS are compiled together, they cover nearly the entire book, with a great deal of overlap. The missing portions are as follows: 14. 31; 15.1; 16. 5, 8–10; 21.10–11, 14, 16, 21–22. Many more verses, especially in chapters 14–21, have lacunae.

Il convient dés l'abord de dissiper tout malentendu. Notre discours ne veut être ni apologétique ni ésotérique. Il pourrait tout au plus être qualifié de pédagogique, mais son but principal est de nous inviter à un effort de reflexion. Notre recherche, dans le cadre proposé, ne peut être que limitée.

Romans 3. 1–8 is one of the most puzzling passages in the epistle. It is commonly assumed that Paul is here using the ‘diatribe’ style of contemporary philosophers. In the diatribe, arguments are put into the mouth of imaginary objectors, and the writer replies to them in the form of a dialogue. But we must confess that, if Paul is really using the diatribe style in this passage, he is using it in a very strange way. Normally, in the diatribe, the objector's point is stated briefly, and replied to in detail. But in Romans 3. 1–8, as commonly interpreted, the objections are stated in detail, and Paul's replies are brief and inadequate. Various explanations are given for this by the commentators. According to Dodd, ‘the whole argument of 3. 1–8 is obscure and feeble’ because Paul is ‘defending a poor case’. Other scholars are more charitable, saying that the questions raised by the imaginary objector are in fact adequately answered later in the epistle. But they fail to explain why Paul should state at this stage in the epistle detailed objections, to which he is either not willing or not able to give an immediate answer.

Of the three kinds of evidence which are used in ascertaining the text of the New Testament – namely, evidence supplied by Greek manuscripts, by early versions, and by scriptural quotations preserved in the writings of the Church Fathers - it is the last which involves the greatest diffculties and the most problems. There are difficulties, first of all, in obtaining the evidence, not only because of the labour of combing through the very extensive literary remains of the Fathers in search of quotations from the New Testament, but also because satisfactory editions of the works of many of the Fathers have not yet been produced. More than once in earlier centuries an otherwise well-meaning editor accommodated the biblical quotations contained in a given patristic document to the current text of the New Testament against the authority of the manuscripts of the document.1 Part of the problem, more-over, is that exactly the same thing took place prior to the invention of printing. As Hort pointed out, ‘Whenever a transcriber of a patristic treatise was copying a quotation differing from the text to which he was accustomed, he had virtually two originals before him, one present to his eyes, the other to his mind; and if the difference struck him, he was not unlikely to treat the written examplar as having blundered.’2.