The story of the raising of Lazarus (John 11.1–44) is one of the most dramatic and impressive of the compositions in the Fourth Gospel. For this very reason it raises a host of problems for the biblical critic. There can be no dispute that it has a theological purpose which dominates the whole narrative. This is clearly set out in the first words attributed to Jesus: ‘This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it’ (v. 4). The same point is referred to again just before the climax of the narrative in v. 40. But the more prominent the theological aim, the more difficult it becomes to view the narrative simply in terms of history. It must surely be the case that John has based his composition on a source, which was probably much simpler and briefer than the splendid story which it has become in his hands. But the source must be reconstructed before we can begin to think of it in historical terms. The modern tendency is to give up such attempts as hopeless, and to concentrate on the meaning of the text as it stands. But even that presents pitfalls to the critic. All seems well until we come to v. 33: ‘Jesus…was deeply moved in spirit (ένεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι) and troubled.’ Unfortunately the Greek words do not mean ‘deeply moved in spirit’ (RSV). In his recent commentary on John in the Word Biblical Commentary, G. R. Beasley-Murray marshalls a great array of evidence to show that the meaning must be ‘became angry in spirit’. But why should Jesus be represented by John as angry? The effort to answer this question affects the interpretation of the whole story.

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.

Commentators regularly note the alleged tension in John 15 between ‘friendship’ and ‘obedience’. This article employs numismatic inscriptional evidence to explore the ΦΙΛ- lexeme and more carefully denote the semantic domains of relevant terminology. This analysis confirms that no such tension exists within the socio-political context in which the Gospel was written. The inclusion of specific political terminology on Roman coins (for example, ΦΙΛΙΑ; ΦΙΛΟΚΑΙΣΑΡ; ΦΙΛΟΚΛΑΥΔΙΟΣ; ΦΙΛΟΡΩΜΑΙΟΣ; ΦΙΛΟΣΕΒΑΣΤΩΝ) was one way in which elite concepts of political friendship, evidenced in Cicero and Seneca, were communicated to the masses. In light of the numismatic evidence, the ΦΙΛ- lexeme can refer not only to the emotional bond of friendship, but also the dimension of obligation.

Since Joachim Jeremias' Jesu Verheissung für die Völker (1956) it has often been assumed that in Matt 8.11–12 Jesus looked forward to the inclusion of gentiles into the kingdom at the eschaton. However, several recent studies, most notably by Dale C. Allison, have called this view into question and have instead advocated that the logion refers to the regathering of the Diaspora. The purpose of this study is to evaluate Allison's arguments and to propose that a gentile reference is implicit in the logion based on: (1) the broader context of the inter-textual echoes of passages concerning the regathering of Jewish exiles; and (2) a wider ethnic membership for those who participate in the patriarchal banquet based on the reference to ‘Abraham’. Furthermore, the logion is interpreted in the historical Jesus' ministry through the lens of a partially realized eschatology. As such the saying represents Jesus' contention that Israel's restoration was already becoming a reality and that gentiles were already entering the kingdom as an embryonic foretaste of their inclusion at the eschaton.

In his study ‘Du kataluma à la crèche’, NTS 44 (1998) 618–22, J. Winandy argues that Luke 2.7, διoτι oυκ ην αυτoις τoπoς εν τω καταλυματι, does not imply that an innkeeper sent away (for want of room, τoπoς) one about to give birth, but rather that his convivial καταλυμα was inappropriate for the event. The argument attracts. But Winandy's seven examples of τo[pi]oς do not have this meaning. Each takes τo[pi]oς in the sense of ‘the place where one would expect to find something’. To[pi]oς can indeed mean ‘the appropriate place’ (LXX Job 18.22; Eccles 1.5; 10.4), ‘home’ (LXX 2 Chron 25.10; Job 27.21, 23; Isa 14.2; Jer 4.7), or even a temporary abode (LXX Esdras 1.4). But Luke's allusion eluded Winandy, as it does many of his readers. Isa 66 figures in early Christian apologetic. Matthew's Magi can be found there. Isa 66.19 appears as a parallel to Luke 2.34, and Luke 22.68 recalls Isa 66.4.

Within the current discussion of myth in New Testament theology this article reconsiders the ongoing myth debate between Greco-Roman, Jewish and Christian authors against the background not of atheism but of philosophical theology. Over against its challenges Greco–Roman authors defend the myth as exemplum within a sociologically framed accommodation theory and interpret problematic texts using allegorical exegesis. Jewish and Christian authors follow these patterns. In particular, ancient Christian commentators on the Bible use the ancient category of ‘myth as exemplum’ to understand the activities of God and Jesus Christ not only as the base but also as an exemplum for the pious life.

This article compares two first-century authors, Paul and Plutarch, on the mechanics of inspiration and the role of gender in the prophetic process. Paul's First Corinthians and Plutarch's Delphic Dialogues (De Pythiae oraculis and De defectu oraculorum) were written by men who were observers of and commentators on the religious phenomenon of prophecy – that is, the communication of divine messages through human speakers. They also make statements about women that indicate that gender influenced their perceptions of prophecy. When these authors discuss prophecy at the conceptual level, gender does not affect their arguments, but when they turn to actual women prophets, they introduce ideas about gender and sex that shape their views of the prophetic process and the women who prophesy.

Die Untersuchung des ‘bildspendenden Bereichs’ des Jungfrauengleichnisses hat gezeigt, dass einzelne Motive des Gleichnisses als Elemente zeitgenössischer Hochzeitsbräuche erklärt werden können: So muss die nächtliche Ankunft des Bräutigams nicht allegorisch auf die Parusieverzögerung gedeutet werden, sondern entspricht dem griechischen Ritus, nach dem der Bräutigam erst spät am Abend die Braut in sein Elternhaus geleitet, nachdem zuvor im Haus der Braut das Hochzeitsmahl gefeiert wurde. Die Jungfrauen könnten Mägde aus dem Haus des Bräutigams sein, die auf die nächtliche Rückkehr ihres Herrn warten und die Brautleute nach ihrer Ankunft mit Gefäßfackeln ins Brautgemach begleiten, bevor die Tür zu demselben verschlossen wird.

Die These des Beitrags ist, dass die Wendung ‘ὡς δι᾽ ἡμῶν’ in 2 Thess 2.2 nicht als direkter Hinweis auf den 1 Thess zu verstehen sei, sondern dass sich hier vielmehr der pseudonyme Verfasser mit einer nicht mehr erhaltenen brieflichen Fehlinterpretation des 1 Thess auseinandersetzt und sich so indirekt um eine ‘richtige’ Deutung des 1 Thess bemüht. Im Unterschied zu 2 Thess 2.2 ist 2 Thess 2.15 als direkter Hinweis auf die—nach Meinung des Verfassers—‘richtige’ Paulus-Lehre, d.h. den 1 Thess oder den vorliegenden 2 Thess, zu verstehen. Mit dieser These schlägt der Artikel zugleich eine differenzierte Typologie der paulinischen und pseudo-paulinischen Diskurse vor.

In 1 Clement 32–33, Romans 5–6 is alluded to in a summary statement concerning justification by faith (32.4), followed by two rhetorical questions that stress the ethical implications of this confession (33.1). These allusions to Romans are punctuated by an appeal for readers to imitate the pattern of good works established by God during creation (33.2-8). This article contends that the difference between Romans 5–6 and one of the earliest Christian readings of these chapters is not accidental, for the ethical appeal in 1 Clement 33 reflects the author's distinct cosmological perspective and rhetorical aims.

In letzter zeit mehrten sich die Stimmen, die in Bezug auf das 1905 von Bernard P. Grenfell und Arthur S. Hunt im heutigen mittelägyptischen Behnesa, besser bekannt als Oxyrhynchos, gefundene und 1908 veröffentlichte ‘Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel’(P.Oxy. V 840) explizit herausstellen, dass es sich bei der vorliegenden, beidseitig beschrifteten Realie nicht um ein Papyrus-, sondern ein Pergamentblatt handelt. Es heißt dann, P.Oxy. V 840 sei ‘ein beidseitig in winziger Schrift beschriebenes Pergamentblatt (also kein “Papyrus”)’, anderen Orts ‘Obwohl als Papyrus gezählt, handelt es sich bei POxy 840 um ein Pergamentblatt’ oder auch ‘This fragment is a leaf of parchment; therefore even if it has been published among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri it is not actually a papyrus’.

Wisse's Group 1519 is selected as a test case. An initial analysis of Text und Textwert (TuT) finds support for the existence of the group. The data provided in TuT is then used to provide Claremont Profile Method profiles of manuscripts in the group. This approach is used to look for additional group members among manuscripts not profiled by Wisse and McReynolds. The TuT analyses of Mark and Matthew indicate that Group 1519 exists there too. The relationship between the two core members of the group (871 and 1566) is studied. Specific and theoretical conclusions are drawn.

Dale Allison is right to assert that ‘the twelve tribes in the Diaspora’ invokes Jewish ideas about the Ten Lost Tribes, but wrong to disassociate this thesis from the scholarly consensus that the pseudepigraphal author sees the church as Israel. For James, rather, the restored Israel consists of members of the Two Tribes of Judah and Benjamin (= Jewish Christians) plus members of the Ten Tribes. The latter, rather than being far away in some mythical, inaccessible realm, have been living since the Assyrian invasion in known Diaspora realms, where they lost their Israelite identity until it was reawakened by their recent encounter with the Gospel. Gentiles who respond positively to the Christian message, then, are for James the Ten Lost Tribes.

The Gospel of Peter (GP), often claimed to be theologically unsophisticated, offers a theological reflection upon the saving work of the Lord in his resurrection. GP receives the synoptic tradition, which itself has no narration of the resurrection (but only narrations of ‘appearances’), and fills in this lacuna. The narration of the resurrection is patterned upon GP's narration of the crucifixion, thereby suggesting that the resurrection and the crucifixion are two coordinated salvific events. GP's reception of the synoptic tradition is thus not only apologetic or polemical, but also theological.

Although an increasing number of works are focusing on depictions of God in the New Testament, none so far specifically focus on how these depictions rely on anthropomorphic language in their presentation of God. This article attends to this oversight by turning to the Synoptic Gospels (and the book of Acts) as a test case. Not only do these narratives lack an explicit anti-anthropomorphic agenda, but they also rely on divine anthropomorphisms that are derived from Jewish Scripture. To demonstrate this claim, the article concentrates on how Matthew and Luke expand Mark's anthropomorphic presentation of God and how Luke's presentation emerges as the most anthropomorphic of all. It also discusses how Mark, Matthew, and Luke's respective narratives depict God's human, or human-like, characteristics according to the following four categories: (1) God's human roles and titles, (2) God's depiction as an acting subject who speaks and desires to be in relationship with humans, (3) God's concrete presence located in space, and finally, (4) God's description as a character with recognisable body parts and other markers of corporeality. In the end, we shall see that anthropomorphism is a central component of God's characterisation in the Synoptics and that this anthropomorphic characterisation better enables readers to see the Jewish, scriptural shape of God as a personal deity who desires to be in relationship with humans.

It is a common notion among modern biblical scholars that Origen doubted Paul's authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This article offers an examination of Origen's writings on this question, and shows that the evidence is wildly misrepresented in contemporary discussions. It does this by beginning with Origen's Letter to Africanus, continuing with an overview of his Hebrews citations across his writing career, and concluding with an analysis of his oft-cited comments in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. This examination shows that while Origen suspects Hebrews’ composition to involve more than Paul alone, his surprisingly consistent testimony is that the epistle is indeed Paul's.