Der Versuch, eine sachgemäße Gliederung für eine Schrift der Antike zu finden, hat nicht nur pragmatische Bedeutung, etwa um dem heutigen Leser eine Übersicht über den darin enthaltenen Stoff zu verschaffen. Eine möglichst präzise Gliederung kann zugleich auch eine wichtige Vorklärung über die inhaltliche Zielsetzung der betreffenden Schrift darstellen. Hinsichtlich der Gliederung des Markusevangeliums (MkEv) konkurrieren in der Literatur eine Reihe unterschiedlicher Entwürfe miteinander, die sich jedoch auf zwei klar unterscheidbare Gliederungsprinzipien zurück-führen lassen, auf eine rein geographische Einteilung und eine (mehr oder minder) rein inhaltliche bzw. thematische.

The significant differences on geographical matters between the Synoptics with their sources and John with its sources – especially the question of Jesus' ‘place’ – should not be resolved simply in favour of Mark. Cana as a place in John is almost as significant as Capernaum in Mark; this is the case in the first century, the gospel narratives and the pilgrim tradition. Both Cana and Capernaum show the continuing vitality of Jewish and Christian communities into the Byzantine period, so that the archaeological investigation of Khirbet Qana will be increasingly significant for historical questions.

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.

This article considers Mark's account of the cursing of the fig tree, read in conjunction with Jesus’ temple action. Having reviewed recent proposals on the literary shape of Mark 11.1–12.12, the article proposes a fresh reading of the section's structure. Triple introductions at 11.11, 11.15 and 11.27 are shown to match triple conclusions at 11.11, 11.19 and 12.12, these constituents framing interwoven units running from 11.11 to 12.12. The pattern of triple intercalation suggests that the cursing of the fig tree and Jesus’ temple action should be interpreted one in light of the other. The article then considers the intertextual relationship between Mark's narrative and the scriptural texts it evokes. The study uncovers previously neglected echoes vital for understanding the significance of Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree and temple action. The ‘casting out’ motif in Jeremiah 7–8, as dramatically portrayed in Jesus’ temple action, is set forth as heralding a ‘renewed exile’ for those who reject Jesus’ message, while the mirror motif of ‘ingathering’ in Isa 56.1–8, accentuated by the ‘withered tree’ imagery of 56.3, heralds new opportunity, with those who were previously outsiders to the temple made insiders in the eschatological house of prayer.

It has long been noted by interpreters that Luke's birth narrative offers a comparative portrayal of Jesus and John, with the effect that Jesus is seen as the greater of the two (a feature of the text commonly called ‘step-parallelism’). Several explanations for this narrative device have been offered by commentators, including the proposal that the step-parallelism serves as an apologetic response to a messianic sect proclaiming John the Baptist as the Christ. This paper argues that while apologetic concerns may play a role, the primary motivation for the contrast Luke composes between the two characters is christological. In short, the point of the step-parallelism is to show that in preparing the way for God, John is really preparing the way for Jesus, because Jesus represents Yahweh in his mission and person.

The history of reception is suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding. Since the publication of Truth and Method, everyone has had the impression that reception history is just another exegetical technique. However, the heart of Gadamer's argument is not the history of the effects of the text, but the historicity of understanding: a text is seized only within the limits of the historical situation of its interpreter. To demonstrate this point, this paper takes the example of the Markan ending. Surprisingly, a 16th-century Thomistic theologian, Cajetan, and a contemporary commentary are so close that one might think they are defending the same view of the text. Both intend to maintain the canonicity of verses 9–20, but both point out that it may be adventurous to build any doctrine or practice on these verses alone. But the context is different, obviously. The first one tries to justify a conception of faith that does not depend directly on miracles; the second one affirms a hermeneutic centred on the interpreter's response, being wary of its ecclesiological drifts. This confirms that theological considerations rather than philological ones have prevailed in challenging Mark's ending.

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.

On salt que la liturgie latine de la fête de l'ascension, faisant unlégitime usage de la typologie, utilise le ps. lxviii (lxvii). 19a et y insère le nom Christus pour faire exprimer clairement au texte l'événement de l'ascension du Seigneur Jésus; elle fait chanter à làEglise: ‘Ascendens Christus in altum, alleluia, captivam duxit captivitatem, alleluia!’ Le même verset du psaume est cite en Eph. iv. 8, mais avec des transformations intentionnelles qui pourralent bien signifier une application du psaume différente de celle de la liturgie.

The importance of the OT theophanies in relation to NT conceptions of the End has never been sufficiently realized. Again and again the prophets and psalmists spoke not merely of the Day of the Lord but they spelled this out in terms of a divine coming. Thus in Mic 1. 3 we read that ‘the Lord cometh forth out of his place, and will come down …’ Psa 96. 13 declares, ‘He cometh to judge the earth.’

In recent studies of the parables, including some of those dealing with the judge and the widow, there has been an overemphasis on philosophical-theological and existential meaning. At the same time, there has been a lack of concern for the writers' vocabulary, methods when dealing with sources, and style and literary methods as these things relate to the study of parables. Such things, rather than the meaning of the parable, are my primary concern in dealing with the parable of the judge and the widow.

According to the most generally accepted text, the angels of Lk 2. 11 announced the birth of Jesus to the Judean shepherds and designated him σωτηρ ος εοτω χριστος κυριος, commonly translated ‘a saviour, who is Christ the Lord’. Familiarity with these words as part of the Christmas story obscures the fact that the title χριστος κυριος is unique in the NT to Lk 2. 11. This title is not without precedent, however, and appears as a messianic title in the readings of the MSS of PsSol 17. 32. This paper will examine the use of χριστος κυριος in PsSol 17. 32, and will propose that it is one of several new messianic titles combining ‘messiah’ with a political honorific used as an appositional modifier.

In seiner Studie ‘Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17’ hat Ernst Käsemann ein Bild des Johannesevangeliums als das eines Dokuments einer Christo-logie des auf Erden schreitenden göttlichen Logos entworfen. Worte, die auf die Inkarnation hinweisen, wie 1. 14, deutet ernicht als Ausdruck der Selbsterniedrigung des Erlösers, sondern als ein Zeugnis seiner triumphie-renden Herrlichkeit, die die Barriere der Weltlichkeit überwindet und auch den sündigen Menschen erreicht.