The basic assumptions of many New Testament scholars about the nature of the synagoge in the first century prior to the First Jewish Revolt continue to match those enunciated by Lee Levine in his introduction to Ancient Synagogues Revealed. The features which he includes in his description are (1) regular prayers; (2) study; (3) sacred meals; (4) repository for communal funds; (5) law courts; (6) general assembly hall; (7) hostel; (8) residence for synagogue officials. Although he refers to Josephus, Acts and Ezra as sources for this historical reconstruction, the primary basis for his assumptions is the familiar Theodotus inscription, found by the French archaeologist Raimond Weill in the course of excavations in the socalled City of David section of the southeastern hill of Jerusalem from November 1913 to March 1914

In two recent articles in New Testament Studies D. R. Catchpole and J. Lambrecht argue that Mark was familiar with Q while writing the introduction of his gospel. Consequently, they both use Mark as an additional tool in their reconstructions of the beginning of Q. In this study I shall focus on their evidence for this hypothesis in Mark 1.1–6. In the discussion of the relationship between Mark and Q this section is certainly not the most important one, but as a case study it illustrates dimensions of the larger problem.

What really happened at Jesus' baptism? We can be quite sure that Jesus was baptized by John, if only because his baptism caused such problems for the later church, the foremost among them being the clash between the developing idea of Jesus' sinlessness and the historical memory of his participation in John's ‘baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mark 1.4). The subordination to John implicit in the baptism, moreover, conflicts with a general tendency in the Gospels to subordinate John to Jesus. The fact of the baptism itself, therefore, is a bedrock historical datum.

Markan intercalation has been recognized in the scholarly literature for more than sixty years. It is a literary technique in which one Markan story is begun but is then interrupted by another. After the conclusion of this ‘inner’ story the first story is rejoined and completed. The majority of investigators of this storytelling pattern agree that it occurs at least six times in Mark as follows:

Daß die Königsherrschaft Gottes auch im lukanischen Doppelwerk als wichtiger theologischer ‘Leitbegriff’ fungiert, signalisiert allein schon die erst- und letztmalige Verwendung dieses Begriffs: Mit dem Logion von Lk 4.43, das eine Gesamtdeutung der Sendung Jesu liefert, und dem letzten Satz seines Werkes in Apg 28.31 legt Lukas einen Rahmen um seine Darstellung, der durch das Stichwort der βασιλεία το θεο dem Ganzen unübersehbare Kohärenz verleiht. Dazu paßt, daß Lukas auch in dem Bericht über die 40 Tage zwischen Ostern und Himmelfahrt, der die beiden Teile seines Doppelwerkes miteinander verknüpft, das Basileia-Thema aufgreift (Apg 1.3, 6). Die Gottesherrschaft ist hier zum Bestandteil eines geschichtstheologischen Gesamtentwurfs geworden, der aufgrund seiner Abständigkeit zum historischen Jesus naturgemäß auch dessen Basileia-Verkündigung nur gebrochen rezipieren konnte.—In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat sich nun vor allem das ‘eschatologische Büro' mit diesem Thema befaßt. Gegenstand der Diskussion ist vor allem, in welcher Weise die Erfahrung der sich dehnenden Zeit (d.h. der Parusieverzögerung und des zunehmenden Abstands von den Anfängen der Christentumsgeschichte) als für die lukanische Basileia-Konzeption maßgeblich zu veranschlagen ist. Die einzelnen Diskussionsbeiträge orientieren sich dabei weitgehend an einem durch Zeitkategorien definierten Koordinatensystem, mit dessen Hilfe das Wie der Präsenz der Basileia in der Gegenwart (der gewesenen des irdischen Jesus sowie der augenblicklichen des Lukas) und das Wann ihres Kommens in der Zukunft (der nahen oder der fernen) verortet wird.

The focus of this investigation is on two female characters in John's Gospel, Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala. Key are the development and unfolding of these characters within the passion narrative and their relation to other female and male characters. According to Culpepper,‘… one of the most interesting elements of any story is the cast of characters’, and: ‘Much of the power of the Fourth Gospel comes from its vivid characterizations and their effects upon the reader.’ Nevertheless, not much attention has been paid so far to characterization in John (and to characterization in general), and female characters have been even more neglected and treated like stepdaughters. This holds true also for female characters in the Gospel of Mark, which has been the focus of interest in narrative-critical studies.

The prevailing view among modern critics and translators of the NT is that the adjective μονογενής in John 1.14, 18; 3.16, 18 and 1 John 4.9 means ‘only’ or ‘single’. Against this consensus several authors have recently re-argued the case for interpreting the adjective as ‘only-begotten’, claiming that it does after all include the notion of derivation or birth. By a thorough examination of the use of μονογενής in Greek literature I hope, however, to show that the adjective's usual meaning is in fact ‘unique’ or ‘only’, ‘single’. It will furthermore be argued that this sense best suits the context of the term's occurrences in John as well. Finally, I shall try to show how the interpretation of the Johannine μονογενής as ‘only-begotten’ originates in, and is the result of, developments in Christology which do not antedate the second century AD.

The nature of the ‘Colossian heresy’ remains obscure. It has gnostic features, but ChristianGnosticism is usually dated to the second century. It has elements of Judaism, but we know nothingof first-century Jewish gnosis. It may be a syncretistic ‘philosophy’, but such a description is barren, and explains nothing. It may be a kind of mysticism, but again the idea is difficult todefine, and the picture is left vague. I am proposing in this article to draw a comparison with anearly Gnostic document, the Apocryphon Johannis, which has clear Jewish roots; and to explain Colossians as Paul's response to a Jewish-Christian countermission which preached a myth close to, but distinct from, that in Apoc. Joh.

Das zum lukanischen Sondergut zählende Gleichnis vom ungerechten Verwalter gehört zu den schwierigsten Passagen des Neuen Testaments. Seit der frühen Kirche haben sich Interpreten vergeblich um eine sinnvolle Deutung dieses Gleichnisses bem¨ht. Als Crux erwies sich vor allem Vers 8a: Warum lobt der Herr die Klugheit seines Verwalters, obwohl dieser betrügerisch und ungerecht handelte?