This paper discusses Galilee–Jerusalem relations in the context of the ‘geography of restoration’ as this is represented in various Jewish writings of the Second Temple period. The literary and archaeological records for the Jewish presence in Galilee in the Hasmonean and Herodian periods are examined against this ideology of a greater Israel. Finally, the alleged opposition in early Christianity between Galilee and Jerusalem is judged to be poorly grounded when various NT documents are read within this larger horizon of meaning.

This study investigates spelling variants of the name of the city where Jesus raises the only son of a widow, in Lk 7.11: Nain or Naim. The study develops along three lines: textual critic, Hebraic etymology, ancient geography. The investigation eventually raises the question of the theological significance of the miracle of Nain.

There are many ways in which the Fourth Gospel can be compared with the Synoptics. One may, for example, set John over against the others as a group. One notes the resemblances, but more especially the contrasts, between John and the others in respect to chronology, geography, miracle, Jesus' discourses, Christology, and so on. Most of these differences are obvious even to the casual reader, and they will be found tabulated in almost any good introduction to the Fourth Gospel.

The three Pastoral letters present themselves as Paul's personal correspondence, but their contents would fit better the genre of a community letter. The pseudonymous author has forged them as personal letters from ‘Paul’, because he had to reckon with his readers' critique concerning their authenticity, above all with critical scrutiny directed at possible contradictions in their circumstances of origin. Through the genre of a private letter he has attempted to concoct previously unknown letter-situations, and to make understandable the late discovery of the letters. At the same time, through the construction of three letters he has made a claim for general validity in respect of geography and time, so as to spread the ‘right meaning’ of the statements in the Corpus Paulinum.

With the example of Aceldama, this paper shows that reception history must not be confined to ideas or stories, but may take an interest in places. It should not simply explore art or literature, but also envisage geography. The site purchased by Judas with the blood of Jesus in Acts 1.19–20 has suffered, once identified (or at least defined), from this terrible acquisition. At the same time, a legend has grown around the land, which is supposed to devour corpses while a sinister reputation was established making ‘Aceldama’ the paradigm of a scary place. This Wirkungsgeschichte should lead us to revise an initial preconception according to which historical work should stop at the writing of the text, and a second mistaken notion according to which the work of the exegete ends with ‘defining’ the ‘meaning’ of the text. There are potentialities in texts that only the study of their effects can perceive.

This article argues that the expression ‘to the end of the earth’ in Acts 1.8, while not referring to one specific geographical location, as has often been argued in contemporary scholarship on Acts, is best understood as a way of (re)ordering the world geographically and, therefore, ideologically. Drawing on Greco-Roman geographical and literary conventions, the article suggests that the author of Acts invites the work's readers to look at the world in a new way, with Jerusalem and the gospel emanating from it as its centre – and the rest, including Rome, as its ideological (and therefore geographical) periphery. In this way, Acts proceeds to renegotiate the ‘world-view’ of its readers in an intercultural and subversive way.