In most MSS of John's Gospel, only the Hellenistic name of ‘Ιεροσολυμα is used. However, there are two variant readings of ’Ιερουσαλημ in Codex Bezae as well as an additional reference to Jerusalem with the Hellenistic spelling. The article examines the theological significance of the pattern of usage in Codex Bezae which, it is argued, represents an earlier stage of the Gospel than that transmitted by the Alexandrian text.

Les données lucaniennes viennent remettre en question les lectures du personnage de Judas qui cherchent à le déculpabiliser, voire à le déresponsabiliser, pour en faire un ami de Jésus. Le présent article se propose d'utiliser l'analyse narrative pour étudier la personnification de Judas dans la séquence narrative de Lc 22.1–62, en lisant notamment Lc 22.21–2 dans son contexte. Il en résulte la mise en évidence de la dimension symbolique du personnage de Judas: cette dimension ouvre à la perception d'une anthropologie ouverte et risquée dans l'œuvre de Luc.

The Thessalonians' grief about the dead believers and their anxiety about the date of the parousia arose mainly out of their inadequate understanding of the eschatological sayings of Jesus which Paul had delivered to them. Therefore, in 1 Thess 4.13–5.11 Paul seeks to resolve the problems by helping them understand those sayings properly in the light of the fundamental saving event of Christ's death and resurrection.

Although scholars have long been aware of syntactical difficulties in Rom 1.13–15, few have approached the problem by challenging the established punctuation. Readings of the text by some earlier interpreters, e.g. Origen of Alexandria, indicate that there may be good reasons to do so. In this article it is argued that current readings of Rom 1.13–15 are based on inaccurate punctuation and syntax. A different punctuation of the passage is suggested, upon which a more plausible reading is based. This reading may, in turn, have some significance for the interpretation of Romans as a whole.

Rom 5.18–19 summarises Paul's view of condemnation in Adam and salvation in Christ. Since Paul believes that all human beings participate in Adam's sin and in Christ's ‘righteous act’, a universal salvation is affirmed. This view is clearly at variance with other parts of Romans (not to mention his other extant works). The difference in view could be explained by the fact that Paul in Rom 5.18–19 is using the mythical concept of participation and that he is focusing on the effects of Christ's reconciling act rather than on how the reconciling word is brought to human beings.

Heb 13.9–14 envisages a situation where Christians of a Jewish background are still defining themselves too much by their Levitical heritage. They are still interacting with the synagogue, including participating in religious meals. Hebrews urges the readers to go outside the camp/gate, to sever the ties with Jerusalem, that is, to make a clean break from Judaism both in understanding and in practice. Such a parting may bring abuse, but this is only to follow the way of Jesus. The problem then is not so much an attraction back into Judaism, but a failure to leave it sufficiently in the first place.

The presence or absence of references to Paul's collection can be a valuable aid in determining the relative chronology of the various Pauline letters. This is particularly true of Galatians if recent commentaries are correct in seeing no evidence in Gal 2.10 that Paul was then actually engaged in raising the collection, and if that agreement did not lead directly to his collection. Also suggestive, but puzzling, are the varied references to the churches taking part in the collection at different points in time, which seem to reflect the often turbulent relations between Paul and his churches.

How did Paul preach during his initial missionary visits? An analysis of Galatians' explicit and implicit references to Paul's original preaching shows that there he had initially ignored the Law, and probably had little to say about community order and conduct. The analysis also sheds some light on subsequent events. Apparently the Jewish Christian missionaries who followed Paul compromised on their own observance of the Law, joining the Gentile Christians at meals (as Peter had done at Antioch); they did not understand Paul's position on the Law and did not attack him directly.

Scholarly consensus generally assumes that the Gospel of the Ebionites as preserved by Epiphanius is either a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels or excerpted mainly from Matthew. A synopsis of the texts, however, demonstrates that the Epiphanius quotations show stronger affinity with Luke than with Matthew or Mark. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Epiphanius's references to the Gospel of the Ebionites are not excerpted from Luke, but rather from a Greek translation of the elusive Hebrew Gospel attested by a number of church fathers, and thus one of the sources of Luke mentioned in the prologue of his Gospel.

Luke 24.13–35 narrates the story of how the recently crucified and risen Christ meets up with two of his perplexed and despondent disciples as they are walking from Jerusalem to the town of Emmaus, how he explains to them as they walk together that it had been foretold long ago by the prophets that Christ would suffer and die, how he is persuaded by them, when evening has come, to break his journey at their home in Emmaus, how he reveals himself to them at dinner in the breaking of the bread, and, finally, how the two disciples return immediately, even at this late hour, to Jerusalem in order to report these miraculous events to the 11 apostles.

1 Peter was written for the dual purpose of exhortation and consolation. Recent studies have focused on the former of these purposes (exhortation); this article attends to the latter (consolation). It argues that the last section of 1 Peter (4.12ff.), which since Perdelwitz has been identified as a concluding ‘Trostwort’, develops at length the popular consolatory topos ‘nihil inopinati accidisse’ (‘nothing unexpected has happened’). This topos was common in contemporary Greco-Roman philosophical consolation. It also appears in Philo and in the genuine letters of Paul and the Gospel of John.

Der Philipperbrief kann auf dem Hintergrund antiker Freundschaftsethik gelesen werden. Ein Beispiel dafür liefert der Abschnitt Phil 2.25–30. Das vertraute Verhältnis, das Paulus mit der Gemeinde in Philippi teilte, wurde durch die Freundschaft zwischen Paulus und seinem geliebten ‘Bruder’ Epaphroditus gestützt. Auf der Basis antiker Freundschaftsideale von Gleichheit, Reziprozität, Gemeinschaft und Seelenverwandtschaft hat sich ein intensives freundschaftliches Verhältnis entwickelt, das ungebrochene Beziehungen zwischen den Philippern, Paulus und Epaphroditus widerspiegelt. Paulus und sein vertrauter ‘Bruder’ haben ihre Freundschaft in der Not bewährt. Durch die Teilhabe am Geschick von anderen und die Bereitschaft zur selbstlosen Lebenshingabe für andere entsprechen beide der höchsten Verpflichtung von Freunden.

L’épître aux Laodicéens représente un défi aux théories habituelles sur la pseudépigraphie, tant elle paraît manquer d’intérêt. Pour lui rendre justice, il convient de l’analyser comme le moyen épistolaire de convoyer la présence de l’apôtre: en ce sens, elle prolonge la pratique épistolaire paulinienne et la dépasse puisqu’elle vaut plus en tant qu’objet-symbole de la présence apostolique (connotation), qu’en tant que support de message (dénotation).

Recently, Christopher M. Tuckett offered in this journal a careful and incisive study of the question whether the scribe of P52 (PRyl 457) employed the nomina sacra forms. The extant text contains no words that were commonly abbreviated as such, though missing portions of the fragment would have contained three instances (lines 2, 5, 7) of the name ‘Jesus’. Tuckett concluded with C. H. Roberts's original opinion (later changed) that the abbreviations were probably not used in P52.Christopher M. Tuckett, ‘P52 and Nomina Sacra’, NTS 47 (2001) 544–8. I would like to call attention here to several factors which have a bearing on the question and which I believe balance the issue, or perhaps even tip the scales of probability a bit the other way.

New Testament scholars have long debated whether 2 Cor 6.14–7.1 originally stood at its present location in 2 Corinthians and, indeed, whether the passage should even be attributed to Paul. The verses have variously been viewed as (a) composed by Paul specifically for inclusion at their present location, (b) composed by Paul for some other occasionPerhaps as part of the earlier letter mentioned in 1 Cor 5.9–11. but subsequently included at their present location either by Paul or by someone else, (c) composed by someone other than Paul but included at their present location by Paul, or (d) both composed by someone other than Paul and included at their present location by someone other than Paul (not necessarily the same person).For a good summary of scholarship since the Reformation, see William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14–7.1 (JSNTSup 85; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 16–30; see also, e.g., Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 32A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 375–83. It is not my intention in this brief study to address the question of authorship; rather, I propose simply to look at one aspect of the question whether this passage originally stood at its present location in 2 Corinthians – that is, at the relation between 2 Cor 6.14–7.1 and its immediate context (6.11–13 and 7.2–3).