Throughout the history of Johannine studies the fact has been noted repeatedly that John employs numerous ambiguous expressions or terms of double meaning. Nonetheless, this topic has attracted surprisingly little attention, while the function these expressions serve within the gospel has gone virtually unexplored. It will, therefore, be the goal of this study to present a brief list of important contributions to this area, then to explore a substantial number and variety of ‘expressions of double meaning’ in view of understanding their nature, structure, and function, and finally to dwell in summary fashion upon more general considerations: the nature and origin of these expressions, sources, and theology.

This study became necessary in the course of my work on Codex Bezae. I wished to ascertain the degree of consistency with which the version used one Latin word to translate one Greek one, in order to find differences between the Mss, to assess their usefulness in supporting Greek readings, and to place the relation between the two columns of Codex Bezae in a new light. The advantages in choosing οὖν were, first its frequency, second its insignificance, with the implication that a reviser would pay little or no attention to it. The disadvantage is that it is not used uniformly, being shunned by Mark but embraced by John.

There is a danger when dealing with a crux interpretum of assuming that because old solutions do not appear satisfactory, then a new view is more likely to be true than the standard interpretations. One must be wary, however, of replacing an unsatisfactory old view with an equally unsatisfactory new one. If, however, one can find a view that satisfies the usual objections to the traditional view without resorting to exegetical gymnastics, then it is certainly worth close scrutiny. There appears to be just such an interpretation of Mt 5. 32 and 19. 9 arising among scholars of varying points of view, though it is too early to speak of a new consensus. Thus, it seems worthwhile to examine once again these problematic texts in light of recent scholarship.

At several junctures in the history of its interpretation Paul's letter to the Galatians has been seen as the embarrassing member of the Pauline letter-family, the one refusing to be brought into line with the others, and even, in some regards, the one threatening the unity and good-natured comradery of the family. Luther, to be sure, called on the familial image in an entirely positive sense, when he confessed himself to be happily betrothed to the letter. Others have considered that betrothal the prelude to an unfortunate marriage, in which Luther was led astray, or led further astray, by this intractable and regrettable letter.

It has long been almost taken for granted that Luke-Acts is a historical work. Recently, however, C. H. Talbert has argued that Luke-Acts is biography rather than history, thereby re-opening the question of the genre of Luke-Acts. In what follows I will discuss one feature of Luke-Acts which does not support the contention that it is biography. I will argue that the preface of Luke-Acts resembles the prefaces of histories more than those of biographies or any other ancient prose writings. And I will further attempt to specify what historical prefaces it most resembles, and thus what sort of historian, on the evidence of the preface, the author of Luke-Acts was Comparison of prefaces cannot by itself settle the question of the genre of Luke-Acts, but it may make an important contribution. It is often true (and certainly true in the case of Luke-Acts) that the author speaks most directly in his preface. Because of this the preface may provide the best indication of the writer's own understanding of what he is doing, which is an important consideration in addressing the question of genre.

From F. Chr. Baur and onwards, New Testament scholarship has laid strong emphasis on the difference between the Paul of the letters and the Paul of Acts. A few examples will suffice to illustrate this approach. The real Paul, the Paul of the letters, claims to be an apostle. In Acts he is depicted as subordinate to the Twelve, for whom the title apostle is reserved. In Galatians and Romans Paul takes up a strongly polemical attitude to the Jewish torah and to circumcision. The Paul of Acts circumcizes Timothy (16. 3). And he declares his solidarity with the law, the prophets and the people of Israel (23. 6; 24. 14 f.; 26. 6, 23; 28. 21). In his epistles Paul strongly emphasizes the significance of the death of Christ. He proclaims its atoning effect for all mankind (Rom 3. 24 ff.; 5. 6 ff. 1 Cor 1. 18 ff.; 15. 3; 2 Cor 5. 18 ff.; Gal 3. 13). The author of Acts seems to regard the suffering and death of Jesus, the servant of God, almost as a test, which he had to undergo before ‘entering upon his glory’. To be sure, the death of Christ is also by Luke described as the act through which he won the church for himself (20. 28). And the missionary message in Acts contains the statement that he died according to the Scriptures (3. 18; 13. 27–29). It is, nevertheless, obvious that the death of Christ does not receive the same comprehensive interpretation in Acts as in the Pauline epistles.

An vier Stellen der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (Apg 23. 6; 24. 15 f.; 26. 6 f.; 28. 20) beteuert der angeklagte Apostel Paulus, daß er nur ‘wegen der Hoffnung Israels’ vor Gericht stehe. Wie ist diese Beteuerung zu verstehen? Was besagt sie im Kontext der erzählten Handlung? Und was bedeutet sie für den Erzähler Lukas und für die Leser seines Werkes? – Eine Klärung dieser Fragen ist exegetisch geboten; denn die auffällige Wieder-holung ist ja als schriftstellerischer Hinweis auf die Wichtigkeit der Sache zu werten.

In John 2. 4 there is a peculiar Greek idiom which has not only given almost every translator difficulty, but which is, in the opinion of the writer, both a key to the way in which the author of the Fourth Gospel used his sources, and to his interpretation of Jesus. The verse reads ‘And Jesus said to her: τί έμοί καί σοί; woman, my hour has not yet come.’

The variant accounts of Peter's call as recorded by the four Evangelists constitute a major problem in the New Testament. Can we dismiss as incredible the accounts of his call on the basis of the Gospels' inconsistencies? Fuller has pointed out that the best way to discredit a witness in court is for the cross-examiner to tie him up in knots and make his evidence to appear to be such a tissue of inconsistencies that the jury becomes convinced that he is entirely untrustworthy. But in spite of their differences, the four Gospels are united in reporting that Peter became a follower of Jesus in the very early days of his ministry. They differ, however, as to the time, place and circumstances of his call.

In the history of interpretation of Rev the expression έν πνεύματι, as used in 1. 10; 4. 2; 17. 3; and 21. 10, has been accepted so categorically as a signal of a unique state of personal visionary consciousness that other alternative meanings have been left relatively unexplored. The purpose of this paper is to inquire whether this expression is meant to describe an actual condition of ecstasy experienced by the author either previous to or during his writing activity, or whether έν πνεύματι should be seen as a different kind of component within the complex of symbolism shared by the author and his original readers.

It is a well-known fact that 1 Cor 2. 9, containing the famous and mysterious words about ‘things which eye never saw, and ear never heard, and never entered into the mind of man, (all the) things that God prepared for those who love him’, offers a set of various problems. Consequently, the verse has been carefully studied in many of its aspects.