In its original application to literary language παραβολή evidently denoted analogy: ideas ‘laid side by side’ for comparison or contrast. In the Budding Fig Tree (Mk 13. 28–9; cf. Mt 24. 32–3, Lk 21. 19–31) the form of statement makes this rhetorical juxtaposition most obvious:

Eine wesentliche Hilfe zur Erfassung der Komposition des Evangeliums ist der wiederholte Gebrauch bestimmter Formeln, so z.B. 7. 28; 11. 1; 13. 53; 19. 1; 26. 1: ‘Und es geschah, als Jesus diese Reden vollendet hatte …’ In 7. 28 f. findet sich die Formel genau an der Nahtstelle zwischen der Bergpredigt (Kap. 5–7) und der folgenden Sammlung von Wundern (Kap. 8–9). Sie leitet vom Wortteil zum Tatteil der Komposition über. Wir nennen sie daher Überleitungs- oder Übergangsformel. Der Vergleich mit Lukas (7. 1) zeigt, daß sie durch Q angeregt sein könnte. Matthäus verbindet sie in 7. 28 f. mit Mark 1. 22, um die Vollmacht Jesu anzuzeigen: ‘Denn er lehrte sie wie einer, der Gewalt hat, und nicht wie ihre Schriftgelehrten.’ -In 11. 1 steht die Übergangsformel am Abschluß der Senderede Kap. 10 und leitet zur Täuferfrage über: ‘Bist du es, der da kommen soll, oder sollen wir auf einen anderen warten?’ (11. 3). Jesus beantwortet diese Frage in 11. 5 f. mit dem Hinweis auf seine Werke: ‘Blinde werden sehend und Lahme gehen, Aussätzige werden rein und Taube hören, Tote werden auferweckt und Armen wird die frohe Botschaft gebracht, und selig ist, wer an mir keinen Anstoß nimmt.’ – Dann taucht die Formel wieder am Abschluß der Gleichnisrede in 13. 53 auf. Wenige Verse später betont Matthäus, daß Jesus in seiner Vaterstadt ‘um ihres Unglaubens willen’ nicht viele Machttaten vollbrachte (13. 58). Von solchen Taten ist dann aber im folgenden wieder die Rede (14.1 ff.). Die Formel findet sich weiter am Abschluß der Gemeinderede, wieder unter Hinweis auf Taten Jesu: ‘Und eine große Volksmenge folgte ihm nach, und er heilte sie dort’ (19. 1 f.). Von weiteren Wundertaten ist hier dann freilich nicht die Rede. –Em letztes Mai setzt Matthäus die Übergangsformel an den Abschluß der endzeitlichen Reden (Kap. 24–25) und markiert so den Übergang zur Passionsgeschichte (26. 1), die hier die Tatseite des Christuswerkes Jesu repräsentiert.

Until recently the empty tomb has been widely regarded as both an offence to modern intelligence and an embarrassment for Christian faith; an offence because it implies a nature miracle akin to the resuscitation of a corpse and an embarrassment because it is nevertheless almost inextricably bound up with Jesus's resurrection, which lies at the very heart of the Christian faith. But in the last several years, a remarkable change seems to have taken place, and the scepticism that so characterized earlier treatments of this problem appears to be fast receding. Though some theologians still insist with Bultmann that the resurrection is not a historical event, this incident is certainly presented in the gospels as a historical event, one of the manifestations of which was that the tomb of Jesus was reputedly found empty on the first day of the week by several of his women followers; this fact, at least, is therefore in principle historically verifiable. But how credible is the evidence for the historicity of Jesus's empty tomb?

Of all the special-L Son of Man logia, that in the Stephen-unit (Acts 6. 8–8. 2) is the most important for an understanding of Luke's work. The whole account is properly a unity, and the legion's meaning emerges from the meaning of the whole. For reasons which are merely noted at this stage, some interesting features of the unit are ignored in this discussion. For example, in the following paragraphs there is no examination of Luke's sources for his speech. Whatever they once were, the sources have been worked over so thoroughly that they are now linguistically and conceptually indistinguishable from the rest of Lk-Acts. Similarly, whatever form of Christian theology underlay those sources is not now available for the reconstruction of a stage in Christian history. Some writers have detected links between Stephen and the Samaritans, the Qumran writings, the Letter to the Hebrews or the community for which John the Evangelist wrote. None of these is discussed here, because Luke made this unit his own, functioning in the way he intended, achieving his purposes for his age.

It is fairly common today to explain the development of New Testament thought along the lines of an early fixation on the future and progressive shifts brought about by the parousia's delay. On such a view, it was apocalyptic eschatology that dominated Paul's outlook in his early days, while soteriology, christology, ecclesiology and ethics came to assume importance only later. Few scholars, of course, lay out Paul's thought quite so explicitly as that. Yet it is something like that which has become fairly fixed in the minds of many.

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.