Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-dc8c957cd-7x6v9 Total loading time: 1.294 Render date: 2022-01-27T02:23:28.544Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2009

Markus Bockmuehl
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Donald A. Hagner
Affiliation:
Fuller Theological Seminary, California
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Written Gospel , pp. 301 - 336
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, William J. 1998. Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Achtemeier, P. J. 1990. ‘Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity’. Journal of Biblical Literature 109: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ådna, Jostein. 2000. Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.119. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Aland, Kurt, ed. 1997. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum: Locis Parallelis Evangeliorum Apocryphorum et Patrum Adhibitis. 15th edn. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Aland, Kurt and Aland, Barbara. 1989. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Trans. E. F. Rhodes. 2nd rev. edn. Grand Rapids and Leiden: Eerdmans and Brill.Google Scholar
Albl, Martin C. 1999. And Scripture Cannot be Broken: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 96. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Loveday C. A. 1986. ‘Luke's Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing’. Novum Testamentum 28: 48–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Loveday C. A. 1993. The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Loveday C. A. 1994. ‘Paul and the Hellenistic Schools: The Evidence of Galen’. In Paul in his Hellenistic Context, 60–83. Ed. Engberg-Pedersen, T.. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Alexander, Loveday C. A. 1995. ‘“In Journeyings Often”: Voyaging in Acts of the Apostles and in Greek Romance’. In Luke's Literary Achievement, 17–49. Ed. Tuckett, C. M.. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 116. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Alexander, Loveday C. A. 1996. ‘The Preface to Acts and the Historians’. In History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, 73–103. Ed. Witherington, B., III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Loveday C. A. 2002. ‘“Foolishness to the Greeks”: Jews and Christians in the Public Life of the Empire’. In Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin, 229–49. Ed. Clark, G. and Rajak, T.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Philip S. 2005 (forthcoming). ‘Jewish Christians in Early Rabbinic Literature (2nd–5th Centuries)’. In A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries. Ed. Hvalvik, R. and Skarsaune, O.. Peabody: Hendrickson.Google Scholar
Allegro, J. M. 1956. ‘Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature’. Journal of Biblical Literature 75: 174–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, O. W. 1997. The Death of Herod: The Narrative and Theological Function of Retribution in Luke–Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 158. Atlanta: Scholars.Google Scholar
Allen, W. C. 1912. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew. International Critical Commentary. 3rd edn. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Allert, Craig D. 1999. ‘The State of the New Testament Canon in the Second Century: Putting Tatian's Diatessaron in Perspective’. Bulletin for Biblical Research 9: 1–18.Google Scholar
Allison, Dale C. 1988. ‘Was There a “Lukan Community”?Irish Biblical Studies 10: 62–70.Google Scholar
Allison, Dale C. 1998. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Ascough, Richard S. 2001. ‘Matthew and Community Formation’. In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study: Studies in Memory of William G. Thompson, S. J., 96–126. Ed. Aune, D. E.. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Ashton, J. 1991. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Asiedu-Peprah, M. 2001. Johannine Sabbath-Conflicts as Juridicial Controversy. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.132. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Augustine. 1995. The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Vol. x: Sermons on Various Subjects, 341–400. Trans. E. Hill. Ed. Rotelle, J. E.. Brooklyn: New City Press.Google Scholar
Aune, David E. 1980. ‘Magic in Early Christianity’. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–ii. 23. 2: 1507–57.Google Scholar
Aune, David E. 1987. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity 8. Philadelphia: Westminster.Google Scholar
Aune, David E., ed. 2001. The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study: Studies in Memory of William G. Thompson, S.J. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Avi-Yonah, Michael. 1976. The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Baruch Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bacher, W. 1899, 1905. Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur. 2 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich. Repr. in one vol., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965.Google Scholar
Bacon, Benjamin Wisner. 1930. Studies in Matthew. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bailey, Kenneth E. 1976. Poet and Peasant: A Literary-Cultural approach to the Parables in Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Balch, David L., ed. 1991. Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Ball, D. M. 1996. ‘I am’ in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 124. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Bammel, Ernst. 1966–7. ‘Christian Origins in Jewish Tradition’. New Testament Studies 13: 317–35. Repr. in Kleine Schriften I, 220–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bammel, Ernst. 1968. ‘Origen Contra Celsum i.41 and the Jewish Tradition’. Journal of Theological Studies N.S. 19: 211–13. Repr. in Kleine Schriften I, 194–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bammel, Ernst. 1986a. ‘Der Jude des Celsus’. In Judaica: Kleine Schriften I, 265–83. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 37. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Bammel, Ernst. 1986b. Judaica: Kleine Schriften I. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 37. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Banning, Joop. 1988. Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum. Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina. Turnhout, 1953–87. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Barrett, C. K. 1971. The Prologue of St. John's Gospel. London: Athlone Press. Repr. in New Testament Essays, 27–48. London: SPCK, 1972.Google Scholar
Barrett, C. K. 1972. New Testament Essays. London: SPCK.Google Scholar
Barrett, C. K. 1975. The Gospel of John and Judaism. Trans. D. M. Smith. London: SPCK.Google Scholar
Barrett, C. K. 1994. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. International Critical Commentary. Vol. i. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Barrett, C. K. 1996. ‘The First New Testament?Novum Testamentum 38: 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, Gerhard. 1963. ‘Matthew's Understanding of the Law’. In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 58–164. By Bornkamm, G. et al. Trans. P. Scott. New Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 1968. ‘La Mort de l'Auteur’. Mantéia 5. English translation: ‘The Death of the Author’. In Image–Music–Text, 142–8. Trans. S. Heath. London: Fontana, 1977.Google Scholar
Barton, Stephen C. 1988. ‘Can we Identify the Gospel Audiences?’ In The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, 173–94. Ed. Bauckham, R.. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Bauckham, Richard. 1990. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Bauckham, Richard. 1998a. ‘A Response to Philip Esler’. Scottish Journal of Theology 51: 249–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauckham, Richard, ed. 1998b. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Bauer, W. 1909. Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Bauer, W. et al. 2000. A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edn. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, A. D. 1998. ‘Papias, der Vorzug der Viva Vox und die Evangelienschriften’. New Testament Studies 44: 144–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, A. D. 2003. ‘Oral Poetry und synoptische Frage: Analogien zu Umfang, Variation und Art der synoptischen Wortlautidentität’. Theologische Zeitschrift 59: 17–34.Google Scholar
Bauman, Clarence. 1985. The Sermon on the Mount: The Modern Quest for its Meaning. Leuven and Macon: Peeters and Mercer University Press.Google Scholar
Beasley-Murray, G. R. 1986. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids and Carlisle: Eerdmans and Paternoster.Google Scholar
Beasley-Murray, G. R. 1987. John. Word Biblical Commentary 36. 2nd edn. Dallas: Word.Google Scholar
Beaton, Richard. 2002. Isaiah's Christ in Matthew's Gospel. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavis, Mary Ann. 1989. Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4.11–12 Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 33. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Bekkum, W. J.. 1998. Hebrew Poetry from Late Antiquity: Liturgical Poems of Yehudah: Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 43. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bellinzoni, A. J. 1967. The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 17. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benko, Stephen. 1980. ‘Pagan Criticism of Christianity during the First Two Centuries ad’. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–ii. 23. 2: 1054–118.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Moshe J. 1994a. ‘4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary’. Journal of Jewish Studies 45: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Moshe J. 1994b. ‘Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re-citation of Biblical Verses in the Qumran Pesharim’. Dead Sea Discoveries 1: 30–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, E. 1983. Mark: The Gospel as Story. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Betz, Hans Dieter. 1995. The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3–7:27 and Luke 6:20–49). Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Betz, Hans Dieter, ed. 1986. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Vol. i: Texts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bi(c)kerman, Elias. 1938. Les Institutions des Séleucides. Paris: Geuthner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bieringer, R., Pollefeyt, D., and Vandercasteele-Vanneuville, F., eds. 2001. Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium 2000. Jewish and Christian Heritage 1. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Bilezikian, Gilbert G. 1977. The Liberated Gospel: A Comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Greek Tragedy. Grand Rapids: Baker.Google Scholar
Biondi, Alessandro. 1983. Gli accenti nei papiri greci biblici. Papyrologica Castroctaviana, Studia et Textus. Barcelona, 1967–9. Rome and Barcelona: distributed by Biblical Institute Press.Google Scholar
Black, C. Clifton. 1994. Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. Studies on Personalities of the New Testament. Columbia and Edinburgh: University of South Carolina Press and T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Blanc, Cécile. 1975. ‘Le Commentaire d'Héracléon sur Jean 4 et 8’. Augustinianum 15: 82–124.
Bockmuehl, Markus. 2006 (forthcoming). ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and Ancient Commentary’. In Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. Ed. Schwartz, D. R. and Clements, R.. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Borg, Marcus J. 1984. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 5. New York: Edwin Mellen. Repr. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998.Google Scholar
Borg, Marcus J. 1986. ‘A Temperate Case for a Non-Eschatological Jesus’. Foundations and Facets Forum 2, no. 3: 81–102.Google Scholar
Borg, Marcus J. 1987. Jesus: A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship. San Francisco: Harper.Google Scholar
Borgen, Peder. 1965. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 10. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Borgen, Peder 1969–70. ‘Observations on the Targumic Character of the Prologue of John’. New Testament Studies 16: 288–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousset, Wilhelm. 1921. Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 21. 2nd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Bovon, François. 1988. ‘The Synoptic Gospels and the Non-Canonical Acts of the Apostles’. Harvard Theological Review 81: 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovon, François. 2003. ‘The Synoptic Gospels and the Noncanonical Acts of the Apostles’. In Studies in Early Christianity, 209–25. Ed. Bovon, F.. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 161. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Bovon, François. 2004. ‘The Reception and Use of the Gospel of Luke in the Second Century’ (unpub. MS).
Bowden, J. 1988. Jesus: The Unanswered Questions. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Bowersock, G. W. 1994. Fiction as History: Nero to Julian. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bowie, E. L. 1978. ‘Apollonius of Tyana: Tradition and Reality’. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–ii. 16. 2: 1652–99.Google Scholar
Boyarin, D. 2001. ‘The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John’. Harvard Theological Review 94: 243–84.Google Scholar
Brock, Sebastian P. 1967. ‘Greek Words in the Syriac Gospels (VET and PE)’. Muséon: Revue d'Etudes Orientales 80: 389–426.Google Scholar
Brooke, A. E., McLean, N., and Thackeray, H. St J., eds. 1927. The Old Testament in Greek, Vol. ii: The Later Historical Books, Pt 1: I and II Samuel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brooke, George J. 1996. ‘4Q252 as Early Jewish Commentary’. Revue de Qumrân 17.65–8: 385–401.Google Scholar
Brooke, George J. 2000. ‘Pesharim’. Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter. Downers Grove and Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2000: 778–82.Google Scholar
Brooks, Stephenson H. 1987. Matthew's Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 16. Sheffield: JSOT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. E. 1966, 1970. The Gospel according to John. AB 29, 29a. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Brown, R. E. 1979. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. London and New York: Chapman and Paulist.Google Scholar
Brown, R. E. 1994. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. ABRL. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Brown, R. E. 1997. An Introduction to the New Testament. ABRL. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Brown, R. E. 2003. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. Ed. Moloney, F. J.. ABRL. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Buckwalter, H. D. 1996. The Character and Purpose of Luke's Christology. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bultmann, R. 1921. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments N. S. 12 (1st edn). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Bultmann, R. 1951–5. Theology of the New Testament. Trans. K. Grobel. 2 vols. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Bultmann, R. 1966. Die Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien. 5th edn. Berlin: A. Töpelmann.
Bultmann, R. 1967. ‘Das Verhältnis der urchristlichen Christusbotschaft zum historischen Jesus [1960]’. In Exegetica: Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments, 445–69. Ed. Dinkler, E.. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Bultmann, R. 1969. ‘Liberal Theology and the Latest Theological Movement [1924]’. In Faith and Understanding I, 28–52. Ed. Funk, R. W.. Trans. L. P. Smith. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Bultmann, R. 1971. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray. et al. Oxford and Philadelphia: Blackwell and Westminster.Google Scholar
Bultmann, R. 1972. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Trans. J. Marsh. 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bultmann, R. 1995. Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921/1931/1957). Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments N. S. 29. 10th edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burridge, Richard A. 1992. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burridge, Richard A. 1994. Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading. Grand Rapids and London: Eerdmans and SPCK. 2nd edn. forthcoming in 2005.Google Scholar
Burridge, Richard A. 1998. ‘About People, by People, for People: Gospel Genre and Audiences’. In The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, 113–45. Ed. Bauckham, R.. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Burridge, Richard A. 2000. ‘Gospel Genre, Christological Controversy and the Absence of Rabbinic Biography: Some Implications of the Biographical Hypothesis’. In Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David Catchpole 137–56. Ed. Horrell, D. G. and Tuckett, C. M.. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 99. Leiden: Brill. Repr. in What Are the Gospels?, Appendix ii: 322–40. 2nd rev. edn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burridge, Richard A. 2004. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Foreword from Graham N. Stanton. BRS. 2nd rev. edn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Byrskog, Samuel. 2000. Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 123. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck). Repr. Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic, 2002.Google Scholar
Byrskog, Samuel. 2004. ‘A New Perspective on the Jesus Tradition: Reflections on James D. G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered ’. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26: 459–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadbury, H. J. 1922a. ‘Commentary on the Preface of Luke’. In The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1, Vol. ii, Appendix c: 488–510. Ed. Foakes-Jackson, F. J. and Lake, K.. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cadbury, H. J. 1922b. ‘The Knowledge Claimed in Luke's Preface’. The Expositor 8: 401–20.Google Scholar
Cadbury, H. J. 1922c. ‘The Purpose Expressed in Luke's Preface’. The Expositor 8: 431–41.Google Scholar
Cadbury, H. J. 1927. The Making of Luke–Acts. New York and London: Macmillan. Repr. London: SPCK, 1958.Google Scholar
Cadbury, H. J. 1955. The Book of Acts in History. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Cadbury, H. J. 1956–7. ‘“We” and “I” Passages in Luke–Acts’. New Testament Studies 3: 128–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, Michael. 1998. The First Commentary on Mark: An Annotated Translation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caird, George B. 1994. New Testament Theology. Completed and edited by Hurst, L. D.. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Cameron, Ron, ed. 1982. The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts. Philadelphia: Westminster.Google Scholar
Campenhausen, Hans. 1972. The Formation of the Christian Bible. Trans. J. A. Baker. London and Philadelphia: A. & C. Black and Fortress.Google Scholar
Cancik, Hubert. 1984a. ‘Bios und Logos. Formengeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Lukians “Leben des Demonax”’. In Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium, 115–30. Ed. Cancik, H.. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 33. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Cancik, Hubert. 1984b. ‘Die Gattung Evangelium: Markus im Rahmen der antiken Historiographie’. In Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium, 85–113. Ed. Cancik, H.. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 33. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Carleton Paget, J. N. B. 1996. ‘The Christian Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Alexandrian Tradition’. In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, i.1: 478–542. Ed. Sæbø, M.. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Carter, W. 2000. Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Casey, M. 1996. Is John's Gospel True?London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Casey, M. 1998. Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Catchpole, D. R. 1971. The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day. StPB 18. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Chadwick, Henry. 1953. Origen: Contra Celsum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, James H. 2002. The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus?Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Chilton, Bruce. 1996. Pure Kingdom: Jesus' Vision of God. SHJ. Grand Rapids and London: Eerdmans and SPCK.Google Scholar
Church, Alfred John and Brodribb, William Jackson, eds. 1895. Annals of Tacitus. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Clines, D. J. A. and Elwolde, eds, J.. 1995. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Vol ii. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Coles, R. A., Haslam, M. W., and Parsons, P. J., eds. 1994. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LX. London: Egypt Exploration Society.Google Scholar
Collins, Adela Yarbro. 1999. ‘The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult’. In The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, 234–57. Ed. Newman, C. C. et al. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Conzelmann, Hans. 1960. The Theology of St. Luke. Trans. G. Buswell. London and New York: Faber and Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Conzelmann, Hans. 1966. ‘Luke's Place in the Development of Early Christianity’. In Studies in Luke–Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert, 298–316. Ed. Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L.. Nashville: Abingdon.Google Scholar
Cook, E. M. 1994. ‘A New Perspective on the Language of Onkelos and Jonathan’. In The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, 142–56. Ed. Beattie, D. R. G. and McNamara, M. J.. JSOTSup 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press, published in Association with the Royal Irish Academy.Google Scholar
Cook, John G. 1997. ‘In Defence of Ambiguity: Is There a Hidden Demon in Mark 1.29–31?New Testament Studies 43: 184–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, John G. 2000. The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. STAC 3. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Cremer, Hermann. 1893. Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gräzität. 7th edn: Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1893; 10th edn: ed. J. Kögel, 1911.
Cross, Frank Moore. 1975. ‘The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert’. In Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 177–95. Ed. Cross, F. M. and Talmon, S.. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press. Repr. from Harvard Theological Review57 (1964): 281–99.Google Scholar
Crossan, John Dominic. 1985. Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contour of Canon. Minneapolis: Winston.Google Scholar
Crossan, John Dominic. 1991. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco and Edinburgh: Harper and T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Dalman, Gustaf. 1898. Die Worte Jesu. Leipzig: Hinrichs (2nd edn. 1930). English translation: The Words of Jesus Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language. Trans. D. M. Kay. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.Google Scholar
Daniels, Jon B. 1989. ‘The Egerton Gospel: Its Place in Early Christianity’. Unpublished dissertation, Claremont Graduate School.
Davies, W. D. 1963. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, W. D. and Allison, D. C.. 1988–97. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. International Critical Commentary. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Dawson, David. 1992. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lange, N. R. M. 1976. Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish–Christian Relations in Third-century Palestine. UCOP 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Degenhardt, H.-J. 1965. Lukas Evangelist der Armen: Besitz und Besitzverzicht in den lukanischen Schriften: Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.Google Scholar
Deines, Roland. 2004. Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5, 13–20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Deissmann, Adolf. 1923. Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt. 4th rev. edn. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck). English translation: Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Trans. L. R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910.Google Scholar
del Fabbro, Marina. 1979. ‘Il commentario nella tradizione papiracea’. Studia Papyrologica 18: 69–132.Google Scholar
Delcor, M. 1962. Les Hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot): Texte Hébreu, Introduction, Traduction, Commentaire. Autour de la Bible. Paris: Letouzey et Ané.Google Scholar
Delobel, Joël. 1989. ‘Extra-Canonical Sayings of Jesus: Marcion and Some “Non-received” Logia’. In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission, 105–16. Ed. Petersen, W. L.. CJA 3. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Denaux, A. 1997. ‘Old Testament Models for the Lukan Travel Narrative: A Critical Survey’. In The Scriptures in the Gospels, 271–305. Ed. Tuckett, C. M.. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters.Google Scholar
Di Segni, R. 1985. Il Vangelo del Ghetto. Rome: Newton Compton.Google Scholar
Dibelius, Martin. 1919. Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (1st edn). Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Dibelius, Martin. 1922. Review of R. Bultmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921. DL 43, no. 7/8: 128–34.Google Scholar
Dibelius, Martin. 1932. Review of R. Bultmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. DL 53, no. 24: 1105–11.Google Scholar
Dibelius, Martin. 1933. Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. 2nd edn. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Dibelius, Martin. 1971. From Tradition to Gospel. Trans. B. L. Woolf. London: James Clarke.Google Scholar
Dihle, A. 1987. Die Entstehung der historischen Biographie. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Dillon, R. J. 1978. From Eyewitnesses to Ministers of the Word. AnBib 82. Rome: Biblical Institute.Google Scholar
Doble, P. 1996. The Paradox of Salvation: Luke's Theology of the Cross. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, C. H. 1952. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet.Google Scholar
Dodd, C. H. 1963. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donahue, J. R. 1973. Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 10. Missoula: Scholars.Google Scholar
Dorandi, Tiziano. 2000. ‘Le Commentaire dans la Tradition Papyrologique: Quelques Cas Controversés’. In Le Commentaire entre Tradition et Innovation: Actes du Colloque International de l'Institut des Traditions Textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22–25 septembre 1999, 15–27. Ed. Goulet-Cazé, M. -O. and Dorandi, T.. BHP. N.S. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Downing, F. G. 2000. ‘Markan Intercalation in Cultural Context’. In Narrativity in Biblical and Related Texts / La Narrativité dans la Bible et les Textes Apparentés, 105–18. Ed. Brooke, G. J. and Kaestli, J. -D.. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 149. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters.Google Scholar
Droysen, J. G. 1977. Historik: Vorlesungen über Enzyklopädie und Methodologie der Geschichte (1932). Ed. Hübner, R.. 7th edn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Drury, John. 1976. Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel: A Study in Early Christian Historiography. London: Darton, Longman and Todd. Repr. Atlanta: John Knox, 1977.Google Scholar
Dubrow, Heather. 1982. Genre. CrIS 42. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Dümler, Bärbel. 1999. ‘Chromatius von Aquileia’. Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, ed. S. Döpp and W. Geerlings, 2nd edn. Freiburg: Herder, 1999: 123–4.Google Scholar
Dunn, James D. G. 1991. ‘John and the Oral Gospel Tradition’. In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, 351–79. Ed. Wansbrough, H.. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 64. Sheffield: JSOT Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, James D. G. 2003a. ‘Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition’. New Testament Studies 49: 139–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, James D. G. 2003b. Christianity in the Making, Vol. i: Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Dunn, James D. G. 2004. ‘On History, Memory and Eyewitnesses: In Response to Bengt Holmberg and Samuel Byrskog’. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26: 473–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earl, D. 1972. ‘Prologue-form in Ancient Historiography’. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–i. 2: 842–56.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R. 1999. ‘Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives’. In The Composition of Mark's Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum, 192–215. Ed. Orton, D. E.. BRBS 3. Leiden: Brill. Repr. from Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 193–216.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R. 2002. The Gospel according to Mark. PillNTC. Grand Rapids and Leicester: Eerdmans and Apollos.Google Scholar
Edwards, Mark. 2004a. John. BBCom. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Mark. 2004b. Review of Ansgar Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 2002. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55: 129–30.Google Scholar
Ehrman, Bart D. 1993. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrman, Bart D. 1994. ‘Heracleon and the “Western” Textual Tradition’. New Testament Studies 40: 161–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrman, Bart D. 2003a. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrman, Bart D. 2003b. Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. K. 1993a. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford and New York: Clarendon and Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J. K. 1993b. The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark: An Edition of C. H. Turner's ‘Notes on Markan Usage’ Together with Other Comparable Studies. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 71. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmslie, W. A. L. 1911. The Mishna on Idolatry: Aboda Zara. TS 8.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enslin, Morton. 1983. ‘Luke and Matthew’. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–ii. 25. 3: 2363.Google Scholar
Esler, Philip Francis. 1987. Community and Gospel in Luke–Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esler, Philip Francis. 1998. ‘Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham's Gospels for All Christians’. Scottish Journal of Theology 51: 235–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etaix, R. and Lemarié, Joseph. 1974. Chromatii Aquileiensis Opera. Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina. Turnhout, 1953–9a. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Evans, C. F. 1990. Saint Luke. TPINTC. London and Philadelphia: SCM and Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Evans, Craig A. 1982. ‘“Peter Warming Himself”: The Problem of an Editorial “Seam”’. Journal of Biblical Literature 101: 245–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Craig A. 1994. ‘Jesus in Non-Christian Sources’. In Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, 443–78. Ed. Chilton, B. and Evans, C. A.. NTTS 19. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Evans, Craig A. 2000. ‘Mark's Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel’. Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 1: 67–81.Google Scholar
Evans, Craig A. 2001. Mark 8:27–16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34b. Nashville: Nelson.Google Scholar
Farmer, William R. and Farkasfalvy, Denis M.. 1983. The Formation of the New Testament Canon: An Ecumenical Approach. ThI. New York: Paulist.Google Scholar
Fascher, E. 1924. Die formgeschichtliche Methode: eine Darstellung und Kritik, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des synoptischen Problems. BZNW 2. Giessen: A. Töpelmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldmeier, R. 1985. ‘The Portrayal of Peter in the Synoptic Gospels’. In Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 59–63. By Hengel, M.. London and Philadelphia: SCM and Fortress.Google Scholar
Fernández Marcos, Natalio. 1998. Introducción a las versiones griegas de la Biblia. 2nd edn. Madrid: Instituto de Filología del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. English translation: The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Trans. W. G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000.Google Scholar
Fernández Marcos, Natalio and Saiz, José Ramón Busto. 1989. El texto antioqueño de la Biblia griega, Vol. i: 1–2 Samuel. Madrid: Instituto de Filología del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.Google Scholar
Finkelberg, Margalit. 2003. ‘Homer as a Foundation Text’. In Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, 75–96. Ed. Finkelberg, M. and Stroumsa, G. A. G.. JSRC 2. Leiden and Boston, Mass.: Brill.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fitzmyer, J. A. 1981. The Gospel According to Luke I–IX: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 28. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Fitzmyer, J. A. 1985. The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 28a. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Fitzmyer, J. A. 1989. Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching. New York: Paulist.Google Scholar
Forbes, Peter Barr Reid, Browning, Robert, and Wilson, Nigel Guy. 1996. ‘Crates of Mallus’. The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: 406.Google Scholar
Ford, Andrew. 1999. ‘Performing Interpretation: Early Allegorical Exegesis of Homer’. In Epic Traditions in the Contemporary World: The Poetics of Community, 33–53. Ed. Beissinger, M. H. et al. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ford, J. M. 1983. ‘Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Luke's Gospel’. In Political Issues in Luke–Acts, 80–98. Ed. Cassidy, R. J. and Scharper, P. J.. Maryknoll: Orbis.Google Scholar
Fortna, R. 1970. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortna, R. 1988. The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel. Edinburgh and Philadelphia: T. & T. Clark and Fortress.Google Scholar
Foster, Paul. 2004. Community, Law and Mission in Matthew's Gospel. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.117. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Fowler, Alastair. 1982. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Mode. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frankenberg, W. 1896. Die Datierung der Psalmen Salomos. BZAW 1. Giessen: J. Ricker'sche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Frede, Michael. 1999. ‘Origen's Treatise against Celsus’. In Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, 131–55. Ed. Edwards, M. et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frey, Jörg. 1997–2000. Die johanneische Eschatologie I–III. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 96/110/117. 3 vols. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Frickenschmidt, Dirk. 1997. Evangelium als Biographie: die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst. TANZ 22. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Friedrich, G. 1935. ‘Euangelizomai’. In Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1932–79ii:705–35. English translation: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Trans. G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76ii: 707–37.
Fuhrer, Therese. 1999. ‘Kommentar’. Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, ed. S. Döpp and W. Geerlings, 2nd edn. Freiburg: Herder, 1999: 381–3.Google Scholar
Funk, F. and Bihlmeyer, K.. 1924. Die Apostolischen Väter: Neubearbeitung der Funkschen Ausgabe. SAQ. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Funk, Robert W. 1996. Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium. San Francisco: Polebridge/Harper.Google Scholar
Funk, Robert W. and Hoover, Roy W., eds. 1993. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1975. Truth and Method. London: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar
Gamble, Harry Y. 1995. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
García Martínez, Florentino and Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., eds. 1997–8. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden and Grand Rapids: Brill and Eerdmans.Google Scholar
García Martínez, Florentino, Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., and Woude, Adam S., eds. 1998. Qumran Cave 11.ii: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Garland, Robert. 2001. The Greek Way of Death. 2nd edn. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.Google Scholar
Gasque, W. Ward. 1975. A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles. BGBE 17. Tübingen and Grand Rapids: Mohr (Siebeck) and Eerdmans. Repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989.Google Scholar
Geerlings, Wilhelm. 1999. ‘Anonymi Chiliastae in Mt Fragmenta’. Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, ed. S. Döpp and W. Geerlings, 2nd edn. Freiburg: Herder, 1999: 31.Google Scholar
Gerhardsson, Birger. 1961. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Uppsala: C. W. K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
Gerhardsson, Birger. 1998. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (1961/1964). Trans. E. J. Sharpe. BRS. Grand Rapids and Livonia: Eerdmans and Dove.Google Scholar
Gero, S. 1988. ‘Apocryphal Gospels: A Survey of Textual and Literary Problems’. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–ii. 25. 5: 3969–96.Google Scholar
Gianotto, C. 1984. Melchisedek e la sua tipologia. RivBSup 12. Brescia: Paideia.Google Scholar
Gill, D. 1970. ‘Observations on the Lukan Travel Narrative and Some Related Passages’. Harvard Theological Review 63: 200–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzberg, Louis. 1922. ‘Some Observations on the Attitude of the Synagogue towards the Apocalyptic-Eschatological Writings’. Journal of Biblical Literature 41: 115–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glare, P. G. W. et al., eds. 1996. Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. Stuart, and McKenzie, R., eds. Greek–English Lexicon: Revised Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Glover, R. 1964–5. ‘Luke the Antiochene and Acts’. New Testament Studies 11: 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, [E.] D. 1970. Mahzor la-yamim ha-nora'im. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Koren.Google Scholar
Goodacre, Mark S. 1996. Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 133. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Goodacre, Mark S. 2002. The Case Against Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack. 1986. The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goranson, Stephen. 1999. ‘Joseph of Tiberias Revisited: Orthodoxies and Heresies in Fourth-Century Galilee’. In Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, 335–43. Ed. Meyers, E. M.. DJSS 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Goulder, Michael D. 1974. Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speaker's Lectures in Biblical Studies, 1969–71. London: SPCK.Google Scholar
Goulder, Michael D. 1988. Luke: A New Paradigm. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 20. Sheffield: JSOT Press.Google Scholar
Grant, Patrick. 1989. Reading the New Testament. London and Grand Rapids: Macmillan and Eerdmans.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Joel B. 1995. The Theology of the Gospel of Luke. NTTh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Joel B. 1996. ‘Internal Repetition in Luke–Acts: Contemporary Narratology and Lucan Historiography’. In History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, 283–99. Ed. Witherington, B., III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Andrew. 2003. The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.169. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Grotius, H. 1641. Annotationes in Libros Evangeliorum. Amsterdam: J. & C. Blaeuw.Google Scholar
Guelich, Robert A. 1989. Mark 1–8:26. Word Biblical Commentary 34a. Dallas: Word.Google Scholar
Guelich, Robert A. 1991. ‘The Gospel Genre’. In The Gospel and the Gospels, 173–208. Ed. Stuhlmacher, P.. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Gundry, Robert H. 1993. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Gundry, Robert H. 1996. ‘euangelion: How Soon a Book?Journal of Biblical Literature 115: 321–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthmüller, Bodo. 2000. ‘Kommentar’. Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996– 14: 1055–7.Google Scholar
Hadot, Ilsetraut. 2002. ‘Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar’. In Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter: Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung, 183–99. Ed. Geerlings, W. and Schulze, C.. CCAMA 2. Leiden and Boston, Mass.: Brill.Google Scholar
Haenchen, E. 1968. Review of C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Theologische Literaturzeitung 93: 346–8.Google Scholar
Haenchen, E. 1971. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Trans. R. M. Wilson et al. Oxford and Philadelphia: Blackwell and Westminster.Google Scholar
Hagner, Donald A. 1985. ‘The Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr’. In Gospel Perspectives, Vol. v: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, 233–68. Ed. Wenham, D.. Sheffield: JSOT Press.Google Scholar
Hagner, Donald A. 1993. Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary 33a. Dallas: Word.Google Scholar
Hagner, Donald A. 1995. Matthew 14–28. Word Biblical Commentary 33b. Dallas: Word.Google Scholar
Hagner, Donald A. 1996. ‘The Sitz im Leben of the Gospel of Matthew’. In Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies, 27–68. Ed. Bauer, D. R. and Powell, M. A.. SBLSymS 1. Atlanta: Scholars.Google Scholar
Halbertal, Moshe. 1997. People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, David R. 1998. The Gospel Framework – Fiction or Fact? A Critical Examination of Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. Carlisle: Paternoster.Google Scholar
Hanson, A. T. 1991. The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Harmless, William. 1995. Augustine and the Catechumenate. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.Google Scholar
Harnack, A. 1910. ‘Evangelium: Geschichte des Begriffs in der ältesten Kirche’. In Entstehung und Entwickelung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts in den zwei ersten Jahrhunderten, 199–239. Leipzig: Hinrichs. English translation: ‘Gospel: History of the Conception in the Earliest Church’. In The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First Two Centuries, 275–331. London: Williams & Norgate, 1910.Google Scholar
Harnack, A. 1925. The Origin of the New Testament and the Most Important Consequences of the New Creation. Trans. J. R. Wilkinson. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Harnack, A. 2003. Marcion, der moderne Gläubige des 2. Jahrhunderts, der erste Reformator: Die Dorpater Preisschrift (1870). Kritische Edition des handschriftlichen Exemplars mit einem Anhang. Ed. Steck, F.. TUGAL 149. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harrington, Daniel J. 1972. ‘Abraham Traditions in the Testament of Abraham and in the “Rewritten Bible” of the Intertestamental Period’. In International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the SBL Pseudepigrapha Seminar, 1972 Proceedings, 155–64. N.p.: Society of Biblical Literature.Google Scholar
Harris, Murray J. 1985. ‘References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors’. In Gospel Perspectives, Vol. v: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, 343–68. Ed. Wenham, D.. Sheffield: JSOT Press.Google Scholar
Hartin, P. J. 1991. James and the Q Sayings of Jesus. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 47. Sheffield: JSOT Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. C. 1909. Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Hays, Richard B. 1998. Foreword to paperback edition of Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative by Moessner, D. P.. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Hedrick, C., ed. 1988. The Historical Jesus and the Rejected Gospels. Semeia 44.
Held, Heinz Joachim. 1963. ‘Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories’. In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 165–300. By Bornkamm, G. et al. Trans. P. Scott. New Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1963. ‘Maria Magdalena und die Frauen als Zeugen’. In Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel. Festschrift für Otto Michel zum 60. Geburtstag, 243–56. Ed. Betz, O. et al. AGSU 5. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1971. ‘Kerygma oder Geschichte?Theologische Quartalschrift 151: 323–36.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1977. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Trans. J. Bowden. London and Philadelphia: SCM and Fortress.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1984a. Die Evangelienüberschriften. SHAW.PH 3. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1984b. Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung. 2nd edn. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1985a. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Trans. J. Bowden. London and Philadelphia: SCM and Fortress.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1985b. ‘The Titles of the Gospels’. In Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 64–84. London and Philadelphia: SCM and Fortress.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1988. Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (1969). Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 10. 3rd edn. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1993. Die Johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 67. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 1999. ‘Das Johnannesevangelium als Quelle für die Geschichte des antiken Judentums’. In Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II, 292–334. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 109. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 2000. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Trans. J. Bowden. London and Harrisburg: SCM and Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 2002a. ‘Paulus und die frühchristliche Apokalyptik’. In Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III, 302–42. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 141. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 2002b. Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 141. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 2002c. ‘Zwischen Jesus und Paulus. Die “Hellenisten”, die “Sieben” und Stephanus (Apg 6: 1–15; 7: 54–8:3)’. In Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III, 1–67. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 141. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).
Hengel, Martin. 2003a. ‘Die ersten heidnischen Leser der Evangelien’. Hyperboreus 9: 89–111.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 2003b. ‘Eine junge theologische Disziplin in der Krise’. In Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft: autobiographische Essays aus der Evangelischen Theologie, 18–29. Ed. Becker, E. -M.. UTB 2479. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 2003c. ‘“Salvation History”: The Truth of Scripture and Modern Theology’. In Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom, 229–44. Ed. Stanton, G. N. and Ford, D. F.. Trans. J. Bowden. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 2004a. ‘Abba, Maranatha, Hosanna und die Anfänge der Christologie’. In Denkwürdiges Geheimnis: Festschrift für E. Jüngel zum 70. Geburtstag, 143–81. Ed. Dalferth, U.. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 2004b. ‘Das Mahl in der Nacht, “in der Jesus ausgeliefert wurde” (1 Kor 11,23)’. In Le Repas de Dieu / Das Mahl Gottes, 115–59. Ed. Grappe, C.. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 169. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin and C. Markschies. 1996. ‘Das Problem der “Hellenisierung” Judäas im 1. Jahrhundert nach Christus’. In Judaica et Hellenistica: Kleine Schriften I, 1–90. By Hengel, M.. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 90. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin and Schwemer, Anna Maria. 1998. Paulus zwischen Damascus und Antiochien: die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 108. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Hengel, Martin. 2001. Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie: vier Studien. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 138. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Henige, David P. 1982. Oral Historiography. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Herford, R. Travers. 1903. Christianity in Talmud and Midrash. London. Repr. Clifton: Reference Book Publishers, 1966.Google Scholar
Higgins, A. J. B. 1970. ‘The Preface to Luke and the Kerygma in Acts’. In Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday, 78–91. Ed. Gasque, W. W. and Martin, R. P.. Exeter and Grand Rapids: Paternoster and Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Hill, Charles E. 1998. ‘What Papias said about John (and Luke)’. Journal of Theological Studies 49: 582–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Charles E. 2004. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, E. D. Jr. 1967. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hirsch, E. D. Jr. 1976. The Aims of Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoegen-Rohls, C. 1996. Der nachösterliche Johannes. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.84. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Hofrichter, P. L., ed. 2002. Für und wider die Priorität des Johannesevangeliums. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Bengt. 2004. ‘Questions of Method in James Dunn's Jesus Remembered ’. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26: 445–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm-Nielsen, Svend. 1960. Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. ATDan 2. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Honigman, Sylvie. 2003. The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hooker, Morna D. 1969–70. ‘John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue’. New Testament Studies 16: 354–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, Morna D. 1974–5. ‘The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret’. New Testament Studies 21: 40–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, Morna D. 1993. ‘The Beginning of the Gospel’. In The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck, 18–28. Ed. Malherbe, A. J. and Meeks, W. A.. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Hooker, Morna D. 1997. Beginnings: Keys that Open the Gospels. London and Harrisburg: SCM and Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Hooker, Morna D. 2003. Endings: Invitations to Discipleship. London and Peabody: SCM and Hendrickson.Google Scholar
Horbury, William. 1970. ‘A Critical Examination of the Toledoth Yeshu’. Unpublished dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Horbury, William. 1988. ‘Old Testament Interpretation in the Writings of the Church Fathers’. In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 727–87. Ed. Mulder, M. J. and Sysling, H.. CRINT 2:1. Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress.Google Scholar
Horbury, William. 1997. ‘Appendix: The Hebrew Text of Matthew in Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut's Eben Bohan’. In A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3: 729–38. By Davies, W. D. and Allison, D. C.. International Critical Commentary. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Horbury, William. 1998a. ‘The Benediction of the Minim’. In Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy, 67–110. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Repr. from Journal of Theological Studies N.S. 33 (1982): 19–61.Google Scholar
Horbury, William. 1998b. ‘Christ as Brigand in Ancient Anti-Christian Polemic’. In Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy, 162–73. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Repr. from Jesus and the Politics of His Day, 183–95. Ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Horbury, William. 1998c. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Horbury, William. 1998d. Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Horbury, William. 1999. ‘The Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew Study’. In Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, 122–31. Ed. Horbury, W.. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Horbury, William. 2003. Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London and New York: T. & T. Clark International.
Horgan, Maurya. 2002. ‘Pesharim’. In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 1–193. Ed. Charlesworth, J. H.. PTSDSSP 6b. Tübingen and Louisville: Mohr (Siebeck) and Westminster/John Knox.Google Scholar
Horsley, G. H. R. 1983. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1978. Macquarie University: Ancient Documentary Research Centre.Google Scholar
Horsley, Richard A. and Silberman, Neil Asher. 1997. The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World. New York: Grossett/Putnam. Repr. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002.Google Scholar
Horst, P. W.. 1972. ‘Can a Book End with γαρ? A Note on Mark xvi.8’. Journal of Theological Studies N.S. 23: 121–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, George. 1987. The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text. Macon: Mercer University Press.Google Scholar
Howard, George. 1995. Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Macon: Mercer University Press.Google Scholar
Iser, Wolfgang. 1974. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Iser, Wolfgang. 1978. The Art of Reading. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Jacoby, Felix. 1929. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Vol. iib3: Historiker des Hellenismus u. der Kaiserzeit. Chronographen. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Jacoby, Felix. 1930. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Vol. iibd: Kommentar. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Jensen, Robin Margaret. 2000. Understanding Early Christian Art. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jeremias, Joachim. 1930. Jesus als Weltvollender. BFCT 33.4. Gütersloh: Evangelischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Jeremias, Joachim. 1963. The Parables of Jesus. Trans. S. H. Hooke. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Jeremias, Joachim. 1971a. Neutestamentliche Theologie I, Vol. i: Die Verkündigung Jesu. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn.Google Scholar
Jeremias, Joachim. 1971b. New Testament Theology, Vol. i: The Proclamation of Jesus. London and New York: SCM and Scribner.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. T. 1979. ‘On Finding the Lukan Community: A Cautionary Essay’. In SBL Seminar Papers, 1979, i: 87–100. SBLSP 18. Missoula: Scholars.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. T. 1991. The Gospel of Luke. SP 3. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. T. 1992. ‘Luke–Acts, Book of ’. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992, iv: 403–20.
Just, Arthur A. Jr, ed. 2003. Luke. ACCSNT 3. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
Kähler, M. 1964. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ (1892). Trans. C. E. Braaten. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Karris, R. J. 1986. ‘Luke 23:47 and the Lucan View of Jesus’ Death'. Journal of Biblical Literature 105: 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Käsemann, Ernst. 1964. Essays on New Testament Themes. Trans. W. J. Montague. SBT 41. London: SCM. Repr. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.Google Scholar
Käsemann, Ernst. 1968. The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17. Trans. G. Krodel. London and Philadelphia: SCM and Fortress.Google Scholar
Käsemann, Ernst. 1969. ‘The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John's Gospel’. In New Testament Questions of Today, 138–67. Trans. W. J. Montague and W. F. Bunge. London and Philadelphia: SCM and Fortress.Google Scholar
Kaster, Robert A. 1999. ‘Kommentar’. Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996– 6: 680–2.Google Scholar
Kealy, Sean P. 1982. Mark's Gospel: A History of its Interpretation. New York: Paulist.Google Scholar
Keck, Leander E. 1965–6. ‘The Introduction to Mark's Gospel’. New Testament Studies 12: 352–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kee, Howard Clark. 1977. Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel. Philadelphia: Westminster.Google Scholar
Kelber, Werner H. 1982. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Philadelphia: Fortress. Repr. with a new introduction by the author and a foreword by Walter J. Ong. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Kermode, Frank. 1967. The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, G. D. 1946. The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Kimelman, R. 1981. ‘Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity’. In Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, Vol. ii: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period, 226–44. Ed. Sanders, E. P. et al. London and Philadelphia: SCM and Fortress.Google Scholar
King, Karen L. 2003. What is Gnosticism?Cambridge, Mass. and London: Belknap/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. 1988. Matthew as Story. 2nd edn., rev. and enl. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Klauck, Hans-Josef. 2004. Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction. Trans. B. McNeil. London and New York: T. & T. Clark/Continuum.Google Scholar
Klijn, A. F. J. 1992. Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition. VCSup 17. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kloppenborg, J. S. 1987. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Kloppenborg, J. S. 1988. Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance. FF. Sonoma: Polebridge.Google Scholar
Kloppenborg, J. S. 1995. ‘Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q’. In The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, 275–319. Ed. Piper, R. A.. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kloppenborg, J. S. 2001. ‘Discursive Practices in the Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus’. In The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, 149–90. Ed. Lindemann, A.. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
Kloppenborg Verbin, J. S. 2000. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Klostermann, Erich and Benz, Ernst. 1935. Origenes Matthäuserklärung. GCS. 3 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs.Google Scholar
Knowles, Michael. 1993. Jeremiah in Matthew's Gospel: The Rejected-Prophet Motif in Matthean Redaction. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 68. Sheffield: JSOT Press.Google Scholar
Knox, J. 1987. ‘Marcion's Gospel and the Synoptic Problem’. In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of William R. Farmer, 25–31. Ed. Sanders, E. P.. Macon: Mercer University Press.Google Scholar
Koester, Helmut. 1980. ‘Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels’. Harvard Theological Review 73: 105–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koester, Helmut. 1989a. ‘From the Kerygma-Gospel to Written Gospels’. New Testament Studies 35: 361–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koester, Helmut. 1989b. ‘The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century’. In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission, 19–37. Ed. Petersen, W. L.. CJA 3. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Koester, Helmut. 1990. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London and Philadelphia: SCM and Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Köhler, Wolf-Dietrich. 1987. Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.24. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Kokkinos, Nikos. 1998. The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society, and Eclipse. JSPSup 30. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Krauss, S. 1902. Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen. Berlin: S. Calvary.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Karl Georg. 1960. ‘Giljonim und sifrei minim’. In Judentum-Urchristentum-Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias, 24–61. Ed. Eltester, W.. BZNW 26. Berlin: Töpelmann.Google Scholar
Kümmel, W. G. 1975. ‘Current Theological Accusations Against Luke’. Andover Newton Quarterly 16: 134, 138.Google Scholar
Kurz, William S. 1984. ‘Luke 3: 23–38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Genealogies’. In Luke–Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar, 169–87. Ed. Talbert, C. H.. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
Kurz, William S. 1999. ‘Promise and Fulfillment in Hellenistic Jewish Narratives and in Luke and Acts’. In Luke the Interpreter of Israel, Vol. i: Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel's Legacy, 147–70. Ed. Moessner, D. P.. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Kürzinger, J. 1977. ‘Die Aussage des Papias von Hierapolis zur literarischen Form des Markusevangeliums’. Biblische Zeitschrift 21: 245–64.Google Scholar
Kvalbein, Hans. 2000. ‘Has Matthew Abandoned the Jews?’ In The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, 45–62. Ed. Ådna, J. and Kvalbein, H.. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 127. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. 1929. Evangile selon Saint Marc. EBib. 4th edn. Paris: Gabalda.Google Scholar
Lake, Kirsopp, trans. 1926. Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History. LCL 153. Vol. i. London and Cambridge, Mass: Heinemann and Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lampe, G. W. H. 1961. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Landmesser, Christof. 2001. Jüngerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Konzept der Matthäischen Soteriologie im Anschluss an Mt 9, 9–13. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 133. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Lane Fox, Robin. 1986. Pagans and Christians. London: Viking.Google Scholar
Lazenby, J. F., Robert, Browning, and Wilson, N. G.. 1996. ‘Aristarchus of Samothrace’. The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: 159.Google Scholar
Lee, D. A. 1994. The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 95. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Leith, M. J. W. 1997. Wadi Daliyeh, I, The Wadi Daliyeh Seal Impressions. DJD 24. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Lévêque, Pierre. 1959. Aurea Catena Homeri: Une Etude sur l'Allegorie Grecque. ALUB. Paris: Belles Lettres.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, H. G. et al. 1940. A Greek–English Lexicon. 9th edn. Oxford: Clarendon. Repr. with a Revised Supplement edited by P. G. W. Glare. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.Google Scholar
Lieu, Judith M. 1996. Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Lieu, Judith M. 2000. ‘Narrative Analysis and Scripture in John’. In The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North, 144–63. Ed. Moyise, S.. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 189. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, J. B. 1891. The Apostolic Fathers. Ed. Harmer, J. R.. London and New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, J. B. and J. R. Harmer, eds. 1989. The Apostolic Fathers: Second Edition. Edited and revised by Holmes, Michael W.. Grand Rapids: Baker.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, R. H. 1938. Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, R. H. 1950. The Gospel Message of St. Mark. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lim, Timothy H. 2002. Pesharim. CQS 3. London and New York: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Lincoln, A. 2000. Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody: Hendrickson.Google Scholar
Lincoln, A. 2002. ‘The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness’. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85: 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindars, B. 1992. Essays on John. Ed. Tuckett, C. M.. SNTA 17. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
Lods, M. 1941. ‘Etude sur les Sources Juives de la Polémique de Celse contre les Chrétiens’. Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 21: 1–33.Google Scholar
Lohmeyer, Ernst. 1919. Christuskult und Kaiserkult. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Löhr, Winrich A. 1996. Basilides und seine Schule: Eine Studie zur Theologie und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 83. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Löhr, Winrich A. 2003. ‘Valentinian Variations on Lk 12, 8–9/Mt 10, 32’. Vigiliae Christianae 57: 437–55.
Lord, A. B. 1978. ‘The Gospels as Oral Traditional Literature’. In The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, 33–91. Ed. Walker, W. O.. TUMSR 5. San Antonio: Trinity University Press.Google Scholar
Lührmann, Dieter. 2004. Die apokryph gewordenen Evangelien: Studien zu neuen Texten und zu neuen Fragen. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 112. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Lührmann, Dieter and Schlarb, Egbert. 2000. Fragmente apokryph gewordener Evangelien in griechischer und lateinischer Sprache. MThS 59. Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar
Luppe, Wolfgang. 2002. ‘Scholia, Hypomnemata und Hypotheseis zu griechischen Dramen auf Papyri’. In Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter: Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung, 55–77. Ed. Geerlings, W. and Schulze, C.. CCAMA 2. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Luz, Ulrich. 1992. Matthew 1–7. Trans. W. C. Linss. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Luz, Ulrich. 1995a. ‘The Disciples in the Gospel according to Matthew’. In The Interpretation of Matthew, 115–48. Ed. Stanton, G. N.. SNTI. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Trans. by Robert Morgan from Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche62 (1971): 142–71.Google Scholar
Luz, Ulrich. 1995b. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew. Trans. J. B. Robinson. NTTh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, D. R. 2000. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, Lee Martin. 1988. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Nashville: Abingdon.Google Scholar
Mack, Burton L. 1988. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Mack, Burton L. 1993. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. San Francisco: Harper.Google Scholar
McKnight, Scot. 1999. A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context. SHJ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
MacMullen, Ramsay. 1984. Christianizing the Roman Empire ad 100–400. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McNamee, Kathleen. 1995. ‘Missing Links in the History of Scholia’. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 36: 399–414.Google Scholar
McNamee, Kathleen. 1998. ‘Another Chapter in the History of Scholia’. Classical Quarterly 48: 269–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddox, Robert. 1982. The Purpose of Luke–Acts. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 126. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Magness, J. Lee. 1986. Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the Ending of Mark's Gospel. SBL SemeiaSt. Atlanta: Scholars.Google Scholar
Maier, Johann. 1978. Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung. EdF 82. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Maier, Johann. 1982. Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Mali, Franz. 1991. Das ‘Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum’ und sein Verhältnis zu den Matthäuskommentaren von Origenes und Hieronymus. IThS 34. Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verlag.Google Scholar
Maloney, E. C. 1981. Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 51. Chico: Scholars.Google Scholar
Marcus, Joel. 1992. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. Repr. SNTW. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993.Google Scholar
Marguerat, D. 1998. ‘Voyages et Voyageurs dans le Livre des Actes et dans la Culture Gréco-romaine’. Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 78: 33–59.Google Scholar
Marguerat, D. 2002. The First Christian Historian: Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’. Trans. K. McKinney et al. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markschies, C. 1991. ‘Platons König oder Vater Jesu Christi? Drei Beispiele für die Rezeption eines griechischen Gottesepithetons bei den Christen in den ersten Jahrhunderten und deren Vorgeschichte’. In Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, 385–439. Ed. Hengel, M. and Schwemer, A. M.. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 55. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Markschies, C. 1998. ‘“Neutestamentliche Apokryphen”: Bemerkungen zu Geschichte und Zukunft einer von Edgar Hennecke im Jahr 1904 begründeten Quellensammlung’. Apocrypha 9: 97–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Christopher D. 1989. Faith as a Theme in Mark's Gospel. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, I. Howard. 1971. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.Google Scholar
Marshall, Peter K. 2000. ‘Kommentar: II. Lateinische Literatur’. Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996– xiv: 1057–62.Google Scholar
Martin, R. P. 1973. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.Google Scholar
Martyn, J. L. 1978. The Gospel of John in Christian History. New York: Paulist Press.Google Scholar
Martyn, J. L. 2003. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. New Testament Library. 3rd edn. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.Google Scholar
Marxsen, Willi. 1959. Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 67. 2nd edn (1st edn 1956). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Marxsen, Willi. 1969. Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel. Trans. J. Boyce et al. New York: Abingdon.Google Scholar
Mason, Steve. 1992. Josephus and the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson.Google Scholar
Massaux, Edouard. 1990. The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus, Vol. i: The First Ecclesiastical Writers. Trans. N. J. Belval and S. Hecht. Ed. Bellinzoni, A. J.. NGS. Leuven and Macon: Peeters and Mercer University Press.Google Scholar
Mattill, A. J., Jr. 1970. ‘The Purpose of Acts: Schneckenburger Reconsidered’. In Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday, 108–22. Ed. Gasque, W. W. and Martin, R. P.. Exeter and Grand Rapids: Paternoster and Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Mattill, A. J. Jr. 1975. ‘The Jesus–Paul Parallels and the Purpose of Luke–Acts’. Novum Testamentum 17: 15–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauser, Ulrich. 1963. Christ in the Wilderness: The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and its Basis in the Biblical Tradition. SBT 39. London and Naperville: SCM and Allenson.Google Scholar
Mauser, Ulrich. 1992. The Gospel of Peace: A Scriptural Message for Today's World. SPS. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.Google Scholar
Meeks, Wayne A. 1972. ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’. Journal of Biblical Literature 91: 44–72. Repr. in The Interpretation of John, 169–205. Ed. J. Ashton. SNTI. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meeks, Wayne A. 1983. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, John P. 1976. Law and History in Matthew's Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt.5: 17–48. AnBib 71. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.Google Scholar
Meier, John P. 1992. ‘John the Baptist in Josephus: Philology and Exegesis’. Journal of Biblical Literature 111: 225–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, John P. 1994. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. ii: Mentor, Message, and Miracles. ABRL. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Meijering, R. 1987. Literary and Rhetorical Theories in Greek Scholia. Groningen: E. Forsten.Google Scholar
Meredith, Anthony. 1980. ‘Porphyry and Julian against the Christians’. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–ii. 23. 2: 1119–49.Google Scholar
Metzger, Bruce M. 1987. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford and New York: Clarendon and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, Ben F. 1979. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM. Repr. PTMS 48. Eugene: Pickwick/Wipf & Stock, 2002.Google Scholar
Millar, Fergus. 1993. The Roman Near East, 31 BC–AD 337. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mirsky, S., ed. 1977. Yosse ben Yosse: Poems. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Stephen. 1993. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. 2 vols. Oxford and New York: Clarendon and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 1988. ‘The Ironic Fulfillment of Israel's Glory’. In Luke–Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives, 35–50. Ed. Tyson, J. B.. Minneapolis: Augsburg.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 1989. Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. Repr. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 1990. ‘“The Christ Must Suffer”, the Church Must Suffer: Rethinking the Theology of the Cross in Luke–Acts’. In SBL Seminar Papers, 1990, 165–83. Ed. Lull, D. J.. SBLSP 29. Atlanta: Scholars.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 1991. ‘Re-reading Talbert's Luke: The Bios of “Balance” or the “Bias” of History?’ In Cadbury, Knox, and Talbert: American Contributions to the Study of Acts, 203–28. Ed. Tyson, J. B. and Parsons, M. C.. Atlanta: Scholars.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 1993. ‘Suffering, Intercession, and Eschatological Atonement: An Uncommon Common View in the Testament of Moses and in Luke–Acts’. In The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, 202–27. Ed. Charlesworth, J. H. and Evans, C. A.. JSPSup 14. SSEJC 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 1996a. ‘“Eyewitnesses”, “Informed Contemporaries”, and “Unknowing Inquirers”: Josephus’ Criteria for Authentic Historiography and the Meaning of Parakoloutheō'. Novum Testamentum 38: 105–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 1996b. ‘The “Script” of the Scriptures in Acts: Suffering as God's “Plan” (Boulē) for the World for the “Release of Sins”’. In History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, 218–50. Ed. Witherington, B., III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 1998. Preface to paperback edition of Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 1999a. ‘The Appeal and Power of Poetics (Luke 1: 1–4): Luke's Superior Credentials (Parēkolouthēkoti), Narrative Sequence (Kathexēs), and Firmness of Understanding (hē Asphaleia) for the Reader’. In Luke the Interpreter of Israel, Vol. i: Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel's Legacy, 84–123. Ed. Moessner, D. P.. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 1999b. ‘The Lukan Prologues in the Light of Ancient Narrative Hermeneutics: Parēkolouthēkoti and the Credentialed Author’. In The Unity of Luke–Acts, 399–417. Ed. Verheyden, J.. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 142. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 2002. ‘Dionysius’ Narrative “Arrangement” (Oikonomia) as the Hermeneutical Key to Luke's Re-Vision of the “Many”'. In Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, 149–64. Ed. Christophersen, A. et al. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 217. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 2004a. ‘“Completed End(s)ings” of Historiographical Narrative: Diodorus Siculus and the End(ing) of Acts’. In Die Apostelgeschichte und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung. Festschrift für Dr. Plümacher, 193–221. Ed. Breytenbach, C. and Schröter, J.. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 2004b. ‘Ministers of Divine Providence: Diodorus Siculus and Luke the Evangelist on the Rhetorical Significance of the Audience in Narrative “Arrangement”’. In Literary Encounters with the Reign of God [Studies in Honor of R. C. Tannehill], 304–23. Ed. Ringe, S. H. and Kim, H. C. P.. London and New York: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. 2005 (forthcoming). ‘“Managing” the Audience: Diodorus Siculus and Luke the Evangelist on Designing Authorial Intent’. In Festschrift A. Denaux. Ed. Verheyden, J.. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters.Google Scholar
Moessner, D. P. and D. L. Tiede. 1999. ‘Two Books but One Story?’ In Luke the Interpreter of Israel, Vol. i: Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel's Legacy, 1–4. Ed. Moessner, D. P.. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Mohrmann, Christine. 1965. Etudes sur le Latin des Chrétiens. Vol. iii: Latin Chrétien et liturgique. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.Google Scholar
Moloney, F. 1998. The Gospel of John. SP 4. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.Google Scholar
Momigliano, A. 1993. The Development of Greek Biography. Expanded edn. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Stephen D. 1989. Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morgenthaler, R. 1971. Statistische Synopse. Zurich and Stuttgart: Gotthelf.Google Scholar
Moule, C. F. D. 1982. Essays in New Testament Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moxnes, Halvor. 1991. ‘Patron–Client Relations and the New Community in Luke–Acts’. In The Social World of Luke–Acts: Models for Interpretation, 241–68. Ed. Neyrey, J. H.. Peabody: Hendrickson.Google Scholar
Moxnes, Halvor. 1994. ‘The Social Context of Luke's Community’. Interpretation 48: 379–89.Google Scholar
Nagel, Titus. 2000. Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert: Studien zur vorirenäischen Aneignung und Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums in christlicher und christlich-gnostischer Literatur. ABG 2. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
Neirynck, F. 1988. Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 31. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters.Google Scholar
Neirynck, F. 1991. ‘Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Healing of the Leper’. In Evangelica II: 1982–1991: Collected Essays, 773–84. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 99. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters.Google Scholar
Neuschäfer, Bernhard. 1987. Origenes als Philologe. SBAltW 18: 1–2. 2 vols. Basle: Friedrich Reinhardt.Google Scholar
Neusner, Jacob. 1988. Why No Gospels in Talmudic Judaism?Atlanta: Scholars.Google Scholar
Neusner, Jacob. 1993. Are There Really Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels? A Refutation of Morton Smith. SFSHJ 80. Chico: Scholars.Google Scholar
Newman, Hillel I. 1999. ‘The Death of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu Literature’. Journal of Theological Studies 50: 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neyrey, Jerome H. 1985. The Passion according to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke's Soteriology. New York: Paulist.Google Scholar
Neyrey, Jerome H. 1991. ‘The Symbolic Universe of Luke–Acts: “They Turn the World Upside Down”’. In The Social World of Luke–Acts: Models for Interpretation, 271–304. Ed. Neyrey, J. H.. Peabody: Hendrickson.Google Scholar
Niederwimmer, K. 1993. Die Didache. KAV 1. 2nd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, Margaret. 1970. A Commentary on Horace, Odes, Book I. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Nock, Arthur Darby. 1933. Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Oberman, A. 1996. Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium: Eine Untersuchung zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der Schriftzitate. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.83. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
O'Day, G. 1986. Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Oden, Thomas C. and Hall, Christopher A., eds. 1998. Mark. ACCSNT 2. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
Old, Hughes Oliphant. 1998. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Olmstead, Wesley G. 2003. Matthew's Trilogy of Parables: The Nation, the Nations and the Reader in Matthew 21.28–22.14. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 127. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orchard, Bernard and Riley, Harold. 1987. The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels?Macon: Mercer University Press.Google Scholar
Origen, . 1996. Homilies on Luke, Fragments on Luke. Trans. J. T. Lienhard. FC 94. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
Orton, David E. 1989. The Understanding Scribe: Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 25. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Overbeck, F. 1882. ‘Über die Anfänge der patristischen Literatur’. Historische Zeitschrift N.S. 12 (48): 417–72.Google Scholar
Overman, J. Andrew. 1990. Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Overman, J. Andrew. 1996. Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel according to Matthew. NTC. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Oyen, G. Van. 1992. ‘Intercalation and Irony in the Gospel of Mark’. In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, 2: 949–74. Ed. Segbroeck, F. et al. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters.Google Scholar
Pagels, Elaine H. 1973. The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon's Commentary on John. Nashville: Abingdon.Google Scholar
Pagels, Elaine H. 2002. ‘Irenaeus, the “Canon of Truth”, and the Gospel of John: “Making a Difference” through Hermeneutics and Ritual’. Vigiliae Christianae 56: 337–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, David C. 1997. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, P. 1987. ‘Herod Antipas and the Death of Jesus’. In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of William R. Farmer, 197–208. Ed. Sanders, E. P.. Macon: Mercer University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Mikeal C. and Pervo, Richard I.. 1993. Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Patterson, Stephen J. 1993. The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus: Thomas Christianity, Social Radicalism, and the Quest of the Historical Jesus. FF. Sonoma: Polebridge.Google Scholar
Paul, Shalom M. et al., eds. 2003. Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. VTSup 94. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Peabody, David B. 1987. Mark as Composer. NGS 1. Leuven and Macon: Peeters and Mercer University Press.Google Scholar
Perrin, Norman. 1969. What is Redaction Criticism? GBS. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Perrone, Lorenzo. 2000. ‘Continuité et Innovation dans les Commentaires d'Origène: Un Essai de Comparaison entre le Commentaire sur Jean et le Commentaire sur Matthieu’. In Le Commentaire entre Tradition et Innovation: Actes du Colloque International de l'Institut des Traditions Textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22–25 septembre 1999, 183–97. Ed. Goulet-Cazé, M.-O. and Dorandi, T.. BHP. N.S. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Pervo, Richard I. 1999. ‘Israel's Heritage and Claims upon the Genre(s) of Luke and Acts: The Problems of a History’. In Luke the Interpreter of Israel, Vol. i: Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel's Legacy, 127–43. Ed. Moessner, D. P.. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Pesch, R. 1977, 1991. Das Markusevangelium. HTKNT 2.1–2.2 vols. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
Petersen, Norman R. 1980. ‘When is the End not the End? Literary Reflections on the Ending of Mark's Narrative’. Interpretation 34: 151–66.Google Scholar
Petersen, William L. 1990. ‘Tatian's Diatessaron’. In Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, 403–30. By Koester, H.. London and Philadelphia: SCM and Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Petersen, William L. 1994. Tatian's Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship. VCSup 25. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, William L., ed. 1989. Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission. CJA 3. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, Rudolf. 1968. History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Piper, R. A. 1989. Wisdom in the Q-Tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plümacher, E. 1972. Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte. SUNT 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Plümacher, E. 1979. ‘Die Apostelgeschichte als historische Monographie’. In Les Actes des Apôtres. Traditions, Rédaction, Théologie, 457–66. Ed. Kremer, J.. Leuven and Gembloux: Leuven University Press and Duculot.Google Scholar
Poffet, Jean-Michel. 1985. La Méthode Exégétique d'Héracléon et d'Origène: Commentateurs de Jn 4 – Jésus, la Samaritaine et les Samaritains. Paradosis 28. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires.Google Scholar
Pokorný, Petr. 1983. ‘Das Markusevangelium: Literarische und theologische Einleitung mit Forschungsbericht’. ANRW ii. 25. 3: 1969–2035.Google Scholar
Poole (Pole), Matthew (Matthæus). 1684–6. Synopsis Criticorum Aliorumque Sacræ Scripturæ Interpretum et Commentatorum: Summo Studio et Fide Adornata. Ed. Leusden, J.. 5 vols. Utrecht: Ribb, van de Water & Halma.Google Scholar
Puech, Emile. 1998. Qumrân Grotte 4, xviii: Textes Hébreux (4Q 521–4Q 528, 4Q 576–4Q 579). DJD 25. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Rajak, T. 1987. ‘Josephus and Justus of Tiberias’. In Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 81–94. Ed. Feldman, L. H. and Hata, G.. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Reicke, Bo. 1986. The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Reid, B. E. 1996. Choosing the Better Part? Women in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.Google Scholar
Reid, R. S. 1996. ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Theory of Compositional Style and the Theory of Literate Consciousness'. Rhetoric Review 15: 46–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, R. S. 1997. ‘“Neither Oratory nor Dialogue”: Dionysius of Harlicarnassus and the Genre of Plato's Apology’. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 27: 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhartz, A. 2001. Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Reiser, Marius. 1997. Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in its Jewish Context. Trans. L. M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Renan, Ernst. 1877. Les Evangiles et la Seconde Génération Chrétienne. HOC 5. Paris: Calmann Lévy.Google Scholar
Resseguie, James L. 1984. ‘Reader-Response Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels’. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 52: 307–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuss, Joseph. 1957. Matthäus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. TUGAL 61. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Reynolds, L. D. and Wilson, N. G.. 1991. Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. 3rd edn. Oxford and New York: Clarendon and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richter, G. 1977. Studien zum Johannesevangelium. Ed. Hainz, J.. Regensburg: Pustet.Google Scholar
Riesenfeld, Harald. 1970. The Gospel Tradition: Essays. Trans. E. M. Rowley and R. A. Kraft. Foreword by W. D. Davies. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Riesner, Rainer. 1981. Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Überlieferung. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.7 (1st edn). Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Riesner, Rainer. 1988. Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Überlieferung. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.7. 3rd edn. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Roberts, C. H. 1936. Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. M., Hoffmann, P., and Kloppenborg, J. S., eds. 2000. The Critical Edition of Q. The International Q Project/Hermeneia. Leuven and Minneapolis: Peeters and Fortress.Google Scholar
Robinson, John A. T. 1962–3. ‘The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St John’. New Testament Studies 9: 120–9. Repr. in Twelve More New Testament Studies, 65–76. London: SCM, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, John A. T. 1985. The Priority of John. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Rohrbaugh, R. L. 1993. ‘The Social Location of the Markan Audience’. Interpretation 47: 380–95.Google Scholar
Roloff, Jürgen. 1970. Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus: historische Motive in den Jesus-Erzählungen der Evangelien. 2nd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. 1992. ‘The Parting of the Ways: The Evidence of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and Mystical Material’. In Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, ad 70 to 135: The Second Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism, Durham, September 1989, 213–37. Ed. Dunn, J. D. G.. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 66. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Saldarini, Anthony J. 1994. Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community. CSHJ. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, E. P. 1969. The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, E. P. 1985. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Sanders, James A. 1975. ‘From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4’. In Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, Part 1:75–106. Ed. Neusner, J.. SJLA 12. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Sanders, James A. 1993. ‘From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4’. In Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke–Acts, 46–69. By Evans, Craig A. and Sanders, James A.. Minneapolis: Fortress (revision of Sanders 1975).Google Scholar
Sato, Migaku. 1988. Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.29. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Scafuro, A. C. 1984. ‘Universal History and the Genres of Greek Historiography’. Unpublished dissertation, Yale University.
Schlatter, Adolf. 1947. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag.Google Scholar
Schlatter, Adolf. 2002. ‘Die heilige Geschichte und der Glaube’. In Die Bibel verstehen. Aufsätze zur biblischen Hermeneutik. Ed. Neuer, W.. Giessen: Brunnen Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmid, Ulrich. 2002. ‘Marcions Evangelium und die neutestamentlichen Evangelien: Rückfragen zur Geschichte und Kanonisierung der Evangelienüberlieferung’. In Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung = Marcion and his Impact on Church History: Vorträge der Internationalen Fachkonferenz zu Marcion, gehalten vom 15.–18. August 2001 in Mainz, 67–77. Ed. May, G. and Greschat, K.. TUGAL 150. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Christiane. 1999. ‘Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum’. Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, ed. S. Döpp and W. Geerlings, 2nd edn. Freiburg: Herder, 1999: 459.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Daryl D. 1999. ‘Rhetorical Influences and Genre: Luke's Preface and the Rhetoric of Hellenistic Historiography’. In Luke the Interpreter of Israel, Vol. i: Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel's Legacy, 27–60. Ed. Moessner, D. P.. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. 1919. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung. Berlin: Trowitzsch. Repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. 1923. ‘Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen Literaturgeschichte’. In Eucharistērion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstage, dem 23. Mai 1922 dargebracht von seinen Schülern und Freunden, ii: 50–134. Ed. Schmidt, H.. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments N.S. 19 [36]. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. 1981. ‘Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen Literaturgeschichte [1923]’. In Neues Testament – Judentum – Kirche: Kleine Schriften, 37–130. Ed. Sauter, G.. TB 69. Munich: Kaiser Verlag.Google Scholar
Schnackenburg, R. 2002. The Gospel of Matthew. Trans. R. R. Barr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ed. 1991. New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. i: Gospels and Related Writings. Ed. Wilson, R. M.. Rev. edn. Cambridge and Louisville: James Clarke and Westminster/John Knox.Google Scholar
Schoedel, W. R. 1967. Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias. AF 5. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons.Google Scholar
Scholtissek, K. 2000. In ihm sein und bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den johanneischen Schriften. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
Schotroff, Luise. 1970. Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium. WMANT 37. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag.Google Scholar
Schröter, J. 1997. Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. WMANT 76. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.Google Scholar
Schürmann, Heinz. 1968. ‘Die vorösterlichen Anfänge der Logientradition’. In Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien: Beiträge, 39–65. KBANT. Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schwarte, Karl-Heinz. 1999. ‘Victorinus von Pettau’. Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, ed. S. Döpp and W. Geerlings, 2nd edn. Freiburg: Herder, 1999: 627–8.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Seth. 2001. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 b.c.e. to 640 c.e. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 1992. Sophia and the Johannine Jesus. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 71. Sheffield: JSOT Press.Google Scholar
Segovia, F. 1991. The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Segovia, F., ed. 1996. What is John? Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel. 2 vols. Atlanta: Scholars.Google Scholar
Shellard, B. 2002. New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 215. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Shepherd, T. 1993. Markan Sandwich Stories: Narration, Definition, and function. AUSDDS 18. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press.Google Scholar
Shepherd, T. 1995. ‘The Narrative Function of Markan Intercalation’. New Testament Studies 41: 522–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegert, Folker. 1996. ‘Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style’. In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, i.1: 130–98. Ed. Sæbø, M.. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Sim, David C. 2001. ‘The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham’. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonetti, Manlio. 1994. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis. Trans. J. A. Hughes. Ed. Bergquist, A. and Bockmuehl, M.. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Simonetti, Manlio, ed. 2001–2. Matthew. ACCSNT 1.a–b. 2 vols. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
Skeat, T. C. 1994. ‘The Origin of the Christian Codex’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 102: 263–8.Google Scholar
Skeat, T. C. 1997. ‘The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?New Testament Studies 43: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. M. 2001. John among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth Century Research. 2nd edn. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Dennis E., ed. 1991. How Gospels Begin. Semeia 52.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, Klyne R. 1999. ‘Reading and Overreading the Parables in Jesus and the Victory of God ’. In Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, 61–76. Ed. Newman, C. C.. Downers Grove and Carlisle: InterVarsity Press and Paternoster.Google Scholar
Sokoloff, Michael and Yahalom, Joseph. 1999. Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity: Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
Sproston North, Wendy. 2001. The Lazarus Story within the Johannine Tradition. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 212. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.Google Scholar
Sproston North, Wendy. 2003. Review of Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25.4: 449–68.Google Scholar
Squires, J. T. 1993. The Plan of God in Luke–Acts. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 1974. Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 1983. ‘The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945–1980’. ANRW II. 25. 3: 1889–1951.Google Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 1989. ‘“Pray that your Flight may not be in Winter or on a Sabbath”’. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37: 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 1992a. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Repr. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993.Google Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 1992b. ‘The Communities of Matthew’. Interpretation 46: 379–91.Google Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 1994a. ‘Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet who Deceived God's People?’ In Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, 164–80. Ed. Green, J. B. and Turner, M.. Grand Rapids and Carlisle: Eerdmans and Paternoster. Repr. in Jesus and Gospel, 127–47.Google Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 1994b. ‘Revisiting Matthew's Communities’. In SBL Seminar Papers, 1994, 9–23. SBLSP 33. Atlanta: Scholars.Google Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 1995. Gospel Truth? New Light on Jesus and the Gospels. London and Valley Forge: HarperCollins and Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 1997. ‘The Fourfold Gospel’. New Testament Studies 43: 317–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 2002. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford Bible Series. 2nd edn (1st edn 1989). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 2003. ‘Jesus Traditions and Gospels in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus’. In The Biblical Canons, 353–70. Ed. Auwers, J. -M. and Jonge, H. J.. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 163. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters.Google Scholar
Stanton, Graham N. 2004. Jesus and Gospel. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, Günter. 1996. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Ed. and trans. M. Bockmuehl. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Günter. 2000. Jews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the Fourth Century. Trans. R. Tuschling. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Stendahl, Krister. 1968. The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament. 1st American edn. With a New Introduction by the Author. Philadelphia: Fortress. First published ASNU 20, Lund and Copenhagen: Gleerup and Munksgaard, 1954; 2nd edn Lund: Gleerup, 1967.Google Scholar
Stevenson, James. 1978. The Catacombs: Rediscovered Monuments of Early Christianity. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Stibbe, M. 1992. John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strack, Hermann L. 1910. Jesus, die Häretiker und die Christen nach den ältesten jüdischen Angaben. SIJB 37. Leipzig: Hinrichs.Google Scholar
Strack, Hermann L. and Billerbeck, Paul. 1922–61. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Vol. v indexes compiled by K. Adolph, Vol. vi indexes compiled by J. Jeremias. 6 vols. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Strecker, Georg. 1962. Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Stuhlmacher, Peter. 1968. Das paulinische Evangelium, Vol i: Vorgeschichte. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuhlmacher, Peter. 1991. ‘The Pauline Gospel’. In The Gospel and the Gospels, 149–72. Ed. Stuhlmacher, P.. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Stuhlmacher, Peter. 1992. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Vol. i: Grundlegung von Jesus zu Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Suhl, A. 1965. Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium. Gütersloh: Mohn.Google Scholar
Swain, Simon. 1999. ‘Defending Hellenism: Philostratus, In Honour of Apollonius’. In Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, 157–96. Ed. Edwards, M. et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Talbert, C. H. 1977. What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. London and Philadelphia: SPCK and Fortress.Google Scholar
Talbert, C. H. 2003. ‘Succession in Luke–Acts and in the Lukan Milieu’. In Reading Luke–Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu, 19–55. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 107. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannehill, Robert C. 1975. The Sword of his Mouth: Forceful and Imaginative Language in Synoptic Sayings. SBLSemeiaSup 1. Philadelphia and Missoula: Fortress and Scholars.Google Scholar
Tannehill, Robert C. 1988. ‘Rejection by Jews and Turning to Gentiles: The Pattern of Paul's Mission in Acts’. In Luke–Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives, 83–101. Ed. Tyson, J. B.. Minneapolis: Augsburg.Google Scholar
Taylor, Miriam S. 1995. Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus. StPB 46. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Theissen, Gerd. 1999. A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion. London: SCM.Google Scholar
Theissen, Gerd and Annette, Merz. 1998. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Trans. J. Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Theissen, Gerd and Winter, Dagmar. 1997. Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung: vom Differenzkriterium zum Plausibilitätskriterium. NTOA 34. Göttingen and Freiburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht and Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Marianne Meye. 1988. The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress. Repr. as The Incarnate Word: Perspectives on Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody: Hendrickson, n.d. (ca. 1993).Google Scholar
Thompson, Michael. 1991. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 59. Sheffield: JSOT Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, Timothy C. G. 1990. ‘The Stories of Joseph of Tiberias’. Vigiliae Christianae 44: 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrall, Margaret E. 1962. Greek Particles in the New Testament. NTTS 4. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Thyen, H. 1977. ‘Entwicklungen innerhalb der johanneischen Theologie und Kirche im Spiegel von Joh 21 und der Lieblingsjüngertexte des Evangeliums’. In L'Evangile de Jean: Sources, Rédaction, Théologie, 259–99. Ed. Jonge, M.. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 44. Leuven and Gembloux: Leuven University Press and Duculot.Google Scholar
Tiede, David L. 1980. Prophecy and History in Luke–Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Tiede, David L. 1988. ‘“Glory to Thy People Israel”: Luke–Acts and the Jews’. In Luke–Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives, 21–34. Ed. Tyson, J. B.. Minneapolis: Augsburg.Google Scholar
Torrey, C. C. 1912. ‘The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospel’. In Studies in the History of Religions Presented to Crawford Howell Toy by Pupils, Colleagues, and Friends, 269–317. Ed. Lyon, D. G. and Moore, G. F.. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Torrey, C. C. 1933. The Four Gospels: A New Translation. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Torrey, C. C. 1937. Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Torrey, C. C. 1941. Documents of the Primitive Church. New York and London: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Tov, Emanuel. 1999. The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. VTSup 72. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Trafton, Joseph L. 2002. ‘Commentary on Genesis A’. In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 6b: 203–19. Ed. Charlesworth, J. H.. PTSDSSP. Tübingen and Louisville: Mohr (Siebeck) and Westminster John Knox.Google Scholar
Trilling, Wolfgang. 1961. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag.Google Scholar
Trocmé, Etienne. 1957. Le ‘Livre des Actes’ et L'Histoire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Trocmé, Etienne. 1975. The Formation of the Gospel according to Mark. London: SPCK.Google Scholar
Trojahn, Silke. 2002. Die auf Papyri erhaltenen Kommentare zur alten Komödie: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der antiken Philologie. BAlt 175. Munich: K. G. Saur.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trompf, G. W. 1979. The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought: From Antiquity to the Reformation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tuckett, C. M. 1986. Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition: Synoptic Tradition in the Nag Hammadi Library. SNTW. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Tuckett, C. M. 1988. ‘Thomas and the Synoptics’. Novum Testamentum 30: 132–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuckett, C. M. 1996. Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Turner, N. and Moulton, J. H.. 1976. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. iv: Style. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Tyson, Joseph B. 1988a. ‘The Problem of Jewish Rejection in Acts’. In Luke–Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives, 124–37. Ed. Tyson, J. B.. Minneapolis: Augsburg.Google Scholar
Tyson, Joseph B., ed. 1988b. Luke–Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives. Minneapolis: Augsburg.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. 1996. ‘Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text’. In Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995, 78–105. Ed. Parrey, D. W. and Ricks, S. D.. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 20. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Ungern-Sternberg, Jürgen and Reinau, Hansjörg, eds. 1988. Vergangenheit in mündlicher Überlieferung. CR I. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unnik, W. C. van. 1979. ‘Luke's Second Book and the Rules of Hellenistic Historiography’. In Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, Rédaction, Théologie, 37–60. Ed. Kremer, J.. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 48. Leuven and Gembloux: Leuven University Press and Duculot.Google Scholar
Uro, Risto. 1998. ‘Thomas and Oral Gospel Tradition’. In Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, 8–32. Ed. Uro, R.. SNTW. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Uytfanghe, M. Van. 2001. ‘Biographie II (Sprituelle)’. In RAC Supplement I, 1088–1363. Ed. Klauser, T. and Dassmann, E.. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann.Google Scholar
Vaage, L. E. 1995. ‘Composite Texts and Oral Mythology: The Case of the “Sermon” in Q (6: 20–49)’. In Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q, 75–97. Ed. Kloppenborg, J. S.. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 1998. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.Google Scholar
Vansina, Jan. 1985. Oral Tradition as History. Madison and London: University of Wisconsin Press and Currey.Google Scholar
Verheyden, J., ed. 1999. The Unity of Luke–Acts. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 142. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters.Google Scholar
Vielhauer, Philipp. 1975. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Voorst, , , Robert E.. 2000. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. SHJ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Votaw, C. W. 1970. The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies in the Greco-Roman World. FBBS 27. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Wagner, J. Ross. 2001. Review of Timothy H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Journal of Biblical Literature, 120: 175–8.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. 1986. Roots of Christianity. London: Grafton (Collins).Google Scholar
Walzer, Richard. 1949. Galen on Jews and Christians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, F. 1998. ‘Towards a Literal Reading of the Gospels’. In The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, 195–217. Ed. Bauckham, R.. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Watts, R. E. 1997. Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.88. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck). Repr. BSL. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.Google Scholar
Weeden, Theodore J. 1971. Mark: Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Wellhausen, J. 1911. Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien. Berlin: G. Reimer.Google Scholar
Wenham, David. 1995. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity?Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Westcott, B. F. 1881. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. 6th edn. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wilckens, U. 1974. Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte. WMANT 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.Google Scholar
Wilken, Robert L. 1984. The Christians as the Romans Saw them. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Michael A. 1996. Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, N. G. 1967. ‘A Chapter in the History of Scholia’. Classical Quarterly N.S. 17: 244–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, N. G. 1968. ‘A Chapter in the History of Scholia: A Postscript’. Classical Quarterly N.S. 18: 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witherington, Ben III. 1995. John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge and Westminster: Lutterworth and John Knox.Google Scholar
Wright, G. A., Jr. 1985. ‘Markan Intercalations: A Study in the Plot of the Gospel’. Unpublished dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville.
Wright, N. T. 1996. Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. ii: Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress.Google Scholar
Wucherpfennig, Ansgar. 2002. Heracleon Philologus: Gnostische Johannesexegese im zweiten Jahrhundert. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 142. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar
Yahalom, J. 1996. Priestly Palestinian Poetry: A Narrative Liturgy for the Day of Atonement (Hebrew title begins Az be-eyn kol). Jerusalem: Magnes.Google Scholar
Young, Frances M. 1997. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Frances M. 1999. ‘Greek Apologists of the Second Century’. In Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, 81–104. Ed. Edwards, M. et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zeller, D. 1977. Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern. Würzburg: Echter.Google Scholar
Zeller, D. 1992. ‘Eine weisheitliche Grundschrift in der Logienquelle?’ In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, i: 389–401. Ed. Segbroeck, F. et al. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters.Google Scholar
Zetzel, James E. G. 1981. Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity. MCS. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, F. 1979. The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels. New York: Ktav.Google Scholar
Zumstein, J. 1996. ‘Der Prozess der Relecture in der johanneischen Literatur’. New Testament Studies 42: 394–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuntz, G. 1984. ‘Ein Heide las das Markusevangelium’. In Markus-Philologie: Historische, literarische und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium, 205–22. Ed. Cancik, H.. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 33. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).Google Scholar