Unter den zahlreichen Einflußlinien, die in Italien die Jahrzehnte zwischen Ende des 19. und Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts die biblischen Arbeiten vorbereitet haben, spreche ich nur von der Lage der Forschung. In den Jahren unmittelbar nach dem 1. Vatikanischen Konzil wurden die theologischen Fakultäten aus allen Universitäten des jung vereinigten Königreiches ausgeschlossen (26. Januar 1873). Mit diesem Ereignis fiel ein besonderer Mangel an Initiativen in der biblischen Forschung zusammen, die sich nur in ein traditionelles Interesse für die Orientalistik und eine ängstliche und nervöse Sorge um apologetische Interessen teilten.

In their recent survey of the synoptic problem E. P. Sanders and M. Davies argue that a complicated solution must be held to be the most likely, and conclude,

Mark probably did sometimes conflate material which came separately to Matthew and Luke (so the Griesbach hypothesis), and Matthew probably did conflate material which came separately to Mark and Luke (the twosource hypothesis). Thus we think that Luke knew Matthew (so Goulder, the Griesbachians and others) and that both Luke and Matthew were the original authors of some of their sayings material (so especially Goulder). Following Boismard, we think it likely that one or more of the gospels existed in more than one edition, and that the gospels as we have them may have been dependent on more than one proto- or intermediate gospel.

The majority of scholars interpret the narrative of the Cleansing of the Leper (Mark 1.40–45 par) as a miracle story in which Jesus cures a man sick with leprosy, and, in accord with the precepts of Leviticus 13–14, immediately sends him to the priest to have his cure verified. The leper, however, despite Jesus' warning, spreads the word of his healing far and wide, so much so that Jesus is no longer able to enter into towns because of his great popularity. Such an interpretation seems to fit in well with what is often said to be Mark's concern, in the first part of his gospel, to present Jesus as a powerful miracle worker, under the thematic umbrella of the Messianic Secret.

Few investigations in biblical studies begin with utterly unique ideas. We all stand upon the shoulders of our predecessors. This study is no exception. There is nothing new about this paper's claim that Jesus' prayer for Peter, referred to in Luke 22.31–32, is thematically related to Satan's fall from heaven, narrated in Luke 10. 18. Adolf Schlatter articulated the similarities between these two texts, which have given rise to similar interpretative suggestions made more briefly by others. Schlatter made three basic observations. Firstly, in both scenes Satan's power stands in opposition to the disciples: directly in 22.31–32; indirectly through the demons in 10.17–19. Secondly, Satan has been in heaven before God: implied in 22.31–32; the point of origin for his fall in 10.18. Thirdly, Jesus is not a mere spectator, but in some way has a hand in resolving the situation in each case. While Schlatter did not elaborate on the final point, any more than he did the others, the remainder of this study will try to demonstrate more clearly what Schlatter seems to have sensed. Just as Luke 22.31–32 portrays Jesus-the-Advocate standing against Satan-the-Accuser in heaven, so 10.18 offers a picture of the decisive overthrow of this accuser from heaven. Furthermore, the implication is that this heavenly overthrow has been accomplished through the prayers of the scribal-intercessor, Jesus.

In his influential article in TDNT, E. Schweizer was to claim

Luke adopts the typically Jewish idea that the Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy…. This may be seen in Lk 4:23–27, where the miraculous signs mentioned in the quotation in v. 18 are specifically rejected as manifestations of the Spirit and only authoritative preaching is regarded as the fulfilment of the prophecy.

The story of the raising of Lazarus (John 11.1–44) is one of the most dramatic and impressive of the compositions in the Fourth Gospel. For this very reason it raises a host of problems for the biblical critic. There can be no dispute that it has a theological purpose which dominates the whole narrative. This is clearly set out in the first words attributed to Jesus: ‘This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it’ (v. 4). The same point is referred to again just before the climax of the narrative in v. 40. But the more prominent the theological aim, the more difficult it becomes to view the narrative simply in terms of history. It must surely be the case that John has based his composition on a source, which was probably much simpler and briefer than the splendid story which it has become in his hands. But the source must be reconstructed before we can begin to think of it in historical terms. The modern tendency is to give up such attempts as hopeless, and to concentrate on the meaning of the text as it stands. But even that presents pitfalls to the critic. All seems well until we come to v. 33: ‘Jesus…was deeply moved in spirit (ένεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι) and troubled.’ Unfortunately the Greek words do not mean ‘deeply moved in spirit’ (RSV). In his recent commentary on John in the Word Biblical Commentary, G. R. Beasley-Murray marshalls a great array of evidence to show that the meaning must be ‘became angry in spirit’. But why should Jesus be represented by John as angry? The effort to answer this question affects the interpretation of the whole story.

In 1 Joh 2.18–19; 4.1–6 hören wir von einem christologischen Schisma in der ‘johanneischen’ Gemeinde. Die Schismatiker werden ‘Antichristen’ und ‘Pseudopropheten’ genannt. Ihre Zahl ist groß. Sie sind aber ‘Christusgläubige’ (2.19), die wohl für sich selbst in Anspruch nahmen, die ‘richtige’ Christologie zu vertreten. Für diese warben sie unter den Gemeindemitliedern, was der Autor des 1 Joh ‘Verführung’ nennt (2.26; vgl. 4.5–6).

In a recent edition of New Testament Studies D. B. Wallace has argued for a procedural change in New Testament textual criticism, namely that textual critics consider using the recently published The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text as a baseline for collation studies. The following study demonstrates the sound value of such a move for intra-Byzantine studies. It further shows that while the Majority Text is a valuable asset for the study of texttypes, the theory which motivated its editors does not stand up to the rigour of this ‘preliminary’ collation study.

Prüfe man die Wunderberichte der Evangelien literar- und sprachkritisch, so lasse sich, meinte J. Jeremias, in mehreren Fällen ‘zeigen oder wenigstens vermuten, daβ eine Wundergeschichte aus einem sprachlichen Miβ-verständnis erwuchs’.

Recent commentators on the works of Luke, the Gospel and Acts, make remarkably similar statements regarding the transliteration of the Latin title Augustus into Greek. All agree that Luke used Αύγοΰστο, in the Gospel as a personal name and all agree that in Acts 25.21, 25, he used the Greek form of the Latin title, Σεβαστός. Only one of these commentators, however, goes beyond this simple observation to deal with the questions that must arise from such selective use by Luke of Αὐγο⋯στος and Σεβαστ⋯ς. Colin Hemer attempts to go slightly beyond this to explain Luke's use of Σεβατός in Acts as the formal rendering of the imperial title. It is not clear what Hemer means by his use of the words ‘rendered formally’ because Σεβαστός is no more formal than Αὐγο⋯στος. The point is simply that the former is the correct form of the imperial title in Greek and the latter is the correct form in Latin. Unless Luke had an ulterior motive these words should not have been used in any other sense. Moreover, if one detects some new or special use of Αὐγο⋯στος by Luke, one certainly should ask what this means? Such a question is especially pertinent when one notes that, according to Blass and Debrunner, Luke was ‘inclined to remove Latinisms’.

The Western text of Acts presents the reader with numerous departures from the more familiar text found in the majority of witnesses. These variants often appear trivial, but on occasion they present substantial divergences from the majority text. One such variant is that found in Acts 19.1, dealing with Paul's route to Ephesus on his so-called third missionary journey.

Ich möchte versuchen darzulegen, daβ Gal 2.7–8 eine Vereinbarung zwischen Paulus und Petrus darstellt, die auf den ersten Besuch Pauli in Jerusalem zurückgeht.

It is often held that where a word or passage is not found in all the manuscripts, but occupies different places in the manuscripts in which it does occur, that is a sign (though not an incontestable proof) that it was not in the original text but has been interpolated.