The paper seeks to shed light on the ministry and reception of Jesus of Nazareth as perceived through the lens of the Gospel of John in the light of Samaritan, Galilean, and Judean perspectives. Flavius Josephus and the Samaritan tradition help us to gain a better understanding of certain details expressed or alluded to in the gospels. In particular, on the basis of these two sources the paper puts into context the gospel passage that is best informed about the relations between Samaritans and Jews, viz. John 4:1–42. It thus aims at elucidating the Samaritan references in the Gospel of John by current research on Samaritanism.
J. K. Elliott
A Note on Phil 2:7
Robert Matthew Calhoun
The 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, followed by the 27th and 28th editions, deleted a punctuation variant in Phil 2:7 noted in the 25th, which drew attention to a syntactical ambiguity in the construal of three successive participial phrases (7b–d). Resolutions of this ambiguity have significant consequences for the passage’s christological perspective. Future editions should revise and restore this variant.
This essay discusses the text of the 3rd c. uncial 0171. The uncial consists of three fragments, two pertaining to the text of Luke, and one pertaining to the text of Matthew (10: 17-32), which is the focus of the present study. Despite its extremely fragmentary nature, certain letters are sufficiently legible to permit a faithful reconstruction of the text. Although the “Western” character of the manuscript is well-established, some of the earlier studies of the textual variants seem to have overlooked or misinterpreted a number of key elements. Through a verse by verse reassessment of the textual variants in MS 0171, this study suggests some new explanations for their origins, and concludes that this is an important witness to the transmission of the text of the Greek New Testament.
Robert J. Myles and Michael Kok
John 18:15–16 mentions an unknown disciple of Jesus who “was known to the high priest” giving him access to the events in Caiaphas’s courtyard. A minority of scholars maintain the identity of this disciple is consistent with John, the son of Zebedee, whom they also maintain was the author of the Fourth Gospel. To support this position, the commonplace fiction of Galilean fishermen belonging to an aspiring “middle-class” is asserted. This article reviews the arguments and suggests that a more robust representation of class stratification in the ancient world demonstrates the implausibility of such a scenario.
The Wretched “I” and His Biblical Doppelgänger
Will N. Timmins
Relatively little attention has been paid to biblical parallels to the wretched “I” of Rom 7:14–25. A few scholars have observed features shared with the psalms of lament, but these studies have been limited in scope and have proved inconclusive in identifying the “I.” A comparison between Romans 7 and one of the psalms of lament, namely Psalm 119, reveals a number of significant verbal and conceptual correspondences, which throw fresh light onto previously unclear aspects of the “I”’s monologue. In addition, Paul’s wretched “I” is revealed as inhabiting the same symbolic world as the Christ-believers in Rome, experiencing with them the resurrection of lament in Christ.
A Salvation-Historical Interpretation of Heb 1:2c
K. R. Harriman
The default translation of the phrase δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας in Heb 1:2c is spatial: “through whom he made the worlds/universe.” The typical explanation for why this temporal term should have a spatial meaning is that αἰών can have the sense of “the ages and everything in them,” so that it is roughly equivalent to the universe of space and time. In contrast, this paper demonstrates on the bases of lexical-historical, broad contextual, and immediate contextual evidence that a temporal translation (“ages” as in history) is preferable and that this temporal sense is more specifically salvation-historical in meaning.
The consensus of present-day historians that Jesus was crucified around the year 30 ce has been challenged by a minority of scholars who argue that the execution of John the Baptist could not take place earlier than 35 ce, and for that reason Jesus must have been crucified at the Passover of 36 ce. This paper argues that both parties have strong and convincing arguments, and for that reason we must conclude that John was probably executed after Jesus’ death. The collective memory of the early Christians did not succeed in retaining the chronological order of these events, and this circumstance allowed the synoptics to turn the Baptist into a forerunner of Christ.