A study of the authenticity and interpretation of the last twelve verses of St Mark's Gospel. These verses are omitted from at least one important manuscript tradition and queried in most modern translations (though not from the NEB). Professor Farmer traces the history of the text tradition for omission back to Egypt, and argues that one important factor contributing to their omission was the dangerous teaching they seemed to contain: they appear to encourage Christians to handle deadly snakes and drink poisons to prove their faith, a practice which has been revived today by some Christian sects who accept the scriptural authority of these verses. The teaching of these verses has, however, never become established in orthodox Christianity and indeed most Christians are unaware of their doctrinal significance. Professor Farmer reviews all the textual and patristic evidence and examines the most plausible solutions that have been canvassed. This is another substantial contribution to a series that has set the highest standards of scholarship in biblical and New Testament studies.

The volume contains the contributions to a symposium in which specialists in different fields worked together in the attempt to throw by their cooperation more light on the conditions - theological convictions and worldview, political climate, influence of state officials, educational institutions and churches - which were influential in the development of biblical studies in the second half of the 19th century. The discussion originated with a special problem: the thesis of William Farmer, one of the co-editors of the volume, that the appointment of Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, who defended the priority of the gospel of Mark as the oldest synoptic gospel, to the New Testament professorship in Strasbourg in 1872 was the result of a direct intervention of the emperial chancellor Bismarck in the context of the kulturkampf, who wished thereby to weaken the Roman Catholic position defending the supremacy of the chair of St Peter by the authority of the gospel of St Matthew (Mt 16,18). The question belongs in the broader context of the presuppositions of Bible exegesis in the second half of the 19th century. As both editors agreed that the matter is not yet finally settled, it seemed to be essential for coming to deeper insights into the conditions under which biblical exegesis was enacted in the 19th century to broaden the scenery and to include other aspects that might throw more light on a period widely unknown to many scholars belonging to the present generation. Therefore specialists of different fields joined a symposium in order to elucidate from their respective viewpoints and interests basic themes and methods of biblical exegesis, scientific theology and the relations between state and university in the 19th centruy, especially during the period of the second Reich. But the themes were not restricted to this special area. They included also a wider outlook into the first half of the century and across the borders of Germany into other European countries. So the volume contains a collection of essays which have in common that all of them contribute to a better knowledge of the inner and outer conditions which formed climate and results of Biblical interpretation in the period.

Did Jesus of Nazareth live and die without the teaching about the righteous Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 having exerted any significant influence on his ministry? Is it probable that this text exerted no significant influence upon Jesus' understanding of the plan of God to save the nations that the prophet Isaiah sets forth? Did the use of Isaiah 53 to interpret his mission actually begin with Jesus? Would it have been possible for Jesus to have acted so unnaturally as to have died for the unjust without reference to Isaiah's teaching about the Suffering Servant who poured out his soul to death and bore the sins of many?

These are the kinds of questions that were in the minds of those who organized a conference on "Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins" at Baylor University in the fall of 1995. The principal papers from that conference are now available in Jesus and the Suffering Servant, with contributions by Moma D. Hooker, Paul D. Hanson, Henning GrafReventlow, R. E. Clements, Otto Betz, N. T. Wright, and others. Of particular note in these papers is the discovery that it may have been Paul rather than Jesus who first exploited the idea of atoning suffering in Isaiah 53.

William Farmer has devoted much of his career to addressing the question of the relationship among the three Synoptic Gospels--Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In particular, Farmer has challenged the Two Source Hypothesis, which says that Mark is the earliest Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and another document, called "Q," as the two primary sources for their own Gospels. Instead, Farmer argues that Matthew was the Earliest Gospel, that Luke used Matthew and other traditions known to him, and that Mark used both Matthew and Luke in compiling a shorter, more ecumenical account of Jesus' career. This competing theory is called the Two Gospel Hypothesis.