The field of New Testament textual criticism is a vast area with a multitude of manuscripts to examine. Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (hereafter referred to as D) is one of the most diverse manuscripts and has fascinated scholars for centuries with its many peculiar and notable read-ings. Where, in textual criticism, the Alexandrian text-type is the normative, D is a landmark within the “Western” text-type. This thesis examines D by collating it and one of the Alexan-drian text-type’s most attested manuscripts, codex Vaticanus (hereafter B). The collation is done using Nestle-Aland’s critical edition Novum Testamentum Graece 28 ed., because of its critical apparatus. However, due to the size of the critical apparatus the collation involves only the Gospel of John. The aim of this thesis is to search for readings in D that could indicate what context it was written in and, further, finding what tradition lies behind D. For this purpose, a database has been constructed, containing all differences between the manuscripts, classified according to types of differences and the parts of speech they involve.This thesis argues that D clarifies many of the readings of the Gospel of John with stylistic and narrative techniques, such as narrative explanations and the addition of prepositions, accu-satives, genitives and reflexive pronouns. Thus, implicit structures are avoided. Because of said clarifications this thesis argues that D was written in an environment where it was necessary to clarify uncertain aspects of the storyline. It is proposed that while Greek was the main language in the context where D was written it was not the first language of the scribe, and dialects may have affected the language in D.This thesis also argues that D reinforces the perception of the story. The Gospel of John uses the perfect tense more often than any of the other gospels, which results in the story often being perceived as ongoing rather than finished, as would be the perception of the reader. D has reinforced this tendency and also avoids theological utterances applicable to anybody, conse-quently keeping the perception in the gospel that of the story. Some passages in D also show that D has incorporated thinking from the synoptic gospels and created its own tradition.In summary, this thesis argues that some of D’s differences in comparison to B are related to provisions made for needs present in the context it was written in.

The purpose of this essay is to discuss what kind of normativity can be considered acceptable in academic theology today in Sweden. This I do by critically and comparatively analyze two debates. The first debate is from Sweden and has its origin in the book Den okände Jesus written by Cecilia Wassén och Tobias Hägerland. The second debate is an international debate about Joseph Ratzingers or Benedict XVI book Jesus of Nazareth. For the purpose of comparison I am working with three analytical questions. I am asking the different texts whether the author express any ontological assumptions or if he or she argumenting at a epistemological level, what enables intersubjective verifiability according to the author and what kind of methods does the author see as acceptable to reach historical knowledge? This questions works as a methodological cluster and the answers indicate what the authors think about acceptable normativity in academic theology. After that I identify similarities and divergences and I ́m comparing different positions and arguments. Finally I evaluate the reasonability of these positions and argument. The reader will be lead to the conclusion that intersubjective verifiability in academic theology and exegetic doesn ́t demand naturalistic or empirical points of departure but rather transparency and cognitive understandable argument which includes theological normative arguments and research. An attitude I name as methodological reciprocity.

This essay is based on trying to understand the relationship that exists between Josephus’ writings and the pseudepigraph Assumptio Mosis. Although the comparisons made between the texts in this essay are not enough to give a definite answer, none of the examples exclude that Josephus may have used Assumptio Mosis as a primary source. Rather, there are indications in which a direct relationship between Josephus and Assumptio Mosis potentially could explain from where Josephus acquires some of his source material, especially for his narrative of the time period around 4 BCE–6 CE. / Denna uppsats bygger på att försöka förstå relationen som finns mellan Josefus skrifter och pseudepigrafen Assumptio Mosis. Även om jämförelserna som görs mellan skrifterna i denna uppsats inte räcker för att ge ett säkert svar i slutändan, utesluter inga av exemplen att Josefus kan ha använt Assumptio Mosis som direkt källa. Snarare finns indikationer i vilka en direkt relation mellan Josefus och Assumptio Mosis skulle kunna förklara varifrån Josefus hämtar en del av sitt källmaterial, inte minst för hans narrativ om tiden runt 4 f.v.t–6 v.t.