In bringing this study to a close it is proper to return to the point at which we began. At the outset it was noted that μαρτν and its cognates greatly outnumber KrjpuyiJicc and κηρσσιν. This observation prompted no less a New Testament scholar than E. G. Selwyn to ask ‘whether the word nccpTvpfoc and its cognates would not better describe the primitive and indispensable core of the Christian message’. Without wishing in any way to disparage the importance of the kerygma, this investigation has attempted to show that Selwyn was right in suggesting that ‘there is room for another monograph on the apostolic testimony’. His contention proves to be abundantly borne out by the evidence. Indeed, the tenor of the present study indicates, as Théo Preiss once intimated, that the juridical terminology of the Bible is a fruitful field deserving more attention from contemporary scholarship.

It is possible, of course, to overstate or to misinterpret the forensic aspect, and this temptation we have striven to avoid. Certainly one must not imply that litigation and quarrelling are to be treated simply on one level, without consideration of a metaphorical use of witness as ‘testimony to’. We have had occasion to note (in the Psalms, for instance) the juxtaposition of juridical and non-juridical metaphors. In fact, our study has uncovered four classes of material where the witness imagery operates: (a) actual trials, where the legal terminology is genuinely forensic; (b) controversy, where there is an extension of the forensic; (c) metaphors where the forensic aspect may be in the background but is not necessarily present; (d) the idea of witness as testimony to, in a religious context (or in terms of reputation, etc.).