An archaic form of the sayings collection Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies (Q 12.22b–31) is to be found in P. Oxy. 655, Gospel of Thomas Saying 36. T. C. Skeat detected in 1938 a scribal error already present in Q 12.27a (taken over in Matt 6.28b), but still correct in P. Oxy. 655. Part I publishes Skeat's much more recent reconstruction of Saying 36 in P. Oxy. 655. Robinson had already enlarged Skeat's thesis by focusing attention on four ingredients in Q 12.22b–31 that scholarship has long since recognized as secondary, and that are significantly absent from P. Oxy. 655. Part II responds to criticisms of this thesis by J. Schröter. Part III contains concluding remarks on the archaic form of the sayings collection as a whole.

The parable of the Two Sons occurs in three variant textual forms. Despite the tendency among commentators to follow the Nestle-Aland text, which is based on the Sinaiticus textual form, the strong support in the tradition for each type of variant reading requires the textual question be reassessed. It is argued that although the Sinaiticus reading represents the pre-Matthean form of the parable, it was Matthew, and not a later scribe, who changed the order of the sons in order to privilege the second son. This aligns with the evangelist's concern to depict the rejection and replacement of the Jewish leadership. Yet, although the Vaticanus reading reflects the authentic Matthean form of the parable, the earlier Sinaiticus form resurfaced and intruded itself back into the MSS tradition.

It has long been noted by interpreters that Luke's birth narrative offers a comparative portrayal of Jesus and John, with the effect that Jesus is seen as the greater of the two (a feature of the text commonly called ‘step-parallelism’). Several explanations for this narrative device have been offered by commentators, including the proposal that the step-parallelism serves as an apologetic response to a messianic sect proclaiming John the Baptist as the Christ. This paper argues that while apologetic concerns may play a role, the primary motivation for the contrast Luke composes between the two characters is christological. In short, the point of the step-parallelism is to show that in preparing the way for God, John is really preparing the way for Jesus, because Jesus represents Yahweh in his mission and person.

Luke's physical description of Zacchaeus as ‘short in stature’ is usually given scant attention in the scholarly literature. The reference is illuminated, however, when read in light of the ‘physiognomic consciousness’ that permeated the ancient world and the rhetorical practice of using physical abnormalities, such as shortness, to ridicule one's adversary. This physical characterization joins with the other descriptors of ‘rich’ and ‘tax collector’ to form the derisive image of a Zacchaeus who is traitorous, small-minded, and greedy. But Luke's intention is to reverse these conventional tropes to show that the penitent Zacchaeus is also a ‘son of Abraham’.

Recent investigation in Paul finds itself in a process of change asking whether there is a centre in Pauline theology and whether the logic of his thought is consistent. The article tries to establish the inner structure of Pauline logic from which the concrete application in different situations has to be distinguished: transformation and participation are the categories which control generally the logic of Pauline thinking. God has transferred the crucified Jesus of Nazareth into a new being/existence, in which the believers and baptised people completely partake by the gift of the Spirit already in the present time. The forensic declarations of justification in Galatians and Romans are rooted similarly in the conception of transformation and participation. These declarations are based on a conception of righteousness which is embedded in baptism.

The identification of Junia in Rom 16.7 has been a familiar problem in biblical interpretation. Most studies, however, are preoccupied with the gender of the name, assuming that Junia's apostolic status is not in doubt. This article addresses the latter issue. The collocation of επισημος with its adjuncts shows that, as a rule, επισημος with a genitive personal adjunct indicates an inclusive comparison (‘outstanding among’), while επισημος with (εν plus) the personal dative indicates an elative notion without the implication of inclusion (‘well known to’). This study concludes that Junia was well known to the apostles rather than outstanding among them.

In 1 Tim 5.3–16 ist ein Konflikt erkennbar zwischen dem Idealbild der Witwe und dem Status quo. Gemäss Verfasser, dessen Ansicht christlicher Tradition entspricht, sollten ausschliesslich die ‘wirklichen Witwen’ und nicht alle Frauen, die zu seiner Zeit als Witwen bezeichnet wurden, Objekt der Versorgung sein. Unter diesen Witwen gab es auch jüngere Frauen, die gar nie verheiratet gewesen waren. Der Verfasser versucht nun, diese ‘jüngeren Witwen’ aus der Gruppe der Witwen auszuschliessen, indem er das traditionelle Witwenbild gegenüber dem Status quo stark macht. Seine Motivation ist wohl die Abwehr gegen eine asketisch orientierte Irrlehre, die besonders unter den ‘jüngeren Witwen’ grosse Resonanz gefunden hat.

Rev 22.6–9 exhibits an elaborate structure. Fundamental to its structural complexity is the rhetorical technique of ‘chain-link’ construction, discussed by both Lucian of Samosata and Quintilian. Appearing in at least three other passages in the Johannine apocalypse, this transition device involves a back-and-forth (AbaB) arrangement of ideas that has not been adequately appreciated in modern scholarship. Rev 22.6–9 has occasionally been characterised as the product of a second-rate or ‘irregular’ mind. In fact, however, these verses evidence a structural feature commended by ancient rhetoricians concerned with presentational clarity and force.

Proponents of the Griesbach hypothesis have often appealed to a tradition handed down by Clement of Alexandria in support of their position that Mark used Matthew and Luke.For example, in the 1984 Jerusalem Symposium on the Interrelations of the Gospels, the position paper for the modern form of the Griesbach hypothesis argued: ‘This one direct statement by Clement, the most highly respected Christian scholar of his day, is of more historical value than all the theories that have ever been propounded about the sequence in which the Gospels were written, including the theories of Augustine’: William R. Farmer, ‘The Statement of the Hypothesis’, The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium (ed. David L. Dungan; BETL 95; Leuven: Leuven University & Peeters, 1990) 145.Other examples include William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina, 21976) 1, 225–7, 282; William R. Farmer, ‘The Patristic Evidence Reexamined: A Response to George Kennedy’, New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond (ed. William R. Farmer; Macon, Ga: Mercer University, 1983) 1–15; Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon, Ga: Mercer University, 1987) 163–8; Bernard Orchard, ‘Response to H. Merkel’, Interrelations, 603; and David L. Dungan, ‘Two-Gospel Hypothesis’, ABD 6.677. Written early in his career in the now lost Hypotyposeis, Clement's information has been preserved for us by Eusebius of Caesarea as follows:

But again in those very books Clement presented a tradition of the original elders (παραδωσιν των ανεκαθεν πρεσβυτερων) about the ‘order’ of the gospels (περι της ταξεως των ευαγγελιων) in this manner: He said that those of the gospels comprising the genealogies were ‘written before’ (προγεγραϕθαι ελεγεν των ευαγγελιων τα περιεχοντα τας γενεαλογιας), that Mark had this ‘disposition’ (ταυτην εσχηκεναι την οικονομιαν): that when Peter was in Rome preaching the word openly (δημοσια) and proclaiming (εξειποντος) the gospel by the spirit, those present, who were many, entreated Mark, as one who followed him for a long time and remembered what was said, to record what was spoken; but that after he composed the gospel, he shared it (μεταδουναι) with those who wanted it; that, when Peter found out about it, he did not actively discourage or encourage it; but that John, last, aware that the physical facts were disclosed (συνιδοντα οτι τα σωματικα εν τοις ευαγγελιοις δεδηλωται) in the gospels, urged by friends, and inspired by the spirit, composed a spiritual gospel. So much for Clement. (Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.5–7)My translation, rendering the words in quotation marks as generally as possible to avoid prejudicing the interpretative issues. Other translations, however, are more specific. For example, J. E. L. Oulton translated Clement's statement for the Loeb Classical Library as follows: ‘He said that those Gospels were first written which include the genealogies’: Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History (ed. G. P. Goold; trans. Oulton; LCL 265; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1932) 2.47, 49.