The parable of the Good Samaritan presents Jesus' distinctive interpretation of the Torah in parabolic form. When it confronts a priest with a dead or dying man, it sets up an unusual, halakhically debatable situation, since the commandment that a priest avoid contracting corpse-impurity conflicts with the commandment to love the neighbour. One commandment must take precedence. Jesus' Jewish contemporaries would have disagreed as to how the priest should behave, but the general halakhic principle which the parable suggests – that the love commandment should always override others in cases of conflict – seems to be unparalleled.

Responding to assertions and evidence in a 1997 New Testament Studies article by R. F. Shedinger (and to George Howard, the editor of the text in question), this article demonstrates with fourteen textual examples and circumstantial evidence (Isaac Velasquez's Arabic gospel translation) that the Hebrew Matthew contained in Shem-Tob's Even Bohan (1) is part of the western harmonized gospel tradition, (2) is especially, often uniquely, related to the traditions which lie behind the Middle Dutch Liège Harmony, and (3) is translated from a medieval Latin Vorlage. In no way is it (pace Shedinger) related to 45 or (pace Howard) pre-Johannine.

This article combines historical, literary, theological, and feminist criticism to inquire into the identity of the Beloved Disciple (BD) in the Fourth Gospel attempting to mediate between the theory of the BD as pure literary construct and the BD as a single historical individual. It proposes that the BD is a textual paradigm of ideal discipleship which is realized diversely in several characters in the text. This has ramifications for the textual identity of the evangelist and of the foundational Easter witness of the Johannine community. It suggests that women were more significant in leadership of the Johannine community than has been recognised in the past.

Stimulated by the work of D. Boyarin, the topic of circumcision is examined in Philo (Spec. Leg. 1.1–11; Migr. Abr. 89–93) and Paul (Rom 2.25–9). Philo limits his allegorizing tendencies in view of the conservative instincts of the Jewish community. Paul is far more radical in relation to Jewish opinion: Rom 2.29 indicates his willingness to dispense with human praise in such matters. On the other hand, his intellectual framework is far less acculturated than that of Philo; pace Boyarin, none of the contrasts in Rom 2.28–9 reflect Hellenizing influence. Paul's hermeneutical revolution matched no contemporary form of Judaism.

Die Psalmen Salomos sind ein für die frühjüdische Vorstellung von der δικαιοσύνην Gottes überaus wichtiges Zeugnis. Werden sie in der Forschung zumeist als Ausdruck pharisäischer Frömmigkeit, in der die Vorstellungen von der Gerechtigkeit Gottes und seiner Barmherzigkeit auseinanderfallen, gewertet, so versucht der vorliegende Beitrag zu zeigen, daβ die Verhältnisbestimmung beider Gröβen differenzierter ist. Die PsSal rücken die Vorstellung von der Gerechtigkeit Gottes eng mit seinem züchtigenden Handeln an den Frommen zusammen und gebrauchen hierfür die Termini παιδεία bzw παιδεύειν. Ein vergleichen-der Blick auf das Qumran-Schrifttum zeigt, daβ beide frühjüdischen Konzeptionen in je eigenerWeise als Hintergrund der paulinischen Rede von der δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ relevant sind.

The final portion of 46 (Pauline letters: c. 200 AD) is lost. Standard works assert that the undamaged papyrus did not contain the Pastoral Epistles, and this has been taken as evidence for the existence of a Pauline corpus without the Pastorals. However, in the final third of the extant manuscript, the scribe compresses his writing substantially (by up to 50%). Different explanations of this phenomenon are discussed: the most likely being that the scribe always intended to include the Pastorals, but simply miscalculated the space required. 46 cannot be used as evidence for a Pauline corpus omitting the Pastorals.

Es ist seit langem nahezu unbestritten, daβ der 1, Klemensbrief gegen Ende des ersten Jahrhunderts verfaβt wurde. Doch haben zahlreiche Einzeluntersuchungen die Hauptargumente für diesen Konsens in den letzten Jahren ins Wanken gebracht: Das düstere Domitianbild früherer Zeiten wurde kräftig korrigiert, die Vorstellung einer domitianischen Christenverfolgung erweist sich als historisch nicht nachweisbar, die altkirchlichen Angaben über ‘Bischof ’Klemens von Rom sind wider–sprüchlich, das gängige Bild der frühchristlichen Ämterentwicklung basiert auf zu vielen Unbekannten. Dies führt zu einer Neubewertung der entsprechenden Angaben in 1 Clem und zu einer vorsichtigeren Beurteilung der Datierung dieses Schreibens.