What is the meaning of the apocalyptic events related in the Gospel of Matthew after the death of Jesus? The issue is treated in two stages, beginning with a short review of current interpretations (historical, causal, and semiologic). In a second step, the spatial and temporal disruptions that cross the story are explored. The hypothesis is made, with consideration of the figures’ sequence, that they are the figurative expression of a childbirth. Time and place of death are thus those of a birth, Jesus is literally ‘the firstborn from the dead’. It is finally suggested that the reader's actualisation of this peculiar figures’ chain corresponds to the birth of a believing subject.

The identity of the κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7 has been debated among Western scholars for over five hundred years. Proposals have ranged from an inn to a guest room. This article argues that the term κατάλυμα has a generic sense of ‘place to stay’ and that the final clause of Luke 2.7 should be rendered ‘because they had no space in their place to stay’. Moreover, three clues in the context—Joseph's compliance with the census order, the betrothal of Mary, and the manger—suggest that the accommodations presupposed by Luke are a marital chamber too small for giving birth.

This article takes part in the reopened discussion of the Johannine δόξα/δοξάζϵιν by interpreting the concept in light of the narrative structures in the Fourth Gospel. On the basis of Aristotle's definition of a whole and complete μῦθος and his distinction between πϵριπτϵια and ἀναγνώρισις it is shown that the main structure in the Johannine narrative concerns humans' recognition of Jesus' identity as son of God. As a consequence of being firmly integrated in this narrative structure, the Johannine concept δόξα/δοξάζϵιν basically denotes divine identity and recognition. Opposing a contemporary trend in Johannine studies it is finally argued that δόξα/δοξάζϵιν in the Fourth Gospel should be understood within the normal narrative sequence.

Noting the conjunction of ‘mercy’ and ‘Israel’ in Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11, this article argues that in both letters ‘Israel’ denotes the Jews. In Galatians 6.16, with an on-going mission to the Jews in view, Paul invokes peace on those who live according to the new creation, and mercy on unbelieving Israel. In Romans 9–11, he draws on both Scripture and his own experience of mercy to revisit the question of Israel's destiny, discerning therein a providential pattern of a divine call that is interrupted by obduracy under the law, and ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

It is half a century since Nils A. Dahl wrote his important essay ‘Die Messianität Jesu bei Paulus’, in which he determines that χριστός in Paul is effectively a proper name, not a title, on the basis of four negative philological observations: it is never a general term; it is never a predicate of the verb ‘to be’; it never takes a genitive modifier; and it characteristically lacks the definite article. The purpose of this article is to reconsider what each of these observations entails about the messiahship of Jesus. My thesis is that, while all four observations are significant for understanding Paul's thought, they do not constitute proper criteria for assessing the role of the messiahship of Jesus therein.

The study commences with the five major ways of dividing the gospels in Christian history, after which the focus falls on the hermeneutical significance of the Old Greek Divisions. The most defining characteristic of the Divisions is their tendency to demarcate chapters on the basis of the miracles and parables of Jesus. In lieu of miracles or parables, major units of Jesus' teaching also determine Old Greek Divisions. The Synoptic passion narratives, and particularly Matthew's, display the greatest precision and organization among the Divisions. Titles of divisions aided in locating specific passages, identified corresponding material in the gospels by the same title, and when read or memorized in sequence offered an overview of the gospel narratives.

Despite this renewed attention, scholars have avoided situating their analyses of this pericope within the major debates about Papias' work. The question of whether Papias employed the methods of Greek rhetoric sits as the most relevant issue for this discussion. Though many scholars champion rhetorical readings of Papias, detractors contend that they overstate his ostensibly technical vocabulary (e.g., τάξις, συντάσσω, χρεία, διάλεκτος, ἑρμηνευτής in Frag. 2). They generally construe these as Papias' colloquial or historical characterizations of Gospel narratives. Whether and how Papias testifies to source-critical concerns for Synoptic studies—such as the Sayings Gospel Q, a proto-Matthew, and the oral transmission of Jesus' life—depends on their interpretation. Opposition primarily disputes the meaning of individual words in the context Papias provides them, so that his rhetorical forms and flourishes remain relatively unscathed from criticism. Papias' death of Judas has never figured into this discussion, but it nonetheless points in favor of a rhetorical backdrop.