Dass der Menschensohn in der Vision des Stephanus (Apg 7.55–56) zur Rechten Gottes steht, scheint für frühe Rezipienten und Tradenten nicht im Widerspruch zu dem aus Ps 110.1 gewonnenen Christologoumenon der ‘sessio ad dexteram’ gestanden zu haben: Der textkritische Befund ist völlig unauffällig. Die ‘statio ad dexteram’ in Apg 7.55–56 konnte wohl als bewusste Verfremdung der ‘sessio’ aufgefasst werden, mit deren Hilfe das Motiv der Throngemeinschaft um ein märtyrerchristologisches Moment erweitert werden sollte. Der, den Stephanus sieht, ist durch sein Stehen gekennzeichnet als der Menschensohn, der ihm ins Martyrium vorausgegangen ist und von Gott zu sich erhöht worden ist.

Scholars have proposed various explanations for Paul's metaphor of a spectacle (θεατρον) in 1 Cor 4.9 – a Roman triumphal procession, a gladiatorial show, and more recently, a mime performance. Although scholars have presented substantial arguments in favour of their identifications, the details in the text do not totally resonate with any of the proposals. Rather, this article will advance a refined identification of Paul's metaphor that better agrees with the particulars of 4.9 and its context: the Roman spectacle of executing condemned criminals (noxii) within the arena, which was a significant social event in Roman society.

For the past forty years NT scholars have been divided over the text of 1 Cor 11.2–16. Some see this pericope as addressing the issue of head coverings, while others see the issue as one of hairstyles. Although Stefan Lösch was the first to advocate the case for long flowing hairstyles, credit for starting this enduring controversy must be given to Abel Isaksson. This article investigates Isaksson's claim for the hairstyle thesis and concludes that a study of the verb κατακαλυπτω will permit a translation only of textile head coverings.

The passage Gal 3.10–12, well embedded into its context, is important with regard to the doctrine of justification; however, it is a crux interpretum. This essay tries to settle the problems by paying attention to the quotations from the scriptures in v. 10b (see Dtn 27.6), v. 11b (see Hab 2.4) and v. 12 (cf. Lev 18.5), in which the emphasis on individual regulations of the Torah is striking (vv. 10b, 12); the particles which twice (vv. 10b–11a; vv. 11b–12) form a ‘for …, but …’ are also taken into consideration. This leads to the thesis of two syllogisms linked to each other: vv. 10a–11a (Barbara) and vv. 11a–12 (Camestres). The quotations from the scriptures here supply three arguments, and v. 11a, the propositio of vv. 11a–12, is (as praemissa of v. 10a–11a) the fourth. The objective of the argumentation is v. 10a.

This article argues that Paul's prophetic self-understanding is a fruitful starting point for understanding the elements of continuity and discontinuity between his Pharisaic past and the theology found in his letters. It is argued that Paul understood the majority of his fellow Jews, including himself as Pharisee, as apostates from the God of Israel. Paul's Damascus experience represents his coming to God. This perspective helps explain the problem passage in Gal 3.10–12. Paul reads Deut 27.26 and Lev 18.5 in light of the prophetic tradition, where these passages were seen as the warrant for God's judgment on Israel because of her apostasy.

A consistent feature of the argument of Hebrews is the claim that Christ offered himself ‘once for all’, which the author develops with the qualitative distinction between the one and the many priests (7.23–28) and sacrifices (9.23–10.18). In placing this distinction of the one and the many within the metaphysical dualism of the two spheres of reality, the author reflects assumptions that are also present in the claim of both Philo and Plutarch that the deity is above the principle of multiplicity (Philo Spec. III.180; Abr. 122; Leg. II.2; Deus 82; Plutarch E. Delph. 393e).

Because of the uniformity of the text, NT papyri are well suited to codicological reconstruction. If there are two or more pieces of papyrus from the same codex, sound reconstructions are often possible. But good methodology will account for the fibre orientation of the fragments. Flawed conclusions are the inevitable result of neglecting such analysis. Skeat erred in this direction as regards [prod ]64+67 and [prod ]4. Nevertheless, his contribution in the area was substantial and enduring. It only remains for scholars to appreciate the insights that codicology can bring to the study of the NT text.