The article addresses the question ‘What is “New Testament Study”?’, considering as possible alternatives ‘Theology’ or ‘Religious Studies’. The issue may be critically determined by who is doing the study, and in what context; but in the context of the SNTS, it is argued that a non-confessional approach is more appropriate today. Part of the distinction between the two approaches may lie in one's attitude to non-canonical literature. In the second part of the article the question is raised as to what difference study of non-canonical texts might make in understanding the NT documents. Examples of the passion narrative in Q, and beliefs about the resurrection of the body (by Paul and other early Christians), are examined. Such issues raise questions about the NT canon, which are briefly addressed in a final section.

One facet of group identity is the construction and description of ‘the outsider’. A key dimension of this is the way outsiders are labelled. οἱ ἄπιστοι and τὰ ἔθνη, two outsider-designations used in Pauline texts, are examined here to determine what their use and function indicate about group identity. In these cases, we see the creation of a new designation and linguistic innovation in the way a designation is used, which includes the alteration of the referent of an established term. Defining and understanding ‘the outsider’, grappling with how to represent outsiders to ‘ourselves’ and negotiating across group boundaries were key undertakings that led to linguistic creativity, change and transformation. That such linguistic creativity can be seen as going on ‘at the boundary’, to create and define the boundaries of the movement, shows how important such boundaries were.

This article discusses briefly a category of New Testament manuscripts with ‘hermeneiai’ before offering a critical edition of P.CtYBR inv. 4641, a Coptic codex leaf containing portions of the text of John that was recently discovered by the present author in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. Unidentified until now, this codex leaf represents the first known example of a hermeneia manuscript of John written solely in Coptic. As such, the Yale fragment has much significance for discussions about the ἑρμηνεία manuscripts, their origin, influences and functions.

In several studies of Galatians, J. Louis Martyn has argued that in the allegory of Hagar and Sarah (4.1–5.1), the ‘two covenants’ of 4.24b, traditionally identified with Judaism and Christianity respectively, refer, on the one hand, to a Christian Jewish Law-observant Gentile mission, Teachers from whom are disturbing Paul's Galatian converts, and to the Law-free Gentile mission promulgated by Paul, on the other. In the light, particularly, of Paul's overall usage of ‘covenant’, Martyn's interpretation is not sustainable – though this need not imply a return to an anti-Jewish interpretation of the text.

This article investigates the relationship of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in the letter to the Romans. God is presented as the guarantor of a moral structure, who judges people in symmetrical fashion. However, in Christ God goes beyond the commonsensical in a counter-intuitive initiative to overcome ‘bad’ through ‘good’. The Christ believers are admonished to imitate this approach (12.21). Still, the authorities are respected as divine agents, who imitate God's abiding concern for symmetrical judgement. Paul's major concern in Romans 13.1–7 is reassurance: the believers' higher paradigm of love is compatible with the demands of political authority, which is unambiguously ‘good’ for them (13.4).

In 1 Cor 1.12 Paul summarises a report he has received about divisions in the Corinthian congregation and attributes four so-called slogans to the Corinthians: ‘I am of Paul; I am of Apollos; I am of Cephas; I am of Christ’. Exegetes have puzzled especially over the final slogan, ‘I am of Christ’. This paper argues that this phrase was written as Paul's own claim against the divided Corinthians and belongs to no sectarian ‘Christ-group’. I attempt to demonstrate that this reading is grammatically possible, contextually consistent and therefore exegetically preferable.

This article argues that the double negative form of the ‘disclosure formula’ in 2 Cor 1.8 (οὐ … θέλομεν ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν) is not merely a stylistic variation on θέλομεν ὑμᾶς γινώσκειν but performs the additional rhetorical function of disavowing any attempt on Paul's part to hide the story of his sufferings from the church in Corinth. The transition from 1.8–11 to 1.12–14 (which many commentators struggle to explain) thus becomes a smooth and obvious one, suggesting a close interconnection between Paul's defence of his transparency and integrity in 1.12–2.13 and his apology for his sufferings in 2.14–7.4.

The inscribed thigh of the rider on the white horse in Rev 19.16 is an allusion to an MT – like Gen 49.10b text. The phrase ‘inscribed on his thigh’ was a legitimate translation of the words found in Gen 49.10b at the time of the composition of Revelation.