The first text in the Akhmîm codex discovered in Upper Egypt in 1886–87 was confidently identified as the Gospel of Peter, mentioned by Eusebius in his description of the activities of the second-century bishop Serapion. Although the Akhmîm text is dated palaeographically between the seventh and ninth centuries, it is seen as being a witness to a text that dates from at least as early as the second century. This position appeared to have been strengthened by the identification of a number of early papyrus fragments as belonging to the Gospel of Peter. This paper calls into question such identifications, and consequently suggests caution should be exercised before too quickly making the conclusion that the text from Akhmîm is to be identified with the second-century Gospel of Peter.

Those who have identified the specific charges of the judicial proceedings in Thessalonica according to Acts 17.6–9 have generally taken one of two routes. The traditional view is that Paul and Silas were accused of treason (maiestas). Just over three decades ago, however, E. A. Judge put forth an alternative hypothesis that the decrees of Caesar in Acts 17.7 referred to imperial laws against predicting the change of ruler. After challenging these two explanations, this essay puts forward a fresh proposal – that both the charges and the seizure of payment in this judicial episode relate to the imperial laws repressing Graeco-Roman voluntary associations.

The narrative of Acts has often been mined for historical information about the monetary collection that Paul raised among the Gentile churches of his mission for the saints in Jerusalem. Most scholars have assumed that Acts refers to the Pauline collection, either in 11.27–30 or 24.17. Against this consensus, this paper contends that the narrative of Acts, when read on its own terms and without the imposition of information from the Pauline epistles, neither mentions nor alludes to Paul's collection for Jerusalem. In its narrative context, Acts 24.17, far from being a reference to the collection, identifies Paul before his accusers as a faithful Jew whose individual piety is demonstrated by almsgiving and worship. Information from the book of Acts, therefore, cannot be used to write the final chapter of the historical reconstruction of the Pauline collection.

Baptism in the Corinthian church was an expression of allegiance to honour not only Christ but also the ‘patron’ apostle in whose testimony the convert had believed (1 Cor 1.12–17). Some apostles known to the Corinthians had died (cf. 15.6), yet their testimony lived on and bore fruit in Corinth, resulting in baptism for the honouring of the dead apostles. In the context of 15.20–34 Paul uses this practice to expose the hypocrisy of those who deny the resurrection and yet seek to honour apostles who depend on the resurrection for receiving honour, as do Christ and God the Father.

When interpreted in its context in the argument of Galatians, Gal 2.20 is an important part of Paul's discussion of justification by faith. It functions as a depiction of justification apart from any consideration of Jew or Gentile status. This conclusion is based on an examination of the flow of Gal 2.15–21, a consideration of 2.15–21 in its larger context, and a study of 2.20 itself. This role of Gal 2.20 has frequently been overlooked due to inherent difficulties in interpreting the passage and to specific features about the way scholars have interpreted the verse and the larger passage.

Galatians 4.21-31 opens with a brief allusion to events recounted in Genesis 16-17, to which Paul aptly appends the following comment: ατινα εστιν αλληγορουμενα (4.24). Through a re-evaluation of the meaning of the verb αλληγορεω in the context of Hellenistic rhetoric and by setting Paul's own hermeneutic in the context of Jewish hermeneutical norms of the first century, this paper argues that Paul's allegory of the two covenants is more reflective of Jewish reading practices which sought to eschatologize the Torah, such as Paul's reading of Gen 16.1 through its haftarah, Isa 54.1, rather than Christian typology.

L'épître de Jacques montre clairement comment la vie chrétienne doit et peut être sage. À partir d'une perspective enracinée dans le Premier Testament, mais tout à fait renovée par l'incarnation du Fils de Dieu, Jacques donne un fresque des caractères fondamentaux de la vie selon l'évangile de Jésus Christ. La perspective sapientielle paraît la clef de lecture du portrait de l'existence humaine offert par cette épître du Nouveau Testament. Jacques présente la sagesse de Jésus sans offrir des considerations elévées sous un point de vue strictement intellectuel ou esthétique. Il invite ses lecteurs à un choix éthique directe. Savoir pour aimer, aimer pour savoir: celui-ci est le sens de la vie chrétienne selon Jacques.

In the story of the rich man and the poor Lazarus in Luke 16, the usual translation of v. 22 is: ‘The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham’, or ‘he was carried by the angels to the bosom of Abraham’ (εγενετο δε αποθανειν τον πτωχον και απενεχθηναι αυτον υπο των αγγελων εις τον κολπον Αβρααμ). None of the dozens of existing translations of Luke and commentaries on his Gospel that I have consulted offer anything other than this. There is nothing wrong with this translation, except that the verb used here for carrying away, αποϕερειν, can have a semantic aspect that is not captured in this rendering, an aspect which I strongly suspect is present here. I submit as a translation of the verse the following free rendition: ‘The poor man died and the angels carried him away to the bosom of Abraham, the place where he belonged (or: his well-deserved place)’.