The last chapter of the gospel of Luke includes a story of the risen Christ meeting two of his disciples on their way from Jerusalem to the village of Emmaus and chastising them with the poetic expression ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ ‘O foolish ones, and slow in heart’ (Luke 24.25). No commentator has ever observed that Jesus' expression occurs verbatim, in the same iambic trimeter metre, in two poetic versions of animal fables attributed to the famous Greek fabulist Aesop. It is plausible that Luke is here, as at least twice elsewhere in his gospel, tapping into the rich tradition of Aesopic fables and proverbs that were widely known throughout the Mediterranean world in the first century ce.

The goal of this essay is to reopen the unfortunately unrefined but still illuminating proposal of August Dell a century ago – a proposal to read the motif of ‘bind and unbind’ in Matt 16.19 against the backdrop of ancient magical conventions – and to corroborate this hypothesis with philological precision and contextualisation. The present study seeks to demonstrate how central the motif of ‘bind and unbind’ was to most binding spells and amulets, and how the verbs λύειν and δέειν and their cognates might have evoked the conventions of binding magic when heard in religious and ritual contexts. We see Matt 16.19 as a literary reappropriation of a typical binding spell, crafted to highlight Peter's authority to ‘bind’ and ‘break’ whatever entities he should choose. Jesus' guarantee that he/God will ‘unbind’ whatever target Peter ‘unties' is to be understood as a clear indication that Peter is endowed with an invincible potency over every other spiritual entity, symbolised by the power to break any ‘binding’ spell. The security of the church against malevolent and harmful spiritual entities is further guaranteed by Christ's promise, if read in ancient binding magical conventions: Christ will give Peter the key of the kingdom of heaven so that Peter as the key-bearer may become a figure who can channel the full potency of the keyed object.

The mainstream approaches to the Synoptic Problem all agree: there are no extant instances of Q. The shape of ‘Q’ changes, however, if, as proposed in the companion article, ‘Streeter's “Other” Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis’, Matthew sometimes conflates Luke with Luke's own source. Where this happens Luke's source qualifies as an instance of ‘Q’ – inasmuch as it preserves sayings of Jesus used, ultimately, by both Luke and Matthew. This fresh conception of ‘Q’ opens up the possibility that examples of ‘Q’ are, after all, available. An extant text meeting this description is Didache 1.2–5a.

At first glance, the apostles and the other messengers of the Gospel appear to be the protagonists in the plot of Acts. However, seen within the context of Greco-Roman modes of characterisation, their roles prove to be a subtle reference to the divine guidance. An analysis of how Peter, Paul and the other witnesses enter and leave the narrative stage, how they interact and how their appearance is depicted leads to the insight that their roles are meant to be relative, functional and transparent. They thus refer to the Risen Lord as the real protagonist of Acts.

In the discipline of New Testament studies there are particular reasons for critical vigilance concerning the ways in which historical reconstructions can be shaped by a sense of both religious and ethnic or racial superiority. This risk applies specifically to the contrasting depictions of Judaism and Christianity, and it is notable that, despite the changing phases of scholarship, the tendency to replicate a dichotomy between an ethnically particular Judaism and a universal, open, trans-ethnic Christianity persists. As one facet of a critical consideration of this dichotomy, this essay considers two specific texts that contribute to the ethnicisation of early Christian identity: 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Peter 3. In the former, Paul develops two principles that are significant in the ethnicisation process: endogamy as norm for the contraction of marriage (1 Cor 7.39) and the assumption that children with a Christian parent (even in a so-called ‘mixed marriage’) are part of the Christian community (1 Cor 7.14). The later household codes further develop this idea that the household is a place for the reproduction and generation of Christian identity. In 1 Pet 3.1–6, part of the letter's household code where mixed marriage is again an issue, two features of the text are of particular interest: its focus on a ‘way of life’ (ἀναστροφή) and the connections drawn between conduct and ancestry. In both of these respects, 1 Peter seems to be constructing a form of group-identity that shares features in common with Jewish notions of group-belonging in the period. The ‘ethnicising’ features of these texts raise questions about any categorical contrast between Jewish ethnicity and Christian inclusive trans-ethnicity. Why then is such a depiction of the Christian achievement – which in many ways parallels depictions of modern Western political liberalism – so enduring and appealing within the discipline? It is suggested that the answer must be sought in the religious and ethnic or racial location of that scholarly tradition.

Around the turn of the fifth century Rufinus of Aquileia translated many important Greek theological works, especially by Origen and Eusebius. These translations have received a great deal of criticism for their lack of fidelity to their Vorlagen, a criticism that extends to their statements on the New Testament canon. Several scholars now assume that the list of New Testament books to be found in Origen's Homilies on Joshua 7.1 (available only in Rufinus' Latin translation) should be attributed to the translator rather than to Origen himself. This paper calls this assumption into question by comparing Eusebius’ statements on the books of the New Testament to Rufinus' translation of those statements. We will find that Rufinus does, in fact, alter his text in some subtle ways so that the statements on the canon correspond more closely to the increasingly stabilised canon of the late-fourth and early-fifth centuries, but such subtle alterations do not overturn the translator's basic fidelity when reporting earlier views. This analysis suggests that Origen did produce a list of books in the mid-third century that closely – though not exactly – resembled the list of New Testament books published by Athanasius in 367.

Scholars rarely appeal to Gal 5.5–6 in the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate. However, two points show the relevance of these verses to the discussion: (1) in 5.1–6 Paul picks up the contrast between πίστις and νόμος he developed in chs. 2–3 so that πίστις in 5.5–6 is equivalent to πίστις Χριστοῦ in the earlier chapters, and (2) πίστις in vv. 5–6 is human faith because it works through human love. Gal 5.5–6 therefore supports the position that πίστις Χριστοῦ is an objective genitive meaning faith in Christ.

Following the introduction of a ‘Quaestiones Disputatae’ session at the 69th General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in Szeged, Hungary in 2014, a second such session was held at the 70th General Meeting at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam on 29 July 2015. The theme was proposed by the President of the Society, Prof. Judith Lieu.