The literary mindset (‘default setting’) of modern Western culture prevents those trained in that culture from recognizing that oral cultures operate differently. The classic solution to the Synoptic problem, and the chief alternatives, have envisaged the relationships between the Gospel traditions in almost exclusively literary terms. But the earliest phase of transmission of the Jesus tradition was without doubt predominantly by word of mouth. And recent studies of oral cultures provide several characteristic features of oral tradition. Much of the Synoptic tradition, even in its present form, reflects in particular the combination of stability and flexibility so characteristic of the performances of oral tradition. Re-envisaging the early transmission of the Jesus tradition therefore requires us to recognize that the literary paradigm (including a clearly delineated Q document) is too restrictive in the range of possible explanations it offers for the diverse/divergent character of Synoptic parallels. Variation in detail may simply attest the character of oral performance rather than constituting evidence of literary redaction.

This paper addresses certain aspects of the opening passage of Revelation which have received little attention in recent years: the central role ascribed to John and the multiple characterisations of his work. These aspects are analysed in the context of the metatextual character of the passage. Moreover, these verses probably were not composed by the author himself, but rather by an editor/redactor who belonged to the Johannine circle, as can be shown through linguistic data and thematic analogies. The editor authorises John's work and thereby the critical view towards the Empire contained in the book itself – an attitude which stands in opposition to the one commonly adopted by Christians at the time.

Andrew Overman, Anthony Saldarini and David Sim overstate their case when they conclude that the religion of the Matthean community was not Christianity but Judaism. The appeal to 5.17ff. and the exclusivist sayings will not bear the weight of the hypothesis. There is far too much newness in Matthew and the differences with Judaism are too great to conclude that Matthew exhibits mere ‘deviance’ from other Jewish groups. The ‘new things’ involve a radical reorientation of previous perspectives wherein Christ takes central place previously held by Torah. Matthew's community is thus best described as a Jewish form of Christianity.

The case against Q depends logically on the plausibility of Luke's direct use of Matthew. Goodacre's carefully argued book contends (a) that none of the objections to the Mark-without-Q hypothesis is valid; (b) that given certain assumptions about Luke's aesthetic preferences, it is plausible that he systematically reordered the ‘Q’ material from Matthew; (c) that Luke's rearrangement of Matthew shows as much intelligence and purposefulness as Matthew's; and (d) that certain features of the ‘Q’ in Luke 3–7 betray the influence of Matthean redaction. Careful scrutiny of these arguments shows that (a) is only partially true; that Goodacre's assumptions about Lukan aesthetics (b) are open to serious objection; and that while (c) is true, Goodacre's argument in (d) ultimately cuts against his case against Q.

The majority of commentators contend that αυτοπται και υπηρεται (‘eyewitnesses and ministers’) in Luke 1:2b refers to the followers of Jesus who later become identified in Acts as his apostles and other key witnesses such as Stephen, Philip, and Paul. This essay challenges the majority opinion in arguing that numerous parallels between the characters in the infancy narrative and the disciples as portrayed in Luke 24 and Acts signal the evangelist's intent to present the faithful heralds of John's and Jesus' birth in Luke 1–2 as among those who are ‘eye-witnesses and ministers of the word’.

At least for Jewish audiences, the meaning of the parable of the undeserving servant (Luke 17.7–10) is clear enough: slaves can claim no credit for doing what they have been ‘commanded’ (the redoubled τα διαταχθεντα of vv. 9–10). Both the passive voice and parallels from Jewish literature indicate that ‘Master’ and ‘slave’ are ciphers for God and the pious. Mishnah 'Abot 1.3, for example, is widely cited: ‘Do not be like slaves who serve the Master for the sake of reward, but be as slaves who serve the Master other than for reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.’ J. D. M. Derrett has adduced a wealth of material documenting master–slave relations in Judaism as they relate to the circumstances depicted in the text.