The words ⋯ βδελνσσóμενος τ⋯ εἴδωλα ἱεροσνλεῖς; have given constant trouble, as translations show. They appear in a subordinate passage but they deserve attention. The immediate context is clear. It appears that God will punish sinners of every race and culture, but those subject to the Law of Moses will be judged by that Law (Rom 2.12). It is not a nullity. Nevertheless the Judgment will apply a law of conscience to all, including them (Rom 2.15–16).

Der bekannte Satz, da² kein Meister vom Himmel fällt, gilt auch für den Exegeten. Zur Erlernung dieser höchst verwickelten Aufgabe bedarf es eines erfahrenen tüchtigen Lehrers, weicher sprachliche Kenntnisse, hermeneutisches Vestandnis und geschichtskritischen Sinn in gleicher Weise in sich vereinigt. Von Walter Bauer darf man sagen, da² er als historisch kritischer Forscher durch gründliche Werke ausgewiesen ist, vom Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen angefangen bis zu seinem lange Jahre nicht sehr beachteten, aber in letzter Zeit stark diskutiertem Werk über Rechtgliubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum.

In a previous study ‘How Many Cock-Crowings? The Problem of Harmonistic Text-Variants’ I raised the question of ‘harmonistic’ readings in synoptic texts. When dealing with the triple tradition we have been trained at points in a gospel where there are two possible readings, one of which agrees with the other two gospels and one of which does not, to favour the odd man out. In that instance I argued that the byzantine text of Mark with its two crowings had got out of step with Matthew and Luke because of an accidental interpolation into its text, and that the ‘harmonistic’ reading was in fact original. More often, however, the byzantine text of one gospel is suspected of getting into step with the other two through harmonistic changes. But it is unwise to assume this too readily, as may be illustrated from the most notorious example: the case of the rich young man in Matthew 19. 16, 17. This example raises sharply two questions: What is the relation between textual criticism and the synoptic problem? And what place should be given to supposed harmonization in assessing readings?

There are many ways in which the Fourth Gospel can be compared with the Synoptics. One may, for example, set John over against the others as a group. One notes the resemblances, but more especially the contrasts, between John and the others in respect to chronology, geography, miracle, Jesus' discourses, Christology, and so on. Most of these differences are obvious even to the casual reader, and they will be found tabulated in almost any good introduction to the Fourth Gospel.

It is a common notion among modern biblical scholars that Origen doubted Paul's authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This article offers an examination of Origen's writings on this question, and shows that the evidence is wildly misrepresented in contemporary discussions. It does this by beginning with Origen's Letter to Africanus, continuing with an overview of his Hebrews citations across his writing career, and concluding with an analysis of his oft-cited comments in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. This examination shows that while Origen suspects Hebrews’ composition to involve more than Paul alone, his surprisingly consistent testimony is that the epistle is indeed Paul's.

The Gospel of Peter (GP), often claimed to be theologically unsophisticated, offers a theological reflection upon the saving work of the Lord in his resurrection. GP receives the synoptic tradition, which itself has no narration of the resurrection (but only narrations of ‘appearances’), and fills in this lacuna. The narration of the resurrection is patterned upon GP's narration of the crucifixion, thereby suggesting that the resurrection and the crucifixion are two coordinated salvific events. GP's reception of the synoptic tradition is thus not only apologetic or polemical, but also theological.

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.

Die Untersuchung des ‘bildspendenden Bereichs’ des Jungfrauengleichnisses hat gezeigt, dass einzelne Motive des Gleichnisses als Elemente zeitgenössischer Hochzeitsbräuche erklärt werden können: So muss die nächtliche Ankunft des Bräutigams nicht allegorisch auf die Parusieverzögerung gedeutet werden, sondern entspricht dem griechischen Ritus, nach dem der Bräutigam erst spät am Abend die Braut in sein Elternhaus geleitet, nachdem zuvor im Haus der Braut das Hochzeitsmahl gefeiert wurde. Die Jungfrauen könnten Mägde aus dem Haus des Bräutigams sein, die auf die nächtliche Rückkehr ihres Herrn warten und die Brautleute nach ihrer Ankunft mit Gefäßfackeln ins Brautgemach begleiten, bevor die Tür zu demselben verschlossen wird.

This article compares two first-century authors, Paul and Plutarch, on the mechanics of inspiration and the role of gender in the prophetic process. Paul's First Corinthians and Plutarch's Delphic Dialogues (De Pythiae oraculis and De defectu oraculorum) were written by men who were observers of and commentators on the religious phenomenon of prophecy – that is, the communication of divine messages through human speakers. They also make statements about women that indicate that gender influenced their perceptions of prophecy. When these authors discuss prophecy at the conceptual level, gender does not affect their arguments, but when they turn to actual women prophets, they introduce ideas about gender and sex that shape their views of the prophetic process and the women who prophesy.

In his study ‘Du kataluma à la crèche’, NTS 44 (1998) 618–22, J. Winandy argues that Luke 2.7, διoτι oυκ ην αυτoις τoπoς εν τω καταλυματι, does not imply that an innkeeper sent away (for want of room, τoπoς) one about to give birth, but rather that his convivial καταλυμα was inappropriate for the event. The argument attracts. But Winandy's seven examples of τo[pi]oς do not have this meaning. Each takes τo[pi]oς in the sense of ‘the place where one would expect to find something’. To[pi]oς can indeed mean ‘the appropriate place’ (LXX Job 18.22; Eccles 1.5; 10.4), ‘home’ (LXX 2 Chron 25.10; Job 27.21, 23; Isa 14.2; Jer 4.7), or even a temporary abode (LXX Esdras 1.4). But Luke's allusion eluded Winandy, as it does many of his readers. Isa 66 figures in early Christian apologetic. Matthew's Magi can be found there. Isa 66.19 appears as a parallel to Luke 2.34, and Luke 22.68 recalls Isa 66.4.

Interpreters of Paul's letter to the Philippians continue to struggle to understand the place of Paul's promise to send Timothy (Phil 2.19–24) in the overall rhetoric of the letter. However, if one reads Philippians as a letter of consolation the problems associated with this text can be solved. In particular, it becomes evident that the imprisoned and possibly soon-to-be-executed Paul offers Timothy to his anxious readers as his replacement, as another Paul or alius Paulus, according to the topos ‘consolation by means of a replacement’ for which there are many pertinent ancient parallels. This reading also explains why Paul describes Timothy as his ‘child’ (τεκνον) in the gospel ministry – children were often seen as replacements for dead parents – and why he insists that Timothy is ‘of like soul/mind’ (ισοψυχον) to himself.

In 1 Clement 32–33, Romans 5–6 is alluded to in a summary statement concerning justification by faith (32.4), followed by two rhetorical questions that stress the ethical implications of this confession (33.1). These allusions to Romans are punctuated by an appeal for readers to imitate the pattern of good works established by God during creation (33.2-8). This article contends that the difference between Romans 5–6 and one of the earliest Christian readings of these chapters is not accidental, for the ethical appeal in 1 Clement 33 reflects the author's distinct cosmological perspective and rhetorical aims.

Commentators regularly note the alleged tension in John 15 between ‘friendship’ and ‘obedience’. This article employs numismatic inscriptional evidence to explore the ΦΙΛ- lexeme and more carefully denote the semantic domains of relevant terminology. This analysis confirms that no such tension exists within the socio-political context in which the Gospel was written. The inclusion of specific political terminology on Roman coins (for example, ΦΙΛΙΑ; ΦΙΛΟΚΑΙΣΑΡ; ΦΙΛΟΚΛΑΥΔΙΟΣ; ΦΙΛΟΡΩΜΑΙΟΣ; ΦΙΛΟΣΕΒΑΣΤΩΝ) was one way in which elite concepts of political friendship, evidenced in Cicero and Seneca, were communicated to the masses. In light of the numismatic evidence, the ΦΙΛ- lexeme can refer not only to the emotional bond of friendship, but also the dimension of obligation.

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.

While the locus classicus for early Christian arguments concerning resurrection of the flesh is Paul's first Corinthian letter, the statement in 15.50 that ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’ complicates early Christian understandings of resurrection and its form. Such explicit denial of fleshly inheritance and resurrection within Paul's writings leads to widely conflicting interpretations of this Corinthian passage. Consequently, early Christian writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian and Augustine engaged other New Testament texts such as John 11 in order to subvert the claim of 1 Cor 15.50 and develop their argument for fleshly resurrection.

The unresolved difficulty of Acts 18.12–17 involves finding an adequate explanation for the (seemingly) unprovoked hostile reaction of the crowd toward Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. This investigation places this incident within the larger social context of urban uprisings and mob violence in the Roman world in order to highlight the socio-economic factors (poverty, overcrowding, etc.) that inevitably gave rise to such frequent outbursts of urban aggression during this period. As such, this study illumines not only Acts 18, but other passages in Acts where mob violence plays a leading role.

Whenever a blast of turbulence falls upon the assembly … we find jibes and brawling and laughter.

Dio Chrysostom

This article reads Acts 27–28.10 as an ‘aquatic display’ that offers Christ-believers a spectacle of navigating the stormy imperial world. It argues that Pliny's Panegyricus similarly employs aquatic displays to instruct in negotiating the emperor Trajan's power. It identifies four means in Acts 27 that assert Rome's power – judicial, military, economic, and the sea as a contested site where the sovereignties of God and Rome compete and cooperate – and which Christ-believers must negotiate by various means including submission, awareness of danger, courage, social interaction, agency, contribution to well-being, and discernment of and contestive allegiance to God's greater sovereignty.

Das von Paulus in Phil 1.23 angesprochene ‘mit Christus Sein’ beschreibt eine unmittelbar postmortale, jenseitige Christusgemeinschaft, die im Vergleich mit sonstigen Aussagen des Paulus zur Totenerweckung erst bei der endzeitlichen Parusie Christi auffällig wird. Daraus ergibt sich die Frage, auf welchem religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund Paulus bzw. seine Leserinnen und Leser diese Vorstellung erfassen konnten. Die hellenistische Literatur bietet dabei lediglich Sprachparallelen (abwägender Vergleich von Leben und Tod) sowie gewisse formale (Synkrisis) und inhaltliche (Suizid-Diskussion der Antike) Analogien; es bleiben weite Differenzen bestehen. Ertragreicher erweist sich die Suche in Texten des Frühjudentums, deren Aussagen sich in drei Theorien bündeln lassen: Das Vorbild der Märtyrer bzw. der ‘Gerechten’ als sogleich mit dem Tod zu Gott erhobenen Gruppen wird verschiedentlich in der Forschung vertreten, eine Orientierung an den Vätern Israels wird als Alternative dazu im vorliegenden Aufsatz neu entwickelt, so dass die Denkmöglichkeit der paulinischen Aussage plausibel gemacht werden kann. Dies mündet in eine pragmatische Analyse der spezifischen Aussagegestalt von Phil 1.18b–26, die den Text hinsichtlich einer potentiellen und intendierten Wirkung auf die Adressatinnen und Adressaten deutet.

Since Joachim Jeremias' Jesu Verheissung für die Völker (1956) it has often been assumed that in Matt 8.11–12 Jesus looked forward to the inclusion of gentiles into the kingdom at the eschaton. However, several recent studies, most notably by Dale C. Allison, have called this view into question and have instead advocated that the logion refers to the regathering of the Diaspora. The purpose of this study is to evaluate Allison's arguments and to propose that a gentile reference is implicit in the logion based on: (1) the broader context of the inter-textual echoes of passages concerning the regathering of Jewish exiles; and (2) a wider ethnic membership for those who participate in the patriarchal banquet based on the reference to ‘Abraham’. Furthermore, the logion is interpreted in the historical Jesus' ministry through the lens of a partially realized eschatology. As such the saying represents Jesus' contention that Israel's restoration was already becoming a reality and that gentiles were already entering the kingdom as an embryonic foretaste of their inclusion at the eschaton.