In Romans 4 Paul turns to the scriptural figure of Abraham, a vivid personification of faith and obedience in Jewish thought. While the most obvious reason for Paul's depiction of Abraham is to undermine any use of Abraham as a counterexample to his foregoing argument, Paul turns the common Jewish conception of Abraham on its head and offers him instead as positive support for his own position. The nature of Paul's argument in the previous two chapters of Romans has been identified by James Dunn and others as rejecting the Jewish assumption that covenant privileges are strictly associated with ethnic Israel and therefore unavailable to Gentiles. Over against the Torah, Paul has instead offered faith as the identifier or boundary marker of those who are members in God's people – a difference which allows Gentiles full participation in the covenant.

Matthew and Luke sometimes write versions of Marcan pericopae in which they make initial changes, only to lapse into the thought or wording of the original. Clear examples are Matt 14.1–12 ∥Mark 6.14–29 (Death of John); Matt 8.1–4 ∥ Mark 1.40–5 (Leper); Matt 12.46–50 ∥ Mark 3.31–5 (Mother and Brothers); Luke 8.4–15 ∥ Mark 4.1–20 (Sower); Luke 5.17–26 ∥ Mark 2.1–12 (Paralytic) and Luke 9.10–17 ∥ Mark 6.30–44 (Five Thousand), all of which make good sense on the theory of Marcan Priority. ‘Fatigue’ may also suggest a solution to the problem of double tradition material: Luke 9.1–6 (cf. Matt 10.5–15, Mission Charge) and Luke 19.11–27 ∥ Matt 25.14–30 (Talents) both make good sense on the theory of Luke’s use of Matthew.

By means of his reception of Paul and Genesis, the author of 1 Timothy created a social space in which the autonomy of women, including control of their own bodies, is severely limited. The purpose of such discourse was to oppose Marcion's rejection of marriage and procreation. The letter thus advocates marriage as a virtual requirement for all Christians, especially ‘the younger widows’, who were probably virgins. Instead of propagating teaching and practices opposed by the author, these women ought to marry, bear children, and keep silent. The author shares certain values with elite Greeks, such as Plutarch, and with the Christian teacher Valentinus. Besides Marcion, the author also criticizes early gnostic teaching of the type found in the Secret Book according to John.

Revisionists have argued that no empire-wide persecution of Christians occurred in the late first century and that Domitian was neither a persecutor of Christians nor an evil, incompetent ruler. This essay agrees with those points but also argues that a closer examination of extant Roman and Christian late first/early second century writers demonstrates that Christians were held in low esteem and suffered in Roman society because of their religious convictions. This study argues that Revelation was a Christian response to religio-political pressures by indigenous Asian pagans upon Christians to conform to traditional social practices in Roman Asia.

J. Louis Martyn and others have argued that a decision by late first-century rabbis to introduce a liturgical curse against heretics (Birkat Ha-Minim) provides the background for early Christian passages about Christians being excluded from and cursed in synagogues. More recent scholars, however, have challenged the assumption that the earliest form of Birkat Ha-Minim referred to Christians and that the rabbis controlled the synagogues. The present article defends the basics of Martyn's reconstruction while nuancing the extent of rabbinic control in the early Christian centuries. It also suggests, however, that the original of Birkat Ha-Minim may have been a Qumranian curse on the Romans.

What can we know about the ‘School of Paul’ if we analyse the letter to the Colossians? This question is divided into three parts: how and why was the letter written, and what theological answers are given? Colossians depends mainly on the oral tradition of Paul. With Paul's words but in new contexts the authors try to overcome the depressed situation of the communities after Paul's death. Like Paul, the authors of Colossians refer to Wisdom traditions, but in a more conservative manner. Their dependence on and independence from Paul's speech and thinking reveal the ‘School of Paul’ as an ongoing context for discussion.

Die lukanische Darstellung der Jerusalemer Gemeinde ist von vielerlei Einflüssen geprägt. Unbeachtet blieben bisher Elemente, die sich auch und vor allem im antiken Vereinswesen finden: familienähnliche Beziehungen, das Freundschaftsideal, die Gütergemeinschaft als Wohltäterschaft einzelner, die zentrale Bedeutung von Mahlfeiern, die Versammlung in Privaträumen, die hierarchische Struktur sowie eine grundsätzliche egalitäre Ausrichtung. Diese Parallelen, aber auch die Differenzen im Blick etwa auf die Bedeutung von Status und den uneingeschränkten Zugang zur christlichen Gemeinde, lassen das Profil der lukanischen Darstellung geschärft hervortreten: Lukas wollte eine neue Form von Gemeinschaft, die antike Ideale verwirklicht und übersteigt.

There has been a tendency among some exegetes to treat 2 Cor 8.1–15 as ‘merely’ an administrative and financial issue. Often this conclusion is based on Paul's use of ἐπιτελέω which, they argue, draws on the language of business and government. However, the distinction between ‘administrative’ and ‘religious’ is improper; one of the primary ways of demonstrating piety in antiquity was by the giving of money to a god. There is much inscriptional evidence for the use of ἐπιτελέω in contexts of religious duty.1 Given the social context of Paul and the Corinthians, these inscriptions provide helpful background for the way in which Paul's injunction to give generously would have been heard and understood.2

The presence of traditions in Pauline letters has long been recognized in the case of Old Testament quotations. However, when the concept of tradition is broadened to include other types of material, the issue becomes more complex and requires that some attention be given to several preliminary matters. In a word it is necessary to define the term and to establish the adequacy of the tools and criteria by which traditions are identified.

As it is used here, ‘tradition’ means more than a prior idea or story floating in the memory of the Apostle, of his co-traditioners or of the amanuenses and co-senders of the letters. It is, more concretely, a specific item in a traditioning process that was formed and in oral or written usage before Paul incorporated it into his letter. But can it be established that Paul utilized tradition in this narrower sense of the word?

Critics who posit the ‘gospels for all Christians’ theory contend that gospels reflect neither the history nor the concerns of the communities within which they were produced. Despite advocacy for the theory from an increasing number of scholars, others continue to reconstruct diverse gospel communities. There is some common ground between the two sides of the debate: the majority of scholars from both perspectives agree that gospels were composed within communal settings. If we take this agreement as our starting point and investigate communal writing practices in antiquity, we might productively forge an agreeable method for determining the scope of intended gospel audiences. This study analyzes the collective process of writing in ancient associations, now regarded as analogous in many ways to early Christ-groups. In doing so, a framework is provided for understanding how and to whom gospels produced in Christ-groups might have been composed. The study finds the ‘all Christians’ theory inconsistent with communal practices of writing.

This article endeavours to look at the Jerusalem collection from a fresh perspective by examining the language of κοινωνία Paul employs to describe the project in Romans 15.26 and in 2 Corinthians 8.4 and 9.13. After adducing oft-neglected literary and documentary evidence, this essay argues that Paul's audience must have understood κοινωνία to bear significant political and socio-economic implications. This article concludes that the collection was aimed at establishing a new order of socio-economic equality and solidarity among the emergent Christ-believing communities, at both a local and global level, and across socio-cultural and ethnic divides.

The redactional pericope in Matt 7.21–23, in which Jesus the final judge condemns certain false Christians, can and should be viewed as an anti-Pauline text. Those rejected by the Matthean Jesus are none other than Paul and those of his circle. This identification is indicated not only by their description as workers of lawlessness, but also by their defence that they are true Christians because they prophesy, work miracles and perform exorcisms in the name of Jesus. These charismatic activities were clearly associated with Paul and/or his churches.

Writing more than fifty years ago Ernst Lohmeyer said of Phil 2. 5–11, ‘Dieser Abschnitt gehört zu den schwierigsten Abschnitten der paulinischen Briefe.’ The passing years have only served to confirm his judgment, and in fact Lohmeyer himself did much to shape the terms of reference for the subsequent investigation of this complex passage by his emphasis on its poetic structure, its traditional character, and its conceptual background. Perhaps the most important trend to emerge in the scholarly research of this passage in the last two decades has been the attention given to whether Phil 2. 6–1 1, the supposed poetic piece in the passage, presupposes or contains a reference to the pre-existence of Christ. Up until the 1960s it was generally assumed that the passage referred to Christ's heavenly pre-existence, and thus R. H. Fuller writing in 1965 could declare the occasional attempts at eliminating the idea of pre-existence from the passage a failure. In light of a series of important investigations which have appeared since then, Fuller's pronouncement can no longer be affirmed unreservedly. The momentum of research may in fact be in the opposite direction. J. Murphy-O'Connor, for example, claims that ‘the notion of pre-existence is only part of the Vorverständnis with which exegetes approach the hymn’ rather than a conclusion derived from the careful investigation of the passage and its backgrounds.

The route of Paul's first journey between Perga and Pisidian Antioch is still disputed. This article examines the three alternatives proposed by scholars. It explores the geographical and historical evidence for each route, looking especially at the extensive road system that existed in Pamphylia, Pisidia, and south Galatia in the first century. Bible atlases routinely depict one route and the reasons for this choice are discussed. Based on a review of the evidence, a fresh hypothesis for the route of the first journey is suggested.

While allowing for polysemy, scholars seem mostly averse to ambiguity, as in the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate; but, it would seem, without engaging with ancient semantic theory. There the model of ‘naming’ and so of evoking an otherwise unspecified mental impression, predominates. Meaning is taken to lie in the mind, not in the word or words that are hoped to evoke it, as is also shown in ancient discussions of metaphor, allegory, and paraphrase. Connotations of individual words are rarely distinguished, rarely if ever purged. We are not justified in expecting verbal precision where our ancient authors will neither have attempted it nor will their hearers have expected it; nor, indeed, do modern psycholinguists appear to find space for it.

The thesis which I would like to discuss is the negative one that the sentence ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God’ does not refer to the resurrection of the dead, but is to be understood otherwise. I shall try, firstly, to give a short exegesis of the verse I Cor. xv. 50 and of its context; then, secondly, to re-examine the line of thought of I Cor. xv in the light of this exegesis; and lastly, try to show some consequences of the result for our understanding of the eschatology of the Apostle.