This article publishes for the first time a Sahidic parchment leaf containing portions of Gal 1.4–9. Its main interest lies in the omission of the possessive in Gal 1.4d, which reads ‘God the Father’ as opposed to the mainstream ‘God our Father’. Two possible explanations are proposed: scribal error or translational assimilation, involving the more complex question of the relationship between the Coptic and Greek versions. Beyond the biblical textual criticism, this article also adds to the study of miniature codices.

For many years, scholars have noted striking similarities between the account of Paul's visit to Athens in Acts and ancient accounts of the trial of Socrates. There have been at least five distinct proposals about the significance of these similarities, but each has substantial shortcomings. In this article, I argue that Luke's purpose is to place Paul's Areopagus speech in dialogue with the thought of Socrates as it is represented in traditions about his trial, especially Plato's Euthyphro and Apology.

The combination of two seemingly simple and commonly used words causes problems of understanding in a specific syntactic unit. The precise meaning of the phrase σὺ λέγεις appears to be unclear. A detailed semantic analysis indicates a certain and clear meaning of this phrase. It occurs in all four canonical Gospels as Jesus’ answer within the judicial proceedings leading up to his crucifixion. Consequently, it is of fundamental importance to understanding Jesus’ trial. The semantic analysis of the phrase σὺ λέγεις presented in this article offers a new basis for the discussion of the question whether Jesus may be seen as confessus according to Roman law.

The ‘Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament’, formerly called ‘The Meyer’, was established more than 180 year ago. As the KEK is the oldest commentary series in German (and not only in German) still existing today, it is an important subject of research and the analysis of the development of the series reveals many significant insights in the history of New Testament scholarship in the last two centuries. Last but not least, recent investigations shed light on the relations between the German and the English-speaking scholarship in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

That Jesus carried the horizontal bar of the cross, also named patibulum, is often assumed, and argued by John Granger Cook. Gunnar Samuelsson disagrees, however, and argued that we grope in the dark about the exact nature of the σταυρός that Jesus carried. Both major crucifixion scholars refer in their argumentation to Latin sources in which a patibulum is carried. But these sources have not been thoroughly assessed on their own. In this article the eight Latin sources mentioned in support of the ancient practice are analysed. It is argued that only four of these sources should be counted as referring to ‘traditional’ cross-bearing practices.

This article interprets Paul's self-reflections in Phil 1 in light of the most current discourse about the ‘(introspective) self’ in antiquity: it is argued that Paul – in his last letter writing during his final imprisonment (in Rome?) – offers insights into his ‘inner self’ by construing the reflective mode of introspection. Similar to how ancient philosophers – such as Seneca in his letters – develop introspection when dealing/coping with the expectatio mortis, Paul too, in Phil 1–3, has to respond to his expectation of his pending death. While Phil 1.21–6 – which is to be read in the frame of chapters 1–3 – reflects Paul's situation highly individually and autobiographically, ancient philosophical introspective speaking modes in general tend to remain generic. In its ‘autobiographical consolidation’ Phil 1.21–6 is also to be seen in a ‘contrastive analogy’ to Rom 7.

By means of a contextual analysis of Mark 12.41–4, a narrative analysis of ‘women’ in Mark and a social–historical analysis of the motif of the ‘poor widow’, this article argues that Mark 12.41–4 paves the way for Jesus’ eschatological speech (Mark 13): while the precise purpose of the widow's deposit (ritual, donation or saving) remains an open question, Jesus strengthens her dignity. Mark thus alludes to the ancient motif of respecting personae miserae and shows who Jesus is in light of God's pending judgement of Jerusalem. In its focus on the ‘widow’ motif, the analysis of Mark 12.41–4par. enriches previous studies on form- and redaction-criticism and Realgeschichte by revealing the Christological meaning of the Markan narrative.

The majority of translations and commentaries render the phrase κνηθόμενοι τὴν ἀκοήν in 2 Tim 4.3 as ‘having itching ears’ (or something to the same effect). Many commentaries and lexica claim, furthermore, that this figure of speech expresses curiosity. The present study demonstrates that the phrase found in 2 Tim 4.3 is an idiom that occurs quite frequently in first- and second-century ce literature. Contemporary usage of this expression suggests, first, that the translation at 2 Tim 4.3 should be ‘having their ears tickled’, rather than ‘having itching ears’, and, second, that the idiom refers primarily to the experience of pleasure rather than curiosity. This translation and interpretation of κνηθόμενοι τὴν ἀκοήν fits the context of 2 Timothy better than other commonly proposed readings and is significant for how we understand the author's portrayal of his opponents and their appeal to the believers.

The two-dot-plus-bar ‘distigme-obelos’ symbols in Vaticanus signal added text. Five characteristic features distinguish their obeloi from paragraphoi. Like scribe B's LXX obeloi, all eight distigme-obelos symbols mark the location of added text. A gap at the exact location of a widely recognised, multi-word addition follows every distigme-obelos except one with distinctive downward dipping strokes. The Vaticanus Gospels are so early that they have virtually no high stops, a feature older than even 75. Consequently, they contain none of these additions, but the Vaticanus epistles have high stops throughout and contain their one distigme-obelos-marked addition, 1 Cor 14.34–5. Contemporaneous LXX G has corresponding distigmai.

In NTS 62.3 (July 2016) David Horrell argued that certain passages in 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Peter 3 showed ‘ethnicising’ traits among the early Christians. He set this result against an alleged trend in scholarship that would distinguish and disparage a closed ethnic Judaism in relation to a new spiritual-universal Christianity. The present authors’ work was proffered as representative of this trend, even though no evidence was cited for such a connection and their work moves in a very different direction. Leaving aside Horrell's interpretation of the New Testament passages for reasons of space, this article takes up the larger question of Judaean and Christ-movement identities by reconsidering the position of Ioudaioi and Christ-followers in the early Roman Empire. Using different but convergent (social-scientific and historical-philological) methods, we find that ethnos-language was everywhere applied to the Judaeans, that this reflected normalcy and exchange with the world, and that Judaeans thus met the criteria of an ethnic group. Early Christians had no such recognised place. Their voluntary associations largely rejected ethnos- and polis-commitment or identity. Neither Judaean openness to the world nor Christian alienation supports the position that Horrell attributes to us.

A causal clause is often used to translate ὅτι in John 8.47. This, in combination with a problematic translation of the prepositional phrase διὰ τοῦτο, creates (in the translations) a logical argument that is contrary to the argument in Greek. The NRSV translates: ‘Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God.’ The translation is somewhat different from the King James Version, which interprets the ὅτι-clause as causal: ‘He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.’ Both translations and the implied logic must be rejected for philological reasons. The correct translation is: ‘He that is of God hears God's words. From this follows: you do not hear. Thus, you are not of God.’ The difference is obvious: the logical argument is turned on its head. The usual way to translate this argument implies a predestination: the Jews are simply ‘not of God’. The semantically correct translation makes obvious the connection between their decision (i.e. not to listen to Jesus) and the judgement spoken by Jesus.

Within the narrative of John 4.4–42 (the Samaritan woman at the well) the fact is mentioned that ‘Jacob's well’ had been given to his son Joseph (John 4.5). By calling Jacob ‘our father’ (John 4.12), the woman claims for the Samaritans a direct lineage from Jacob via Joseph. The Samaritans are designated as ‘children of Israel’ and members of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (i.e. the ‘house of Joseph’). The genealogy is embedded in a motif occurring in Scripture (the encounter at the well). Thus, it is questionable whether the passage of the woman at the well can primarily be seen as ‘mission among gentiles’. The narrative focus of the passage seems to point to a mission among the ‘children of Israel’.