This is the second part of a two-part article focused on a fragmentary parchment codex, whose three extant leaves, designated in Leo Depuydt's catalogue as P.MorganLib. 265, are housed at the Morgan Library & Museum in New York. These fragments bear witness to 1 Cor 2.12–3.18; 7.16–30; 15.3–30 in the ‘classical’ variety of Fayyūmic Coptic (dialect F5). The first part of this article was published in NTS 68 (2022) 89–104. In the second part, I discuss the witnesses to the Fayyūmic version (fa) of First Corinthians, the relationship between fa and the Bohairic version (bo), and the text-critical value of the variant readings attested in P.MorganLib. 265. This is followed by the editio princeps of the manuscript, notes on the Coptic text, an English translation and images.

The Sahidic Coptic is one of the earliest and most important versions of the New Testament. Thus, it is essential that its witness be related to the Greek tradition with adequate methodological precision. This article attempts to pave the way for such an undertaking in the Epistle to the Hebrews, a New Testament book which, currently, lacks a major critical edition of its Greek text or an edition of its Sahidic version. Firstly, the present study offers methodological reflections on citing the Sahidic version, with a particular focus on transmissional, editorial, linguistic and translation-technical issues. And secondly, a selection of the most significant variant units in Hebrews is examined with a view to relating the Sahidic evidence to the Greek variant spectrum at each point.

The Wyman Fragment, or 0220, has been a chief and early witness to the text of Romans 4.23–5.3 since the initial publication of the recto in 1952. A 2005 edition of the verso, containing Rom 5.8–13, rendered most of that portion of the manuscript legible for the first time, but has not been widely circulated. In this article I present a new edition and analysis of 0220, a third- or fourth-century manuscript of Rom 4.23–5.13, in light of multispectral imaging and radiocarbon testing performed on the fragment. This edition resolves tensions between previous editions, contextualises the radiocarbon and palaeographic dates, transcribes previously illegible traces, securing additional lines of text, and reveals more work by a second hand than previously noted.

This article seeks to explain Matthew's description of Joseph as righteous (δίκαιος) by investigating Matt 1.18–25 within its ancient context, especially Judean practices of marriage and divorce as illuminated by Judean legal papyri from the Dead Sea region in the first and second centuries ce and from the Judean politeuma of Herakleopolis in the mid-second century bce. The examination will demonstrate the importance of these papyri for understanding the narrative in Matt 1.18–25 in its original social setting where honour was a dominant value, especially the extent to which it reveals Joseph to be an exemplar of Matthean righteousness.

Matthew's Gospel is known for its long, flowing discourses. The speeches in Luke, by contrast, are shorter and scattered throughout his narrative. Some believe this difference is evidence against the so-called ‘Farrer hypothesis’ – the view that Luke used both Mark and Matthew as sources. One response, however, is that Luke wanted to bring his speech lengths into closer conformity with the literary standards of Greco-Roman bioi. An analysis of seventeen representative bioi suggests that Matthew's speeches were exceptionally long for medium-sized biographies such as his own. This fact provides a plausible literary motivation for Luke to abbreviate Matthew's discourses.

This article will examine the parodic characterisation of the image of the beast (Rev 13.15) who mimics the two witnesses (11.3–12) from a literary perspective. There is evidence of this mimicry based on the appearance of the textual markers, εἰκών and πνεῦμα. This study will examine parody in relation to other parodic characterisations that appear in the Apocalypse.

The Acts of Paul have received the most diverse and contradictory interpretations. Do the ActPl intend to promote the veneration of Paul or a particular theology? Do they offer transparent fiction or do they claim factuality? Are they a collection of oral traditions or a designed literary construction? From the perspective of cultural memory theory, however, the key question is rather how the text allows the reader to participate in a community-generating past. In this view, the opposites turn out to be complementary aspects of an integrative textual strategy. This becomes manifest especially in the technique of metaleptic narration, which transcends the boundary between the world of the text and the reader, between past and present.

This is the first part of a two-part article focused on a fragmentary parchment codex, whose three extant leaves, designated in Leo Depuydt's catalogue as P.MorganLib. 265, are housed at the Morgan Library & Museum in New York. These fragments bear witness to 1 Cor 2.12–3.18; 7.16–30; 15.3–30 in the ‘classical’ variety of Fayyūmic Coptic (dialect F5). Most of these verses have been hitherto unattested in Fayyūmic and thus allow us to attain better insight into the history and text of the Coptic Bible. In the first part of this article, I discuss the codicology of P.MorganLib. 265, its linguistic features, provenance and date.

In the ongoing discussions of Gal 3.10–14, interpreters have underappreciated the connection between Paul's argument in 3.10 and his use of Ps 143.2 in 2.16. This article argues that Paul bases his denial of justification by works in 2.16 on the confession of humanity's universal sinfulness in Ps 143.2. Given the rhetorical function of 2.15–21 as well as the close verbal and logical ties between 2.16 and 3.10, it contends the same thought underlies Paul's charge in 3.10 that those of works are under a curse. On this basis, the article assesses various interpretations of Gal 3.10.

In 1963, New Testament Studies published an article by Pierson Parker in which he argued that the commonalities of the Third and Fourth Gospels result from direct contact between their respective authors. This article strengthens Parker's case. It highlights additional patterns of commonality between the two Gospels. It demonstrates that these areas of commonality align with events in the Fourth Gospel allegedly experienced by the Beloved Disciple. It considers the best explanation of this phenomenon.

The referent of Ἰησοῦς in Heb 4.8 is traditionally understood to refer to Joshua son of Nun and frequently as a type referring to Jesus the Christ. I will argue against this reading and, instead, maintain that the referent of Ἰησοῦς is Jesus. Two lines of evidence are provided. First, analysis of the context demonstrates that the ‘Joshua’ option disrupts the author's argument, and that understanding the referent to be Jesus clarifies the argument. Second, the use of the nomina sacra abbreviations to refer to Jesus in the earliest manuscripts demonstrates that they interpreted Ἰησοῦς as referring to Jesus.

Matthew's didactic teaching blocks often present the terms of salvation as an uncompromising dichotomy, envisioning either complete loyalty or faithlessness (e.g. 10.37–9; 16.25; 24.13). However, the characters in his narrative sections, especially Peter, nuance this harsh binary to allow for a significant degree of failure. After a brief survey recent works on Matthean soteriology and the use of Peter, it is argued that two features of Peter, when combined, widen the scope of salvation. First, Matthew portrays him as occupying a ‘middle ground’ between complete obedience and absolute failure, with all indications pointing to Peter remaining in that space, as emphasised by the last references to him (27.25; 28.16). Second, this failing Peter will not only be allowed in the kingdom, but will have a position of greatness there, as demonstrated by both Matthew's overall theology of status variation within the kingdom (e.g. 19.28; 20.26–7; 5.19) and his unique Petrine accounts (14.22–33; 16.17–19; 17.24–7). Though the way to salvation is narrow (i.e. 7.14), the character of Peter widens it to allow for more failure than some texts in the didactic sections might initially suggest.

Jesus’ hyperbolic saying that ‘it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven’, present in the synoptic tradition (Matt 19.24; Mark 10.25; Luke 18.25), has long been subject to the suggestion that the ‘eye of a needle’ does not refer to an actual needle but is the name of a small gate in the Jerusalem wall. Today, most biblical scholars are convinced that this theory is incorrect, but no study identifies the sources of the error and traces the history of this myth. This note focuses on tracking the origins of the flaw and points specifically to the sources of the misconception that the term ‘eye of a needle’ should not be taken literally.

The earliest note that mentions a gate called the ‘eye of a needle’ seems to be a gloss attributed to Anselm of Canterbury (11th cent.). This gloss can be found in the thirteenth-century work of Thomas Aquinas Catena aurea. What is false, however, is the oft-repeated belief that the source of the information is the eleventh-century Gospel Commentary of Theophylact.