The single type of writing that Luke's Preface resembles most is the Greek decree. Along with other indications, the structure situates Luke in the tradition of Classical historiography. It also creates important links to the narrative, helping to define: the relationships between Roman power and Christianity and between Classical and Lukan historiography; the character of the Christian politeia; the superiority of Lukan historiography both to Classical and to previous Christian historiography; the superiority of Lukan Christian doctrine; and the superiority of the ‘reward’ from Luke's Christian ‘contract’ to the ‘rewards’ of the Classical historians Thucydides, Livy and Augustus and to those of the Roman politeia.

It has long been noted by interpreters of Luke 2.1–3 that by the reference to Caesar Augustus and his decree Luke opens up a worldwide horizon in order to underline the universal importance of Jesus’ birth. While the recent discussion of this short passage is largely concerned with explaining the historical background of the decree and its initiator Augustus, the present study, in which Luke-Acts is read as a narrative, provides a detailed analysis of the Lukan picture of Caesar Augustus. By use of a narratological approach it examines how Luke characterizes the figure of this Roman emperor and what role he and the decree play in the narrative in Luke 1–2, especially in relation to the characterization of God and Jesus Christ. At the end of this study its results are related to the geographical orientation of the world presented by Luke in the first two chapters of his Gospel.

Jesus is never explicitly identified as the ‘messiah’ or christos in Q. The conspicuous absence of this particular term—so frequently used in the Pauline letters and the Gospels—is often taken to mean that the Q community was uninterested in, unaware of and/or rejected kerygmatic traditions which understood Jesus as a ‘messianic’ figure. Yet a careful analysis of the literary structure of Q 3–7 demonstrates that the redactor of Q both appropriated and subverted ‘traditional messianic expectations’ of a popular warrior-king by framing Jesus' baptism, temptation and Inaugural Sermon within announcement and confirmation passages that serve to both affirm and qualify Jesus' relationship to ‘messianic’ traditions. Located within a text dominated by the theme of eschatological reversal, the literary structure of Q 3–7 serves as a rhetorical defense in the redactor's construction of a new identity for Jesus.

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.

Stylometric tests were run to assess whether, in Matthew, Q material differs in style from that of M. Correspondence Analysis was used on larger samples. Then counts of the five most frequent words in smaller samples were tested using three further methods: GLM, Discriminant Analysis and Cluster Analysis. These tests assigned about 80% of the samples to the expected source. This result permits a cautious preference for the Two Source Theory against the theory upheld by Farrer, Goulder and Goodacre.

Galatians 5.11 refers to Paul ‘proclaiming circumcision’—a proposition that he is concerned to refute because he constructs two compact but powerful inferences designed to falsify it. One argues from present persecution, the other from the cross. Following a precise reconstruction of these it can be shown that the three main previous interpretations of the reference of Paul's ‘proclamation of circumcision’ are dubious, whether in terms of a blatantly false charge by opponents, a phase in Paul's pre-Christian Jewish life, or an occasional apostolic mission to Jews. A fourth, embarrassing reading is more likely, especially when other comparable missionary work is considered. Early on Paul proclaimed a fully law-observant gospel to pagans that included circumcision, but then later revised his praxis.

This article explores the interconnection between intellection and life in ancient theology and philosophy by means of a reexamination of Paul's famous Areopagus discourse. Instead of reading the speech as an attempt at theological rapprochement, this essay interprets the speech as a place where fundamentally different grammars for the whole of life come into conflict.

The present essay focuses on Paul's interactions with Philo's theory of two men in 1 Cor 15.45–49. It argues that instead of rejecting that theory, Paul transforms and reinterprets it in such a way as to substantiate his own doctrine of the resurrection as developed in 1 Cor 15.35–58 (i.e., his doctrine of eschatological bodily change). The essay provides a careful analysis of Philo's theory of two men as well as an exegesis of 1 Cor 15.35–58.

Historical reconstructions concerning Philemon consistently illustrate an overwhelming tendency to see Paul as operating with the most innocuous and transparent of motives. In contrast, my (mildly playful) reading of Philemon posits a Paul engaged in power negotiations with his addressee. Though Philemon acts as Paul's would-be patron, Paul resists the gesture and opts instead to assign Philemon a carefully proscribed role vis-à-vis himself. Paul relies on rhetorical techniques of tact to coerce Philemon to adopt this role ‘voluntarily’. Onesimus emerges, then, as a pawn in a negotiation for power and status in the community.

How is the association of the descent/ascent motif with the Johannine Son of Man to be explained if the gnosticism theory no longer holds? ἀναβέβηκεν (3.13) is usually taken to refer to Jesus' final ascension. But Odeberg saw that it refers to a tradition of heavenly ascent in Jesus' lifetime. Bühner argued rather for a double reference—to the ascent of a visionary seer involving a metamorphosis into a heavenly being and a final ascent at death. Yet he ignores the likelihood, sustained by Jarl Fossum and Morton Smith, that the transfiguration tradition was based on an authentic memory. In chs. 9 and 5 the evangelist recognizes that Jesus had been invested with the authority of the heavenly Son of Man. He sees the crucifixion as an exaltation (3.14), and follows a statement of Jesus' ascent, descent and exaltation by a full summary of God's loving gift to the world.

Most scholars acknowledge Matthew's debt to Mark in the composition of his own Gospel, and they are fully aware of his extensive redaction and expansion of this major source. Yet few scholars pose what is an obvious question that arises from these points: What was Matthew's intention for Mark once he had composed and circulated his own revised and enlarged account of Jesus' mission? Did he intend to supplement Mark, in which case he wished his readers to continue to consult Mark as well as his own narrative, or was it his intention to replace the earlier Gospel? It is argued in this study that the evidence suggests that Matthew viewed Mark as seriously flawed, and that he wrote his own Gospel to replace the inadequate Marcan account.

This paper outlines the way in which a plot-device, which for the sake of convenience we shall call the ‘ambiguous oracle’ in Acts 1.6–8, controls and influences the narrative, creating coherence and enabling interpretation. The paper begins by looking at the current interpretation of the verses, and argues that it is not sufficient to explain the narrative configuration at various points, before going on to suggest an alternative interpretation, in which the misinterpretation of the oracle by the Apostles leads to the fulfillment of the Divine will. This interpretation finds strong support in literature contemporary to Acts.

This essay examines the contention that Joseph of Arimathaea buried Jesus—in light of what one can know from Greco-Roman culture about the disposal of the bodies of crucified individuals. A survey of the statutes governing the burial of criminals and governing the prosecution of those accused of seditious activity indicates that provincial officials had a choice when confronted with the need to dispose of the bodies of the condemned. Greco-Roman texts show that in certain cases the bodies of the crucified were left to decompose in place. In other cases, the crucified bodies were buried.

From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s New Testament scholars produced groundbreaking work illustrating that the household code had its origins in discussions of ‘household management’ among philosophers and moralists from Aristotle onward. Despite this general consensus, many points of disagreement remained, especially with respect to the function of the codes in particular New Testament documents and what the codes reveal about the relationship of Christians with the wider world. This article revisits some of the initial debates and traces their influence on subsequent scholarship. The recognition of the household codes as a type of ‘political’ discourse is of particular interest, as well as its impact on subsequent feminist, political and postcolonial interpretation. The conclusion suggests five promising directions, closely tied to the study of early Christian families, for future analysis of the codes leading to a more complete understanding of household management in a house-church setting.

In view of some ‘Pauline’ sounding phrases, Eph 2.8-9 is held to be one of the most adequate receptions of the theologoumenon of justification by faith, not works. So could the text be an indicator in the discussion about the right ‘Perspective on Paul’? This paper argues instead that we should read Eph 2.8-9 in its own context and that means first of all that we should follow the flow of the dominant metaphor of ‘dead and alive’. While some phrases might be a Pauline reminiscence, the text as a whole deals with the grace of God in order to substantiate the demand for a life lived according to God's will, as described in greater detail in Ephesians 4–6. Nevertheless Eph 2.1-10 is broadly coherent with Paul's theology.

Paul's ‘therapeutic epistle’ in 2 Cor 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 provides material for a comparative analysis of Paul's view of the emotions and emotional therapy in the context of ancient psychagogic literature. Paul's treatment of ‘remorse’ and ‘repentance’ demonstrates his familiarity with the discourse of the philosophers on the role of the passions in moral progress. Paul's account of ‘pain’ is shown to be anomalous in the context of ancient psychagogic literature shaped by a Stoicizing theory of the emotions. Paul emerges from this comparative analysis as the harbinger of change in the ancient theory of the emotions and the practice of emotional therapy.

Although the relationship between Rom 1.18–2.5 and Wisdom of Solomon 13–15 is variously interpreted, those who detect a level of textual engagement tend to agree that while Rom 2.1–5 critiques Wis 15.1–4, Rom 1.18–32 stands as a compressed yet theologically consistent restatement of Wis 13.1–14.31, 15.7–19. This paper challenges this virtual consensus by rereading Rom 1.18–32 in light of the rhetorical turn at Rom 2.1. The kerygmatic location of Paul's polemic, together with a series of alterations to the Hellenistic Jewish polemical tradition, suggest an interpretation of Rom 1.18–32 that runs directly counter to Wisdom of Solomon's rhetorical and theological purposes in chs. 13–15. Whereas Wisdom of Solomon's polemic functions to reinforce the anthropological distinction between Jew and Gentile on the basis of true and false worship, Paul reworks the aniconic tradition to establish the essential unity of humanity.

Usually, the three Johannine Letters are dated after the Gospel of John without extended discussion. The following essay will argue that all three Johannine letters were written before the Gospel of John marking the starting point of the Johannine line of tradition. Beside linguistic analyses two major arguments will be given: (1) 1 John is much more than simply an aid how to read the Gospel of John. 1 John establishes its own theological line of reasoning. It is necessary to understand that letter as a piece of theological thought on its own. Any dependence on the Gospel of John cannot be proved. (2) Dating 2 John and 3 John after the Gospel of John and 1 John needs to explain the far-reaching reduction of theology (and especially of Christology) in contrast to the other two Johannine writings. A convincing explanation for such a development has not been established until now. On the contrary, 2 John and 3 John represent the beginning of the development of Johannine theology.

Throughout his letters, Paul uses several terms and images that originate from the world of ancient economics. Some of these terms are used metaphorically to describe God’s own attitudes and actions. The term ἀρραβών (‘earnest money, advance payment, bargain money’) may exemplify the use of a business term in the papyri in comparison with its use in Paul’s letters (in 2 Cor. 1.22 and 5.5; cf. Eph 1.14). In Paul’s image, God is depicted as a purchaser who offers ‘us’ his salvation for free and guarantees to complete it in the end. In using the term ἀρραβών, Paul emphasizes God’s reliability and unlimited trustworthiness within an insecure world.