This article argues that Luke influences the Gospel of Thomas, on the basis of an examination of those places where redactional material in Luke not in Mark is found in Thomas. This has been argued already by various scholars, but the present study aims (a) to refine further the method used to argue this position and (b) to expand the catalogue of those Thomas sayings which can be shown to indicate Lukan influence. Furthermore, it proposes (c) to respond to recent scholarship arguing that Thomas influences Luke, as well as to scholars maintaining the independence of Thomas and the Synoptics.

This study examines comparison in Hebrews in the light of ancient rhetorical theory of syncrisis, identifying five epideictic syncrises: the messengers/angels vs. Jesus (1.1-14; 2.5-18), Moses vs. Jesus (3.1-6), the Aaronic high priests vs. Jesus (5.1-10), the Levitical priestly ministry vs. the Melchizedekian priestly ministry (7.1-10.18), and Mt. Sinai vs. Mt. Zion (12.18-24). The study shows that these comparisons collectively function as a single syncritical project that argues for the superiority of the new covenant to the old, and that the project, like most of the individual comparisons, is arranged topically in accordance with ancient rhetorical theory.

The narrow dating of some of the early New Testament papyri and the methodological approach that is used must be brought into question in the light of the acknowledged difficulties with palaeographical dating and especially the use of assigned dated literary papyri. The thesis of this paper is that the way forward in dating New Testament papyri, or for that matter any undated literary papyri, is first to locate the manuscript in its graphic stream and using, on the whole, dated documentary papyri belonging to the same stream, come to an approximate understanding of where in the history of the stream the manuscript lies. The following New Testament Papyri will be so treated: P52, P67+ and P46.

This essay offers a reading of 2 Cor 12.7–9 in light of a rabbinic story of Moses' ascent to heaven (b. Šabb. 88b-89a). After an exploration of Moses in 2 Corinthians the author argues that vv. 7–9, like vv. 2–4, constitute an ascent report (vv. 2–4). This ascent report, it is maintained, is structurally parallel to Moses' heavenly ascent in b. Šabb. 88b-89a. Early traditions of Moses' ascent to heaven and dominance over angels suggest that Paul knew a form of the Mosaic ascent, and parodied it to highlight his weakness and paradoxical authority in vv. 7–9.

The presentation of Jesus in his appearance in Rev 12.5 includes his birth and his ascension, but it does not mention his death, despite its important role elsewhere in the book. The present study, after surveying some typical explanations of this lack, suggests a twofold solution. First, the comparison of the christophanies in the Apocalypse reveals a characteristic sequence in their description into which the messianic appearance in ch. 12 fits well. Second, the fact that John sharply separates the depiction of the satanic intent to kill the Messiah from Jesus' death contributes to the Christology of Revelation. The protagonist of the book is unequivocally superior both to the devil and to all popular mythical figures who must face the forces of chaos.

It is argued that ἐκκλησία was first used by the Hellenists, probably in Jerusalem, and that it was chosen because of its strong background in the lxx. This raises the issue of why ἐκκλησία was chosen rather than συναγωγή, which occurs over twice as often in the lxx. The case is put that ἐκκλησία was chosen because συναγωγή was already in use by Jewish communities as a designation for their groups and their buildings. This view has not been argued for in detail, and the implications of this choice have not been fully explored. Through the use of ἐκκλησία the Hellenists could express their continuity with the OT ‘assembly’ of the people of God and could also distinguish themselves from other Jewish communities, without making the claim that they alone were the heirs of that people.

Studies on Erastus, the Corinthian oikonomos (Rom 16.23), continue to dispute the fundamental make up of his identity, including his administrative rank, socio-economic standing, even his status as a believer. Ultimately seeking to defend the view that Erastus was a Christian who served as a Corinthian municipal quaestor, this article responds separately to two recent essays, replying initially to Weiss' charge that Corinth did not have the municipal quaestorship, then critiquing Friesen's claim that Erastus was an unbelieving public slave.

The authors propose a new translation of James 2.1. This is based on a grammatical construction which does not force to such a degree the sense of certain expressions, and which integrates the verse in a context which insists on the vanity of eternal signs of glory. This interpretation underlines the relevance of Christology for the phrase and for the totality of the passage.

This article is a response to the recent work of Michael F. Bird and Michael R. Whitenton, in which they argue that Hippolytus's De Christo et Antichristo provides a clear instance of a subjective genitive πίστις Χριστοῦ construction and unambiguously identifies πίστις as Jesus' death on the cross. However, in light of (1) a significant textual variant, and (2) the role that πίστις plays in Hippolytus's theology of martyrdom, the construction in fact supports the reading of an objective genitive.