This paper inquires into the situation of small children during the Hellenistic-Roman era, including NT texts and later Christian writings in the first two or three centuries. There was an early form of ‘Christian education’, and probably, children of baptized parents belonged to the Christian communities. In 1 Cor 7.14, Paul indirectly argues in favour of a ‘Christian influence’ on the ‘holy children’ by the ‘believing’ father or mother. In Eph 6.4, the author, speaking about παιδϵία καὶ νουθϵσία κυρίου, argues that in a Christian household children should have instruction in the Christian faith. The question of the baptism of small children might be answered by the interpretation of 1 Cor 1.14–16, where Paul precisely distinguishes between baptism of individuals (1.14) and baptism of the ‘house of Stephanas’. Mark 10.13–16 is a mirror of a discussion between those who ‘rebuke’ people for bringing children to Jesus, and Jesus himself who interprets their action as a ‘prevention’, thus escalating the conflict to a fundamental one, which probably refers to the question of baptism of children. During the last century, we have learned (again?) to see childhood not only as a transitional period of human life but one to be protected by society. Possibly similar ideas existed during the times when our texts were written.

This essay argues that the common understanding of imperial divine sonship among biblical scholars can be reframed by emphasizing the importance of adoption in Roman society and imperial ideology. A case study from the Gospel of Mark—the portrayal of Jesus' baptism—demonstrates some of the pay-off for reading the NT with a newly contextualized perspective on divine sonship. Through engagement with diverse sources from the Hellenistic and Roman eras, the dove will be interpreted as an omen and counter-symbol to the Roman eagle, which was a public portent of divine favor, election, and ascension to power.

What is the meaning of the apocalyptic events related in the Gospel of Matthew after the death of Jesus? The issue is treated in two stages, beginning with a short review of current interpretations (historical, causal, and semiologic). In a second step, the spatial and temporal disruptions that cross the story are explored. The hypothesis is made, with consideration of the figures’ sequence, that they are the figurative expression of a childbirth. Time and place of death are thus those of a birth, Jesus is literally ‘the firstborn from the dead’. It is finally suggested that the reader's actualisation of this peculiar figures’ chain corresponds to the birth of a believing subject.

The observation that the exemplary narrative of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16.19–31) has a ‘sister-story’ in the parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15.11–32) takes us to the centre of Luke's theology. In 16.19–31 two motifs collide, which in different ways determine a person's eschatological fate: the repentance of a sinner (16.30) and the compensating balance between the good and the bad that one receives in this life and in the next (16.25). Through the connectedness of the parable-trilogy in Luke 15 and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus both concepts are set in tension with one another. The theological centre of Luke's Gospel lies in the tense inter-relationship between Luke 15 and Luke 16.

Against the consensus that John 2.19 alludes to the destruction of the temple and is dependent on Synoptic traditions, it is argued here that: (a) there is some interdependence between the Johannine and Synoptic sayings on temple destruction, but not so as to posit Johannine use of Synoptic material; (b) Jesus' saying in John 2.19 does not refer to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, but to his death and resurrection (proof of his temple-cleansing authority), formulated in distinctively and exclusively Johannine terms; (c) Mark takes Jesus to have predicted the destruction of the temple, but the notion that he also predicted its rebuilding (Mark 15.29) can be explained only as a distorted version of John 2.19, known to Mark via a source hostile to Jesus.

On the basis of a concise definition of the literary form of a summary/Summarium/sommaire that has to be distinguished from epitome (e.g. Mk 1.14f.; 8.31) or ‘Geschichtsabriss’ (cf. Acts), this contribution analyzes the literary and theological function of all three summaries that can be found in Mark 1–6 (1.32–34; 3.7–12; 6.54–56). By these summaries the author of the Markan Gospel not only provides a macro-textual structure for his narrative, but also gives a theological interpretation and a narrative emplotment of Jesus' Galilean ministry, and thus carries forward essential parts of the Gospel story.

The occurrence and significance of the five women in Jesus' genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew has been a source of continuous scholarly debate. Taking a gender-sensitive approach, this contribution argues for looking at the five women as one group, viewing them as simultaneously accentuating the messianic line that Jesus is part of and vindicating his somewhat irregular birth, as well as substantiating the openness of Israel for Gentiles by adducing precedents from Israel's history.

The identity of the κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7 has been debated among Western scholars for over five hundred years. Proposals have ranged from an inn to a guest room. This article argues that the term κατάλυμα has a generic sense of ‘place to stay’ and that the final clause of Luke 2.7 should be rendered ‘because they had no space in their place to stay’. Moreover, three clues in the context—Joseph's compliance with the census order, the betrothal of Mary, and the manger—suggest that the accommodations presupposed by Luke are a marital chamber too small for giving birth.

This article argues that John 7.15 claims neither literacy nor illiteracy for Jesus, but rather that Jesus was able to confuse his opponents with regards to his scribal literacy. According to the Johannine narrator, Jesus' opponents assumed he did not ‘know letters’, but also acknowledged that he taught as if he did. This article also suggests that the claim of John 7.15 is historically plausible in light of first-century Christianity's corporate memory(ies) of Jesus' literacy.

The saying about the birds and lilies presents a challenge to the expected domestic roles of men, in providing food, and women, in providing clothing, opening the possibility that these duties can be neglected because of a higher priority. This challenge is relevant to situations reflected in other Q texts. The challenge is a threat both to a family's livelihood and to honor status. Evidence is presented showing that spinning and weaving have special importance in cultural models of the ideal woman and contribute to a woman's honor. This evidence broadens our awareness of the potential conflict with social norms in the birds and lilies passage.

This article takes part in the reopened discussion of the Johannine δόξα/δοξάζϵιν by interpreting the concept in light of the narrative structures in the Fourth Gospel. On the basis of Aristotle's definition of a whole and complete μῦθος and his distinction between πϵριπτϵια and ἀναγνώρισις it is shown that the main structure in the Johannine narrative concerns humans' recognition of Jesus' identity as son of God. As a consequence of being firmly integrated in this narrative structure, the Johannine concept δόξα/δοξάζϵιν basically denotes divine identity and recognition. Opposing a contemporary trend in Johannine studies it is finally argued that δόξα/δοξάζϵιν in the Fourth Gospel should be understood within the normal narrative sequence.

For much of the twentieth century scholars tried to reconstruct various cultic hymns beneath the surface of NT texts. With the rise of rhetorical criticism the focus of research has shifted to the properties of epideictic rhetoric. Exegetes, therefore, often tend to contrast ‘encomia’ with ‘hymns’ or ‘psalms’. To avoid any shadow boxing one has to consider which descriptive language would fit best the texts. A brief examination of ancient hymnic traditions and their treatment in rhetoric demonstrates that while encomia interact strongly with hymns each genre has its own characteristics; hymns, whether in poetry or prose, consist especially of praise of divinities and are addressed to divinities. Future formgeschichtliche analysis has to distinguish carefully between ‘hymn’ (in a narrow sense), ‘hymnic praise’ and ‘encomion’ (which does not refer particularly to divine beings). In early Christian literature, as far as it relates to the textual surface, we find beside hymns to God only a few hymns directed to Christ. Nevertheless Christ's divine status is praised with rich hymnic rhetorical devices. This amazing tension corresponds exactly with what we call ‘Christological monotheism’.

This article demonstrates that according to the Acts of the Apostles, the major charges brought against Peter, Stephen, and Paul—as well as, in later Christian texts, against James—are violations of the Temple's sacredness, both by means of statements about and actions within it. On the narrative level, in their portrayal of the conflicts and trials of these early Christian leaders, the ancient Christian sources argued that because the early Christian community in Jerusalem sought to partake in the Temple worship in its own way, Jesus' followers were falsely accused of violating the Temple's sacredness. On the historical level, it may be concluded that these events were authentic, and that they were affected by two factors: (a) The assumption, on the part of the Jewish community, that Jesus represented an anti-Temple stance. This assumption was based on Jesus' ‘cleansing’ action at the Temple, and the saying attributed to him regarding the destruction of the Temple and the erection of a new one ‘not made with [human] hands’. As such, Jesus' followers were viewed as posing a threat to the Temple as well. (b) The meticulous approach to Temple rituals held by the Sadducean high priests in charge of the prosecutions. According to their approach, any deviance from the proscribed procedure desecrated the sacrificial cult and was to be avoided at any cost.

Noting the conjunction of ‘mercy’ and ‘Israel’ in Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11, this article argues that in both letters ‘Israel’ denotes the Jews. In Galatians 6.16, with an on-going mission to the Jews in view, Paul invokes peace on those who live according to the new creation, and mercy on unbelieving Israel. In Romans 9–11, he draws on both Scripture and his own experience of mercy to revisit the question of Israel's destiny, discerning therein a providential pattern of a divine call that is interrupted by obduracy under the law, and ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

The Benedictus is Luke's own composition. Its syntax is perspicuous, provided that 1.71 is understood as zeugma and 1.73 as hyperbaton. It has three parts in 3 + 5 + 5 double lines; their topics are eschatological (1.68–70: messianic hopes), ecclesiological (1.71–75: God's covenant) and soteriological (1.76–79: remission of sins). The oath sworn to Abraham and granted to ‘us’ (1.73) forms the centre. The hymn originates in Luke's sophisticated theological reflection, his knowledge of LXX, and his literary skill which is confirmed by the stichometric proportions of the passage.

Much current NT scholarship holds that Paul conducted a ‘Law-free’ mission to Gentiles. In this view, Paul fundamentally repudiated the ethnic boundaries created and maintained by Jewish practices. The present essay argues the contrary: Paul's principled resistance to circumcising Gentiles precisely preserves these distinctions ‘according to the flesh’, which were native to Jewish restoration eschatology even in its Pauline iterations. Paul required his pagans not to worship their native gods—a ritual and a Judaizing demand. Jerusalem's temple, traditionally conceived, gave Paul his chief terms for conceptualizing the Gentiles' inclusion in Israel's redemption. Paul's was not a ‘Law-free’ mission.

Far from being the banality suggested by commentators, John's use of the vocabulary of ‘goodness’ for Jesus (ἀγαθός and καλός) is christologically significant. It points to Jesus' unity with God. The Johannine treatment of Jesus' ‘goodness’ and interpretation of the Shema contrasts with and complements the Synoptic treatment of these themes in the rich man pericope (Mark 10.17–22 parr.).

It is half a century since Nils A. Dahl wrote his important essay ‘Die Messianität Jesu bei Paulus’, in which he determines that χριστός in Paul is effectively a proper name, not a title, on the basis of four negative philological observations: it is never a general term; it is never a predicate of the verb ‘to be’; it never takes a genitive modifier; and it characteristically lacks the definite article. The purpose of this article is to reconsider what each of these observations entails about the messiahship of Jesus. My thesis is that, while all four observations are significant for understanding Paul's thought, they do not constitute proper criteria for assessing the role of the messiahship of Jesus therein.

Erastus (Rom 16.23) has featured prominently in the ongoing debate over the social and economic make-up of the early Pauline communities, since how one renders his title (ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως) dramatically affects the range of economic stratification represented in the Corinthian church. Relying chiefly on epigraphy, including an important new inscription from the Achaean colony of Patras, this article engages the scholarly dialogue about the Latin equivalent of Erastus' title, rebutting the arguments in favour of arcarius and aedilis, and contends that he served as quaestor, a high-ranking municipal position exclusively occupied by the economic elite.

The three Pastoral letters present themselves as Paul's personal correspondence, but their contents would fit better the genre of a community letter. The pseudonymous author has forged them as personal letters from ‘Paul’, because he had to reckon with his readers' critique concerning their authenticity, above all with critical scrutiny directed at possible contradictions in their circumstances of origin. Through the genre of a private letter he has attempted to concoct previously unknown letter-situations, and to make understandable the late discovery of the letters. At the same time, through the construction of three letters he has made a claim for general validity in respect of geography and time, so as to spread the ‘right meaning’ of the statements in the Corpus Paulinum.