The starting point of the transfiguration of Jesus is the choice of Jesus himself. He had announced a destiny of suffering and death and, then, was faced with rejection of his words by his disciples, especially Peter. Now, they must know by themselves what ‘God's views’ are. The fundamental issue is whether Jesus' announcement really corresponds to the divine will. The answer will come from heaven: the disciples will be the privileged witnesses of the transfiguration granted to Jesus. He will appear as a heavenly figure, flanked by Moses and Elijah and thus preceding them. Peter would like to honour the three figures and prolong the wonderful vision making three dwelling-places, which recall the heavenly dwellings. But he does not realize that Jesus had announced a tragic destiny that falls within God's design. So, God has to speak. After the cloud will cover the three heavenly figures, the divine voice will address the disciples making it clear to them who Jesus is (God's Son) and what they must do (listen to Jesus, namely, accept his announcement of suffering and death).

Critics who posit the ‘gospels for all Christians’ theory contend that gospels reflect neither the history nor the concerns of the communities within which they were produced. Despite advocacy for the theory from an increasing number of scholars, others continue to reconstruct diverse gospel communities. There is some common ground between the two sides of the debate: the majority of scholars from both perspectives agree that gospels were composed within communal settings. If we take this agreement as our starting point and investigate communal writing practices in antiquity, we might productively forge an agreeable method for determining the scope of intended gospel audiences. This study analyzes the collective process of writing in ancient associations, now regarded as analogous in many ways to early Christ-groups. In doing so, a framework is provided for understanding how and to whom gospels produced in Christ-groups might have been composed. The study finds the ‘all Christians’ theory inconsistent with communal practices of writing.

1 Thessalonians 4.16–17 has occasioned much scholarly speculation regarding Paul's conception of the resurrected body, the character of those caught up in Christ, the ultimate fate of those who are caught up in the air, and Pauline eschatology in general. The interpretation of the passage may be illuminated by comparison with rabbinic traditions in which the righteous escape judgment and destruction in Sheol by flying and being borne aloft by clouds, traditions that, given Paul's Jewish heritage, could well stand in the background of 1 Thess 4.16–17.

In an infamous passage in his Letter to the Galatians (2.11–14), Paul called out Peter as a ‘hypocrite’. This passage, especially when read in light of Paul's own appeal to himself as ‘all things to all people’ in 1 Cor 9.19–23, was to cause deep trouble for later Christian interpreters, who sought to defend their movement against charges from outsiders that it had a cracked and unstable foundation in dual ‘hypocrites’. This essay will introduce this ‘pagan’ critique and the cultural force it had, and the various solutions to the inherited dilemma from their scriptures that were offered by patristic authors (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Jerome and Augustine). In light of this context, we turn to a sustained analysis of an untranslated homily by John Chrysostom, hom. in Gal 2.11 (In faciem ei restiti), which addresses not just the hypocrisy of Peter and Paul, but also the sticky problem of the hypocrisy of the Christian who reads this text approvingly as Paul's ‘in your face’ to Peter. Chrysostom does this by engaging in a convoluted pretence of his own.

1 John 1.9 and 5.16 reflect practices of public confession of sins, intercession, and mediation of God's forgiveness. Divine forgiveness and belonging to the community were integrated in the Johannine community to the extent that one equalled the other. Therefore, these practices had important group-dynamic functions for the Johannine community. First, public confession functioned as a costly signal that deterred less committed group members but was meaningful to committed group members. Second, the practice of intercession induced role taking, allowing the offended party both to empathize with the offender and to restore his or her dignity and honour.

P. Antinoopolis 12 (Aland 0232), a miniature codex containing remnants of 2 John, was considered by C. H. Roberts to be our earliest copy of this short epistle (third century) and also evidence of an early Johannine corpus. However, upon closer examination, both of these claims appear to be problematic. This article will argue that P.Ant. 12 is most likely a fifth-century codex (not third) and that it was far too small to have carried the entire Johannine corpus. Although there is no combination of books that fits perfectly into this codex, the most plausible suggestion seems to be that P.Ant. 12 originally held the book of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles.