The goal of this article is to explain two words which commentators often find puzzling – Paul’s εἴ πως, which hesitantly qualify his expectation of resurrection in Phil 3.11. After considering the semantics of εἴ πως, and various scholarly interpretations of this verse, this article will propose what is very much currently a minority view, and will offer further evidence for it. The explanation for Paul’s εἴ πως καταντήσω εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν in Phil 3.11 is to be found in his uncertainty about whether he will die and be raised, or whether he will survive until the parousia. The clause also indicates his preference for the former.

Based on recent theoretical reflections on the links between space and rituals, this paper re-examines early Christian meal practice. Since the 1980s, many scholars have agreed that early Christ groups met in private houses inside a given city and celebrated their meals in the form of the Greco-Roman banquet. However, the idea that early Christ groups met ‘almost exclusively’ in private houses has been disputed in recent years. This paper expands on one of the suggested alternative meeting spaces: the graveyard. Tombs of the rich and poor lined the roads running in and out of an ancient city. The tradition handed down by Paul and the Synoptic Gospels (1 Cor 11.23–5/Mark 14.22–4 par.) can be located here. It contains a story fragment linked in form and content to laments that might have been part of a dramatically narrated passion account with a subsequent mortuary meal. This shows how spatial contextualisation can expand the reconstruction of the diversity of early Christian meal celebrations.

George H. van Kooten has recently argued that Paul’s use of ‘from him/whom’ language with reference to God the father in Romans 11.36 and 1 Corinthians 8.6, in light of the semi-technical use of this prepositional formula in the Greek metaphysical traditions, indicates that God/the father is a material cause. And this coheres, so van Kooten further argues, with other indications that Paul’s metaphysic is fundamentally Stoic. This article focuses on van Kooten’s claim that Paul’s use of ‘from him/whom’ language with reference to God the father indicates that the latter is, for Paul, a material cause. In this regard, van Kooten has mistranslated and misconstrued key data both in the ancient metaphysical traditions and in Paul and also committed the genealogical fallacy: taking individual lexemes, formulas and/or tropes to suggest that the entire metaphysical construct of one of the earlier philosophical schools (in this case, Stoicism) from which they derive should wholly govern their interpretation in a much later and different text.

In the first part of the twentieth century, Henry Cadbury argued for the unity of Luke and Acts and made the phrase Luke-Acts a standard expression in scholarship. While there have always been challenges, in recent decades the number of these has increased. One area that has not been adequately explored is the study of how ancients produced multi-scroll works. This study analyses two practices using four examples for each: two Hellenistic and two Jewish. The first is the practice of composing secondary prefaces for the second and subsequent scrolls in multi-scroll works. The purpose of the secondary preface was to create a link between the scrolls. The second is the practice of releasing a scroll when it was completed before the full complement of scrolls for the work was composed and ready for circulation. This essay suggests that Acts 1.1–2 is a secondary preface that binds Acts to Luke and that there is a gap in time between the release of Luke and the release of Acts, which helps to explain both their differences and their independent circulation in the early church. It is not an argument about genre since these practices were common in various genres. It is an argument that Luke and Acts cannot be separated from one another without ignoring ancient conventions.*

Contra graecum, against the Greek, is a term used in the critical apparatus of the so-called Oxford Vulgate to indicate passages where individual manuscripts, early Christian authors or the entire Latin tradition present a text that differs from the Greek witnesses. This contribution discusses three ex-amples from 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 7.33–4, 15.5, 14.11). At 1 Cor 7.33–4, verse divisions have varied ever since the first printed New Testament with modern verse numbers (Estienne 1551). This is partly due to the different interpretations of the verb μεμέρισται either as masculine or feminine. The difference is discussed already in early Christian authors, with Jerome finding meaning in both despite a preference for the masculine form. In 1 Cor 15.5, the number of people to whom Christ appeared differs, with ‘twelve’ in Greek and ‘eleven’ in Latin. Only a few Greek witnesses read ‘eleven’, including bilingual codices (Claromontanus, Boernerianus and Augiensis). Again, the difference was discussed already by early Christian authors, with Augustine finding meaning in both numbers. In 1 Cor 14.11, the Greek text identifies both the speaker and the listener as unintelligible ‘barbarians’ to each other. In contrast, the Latin text refers to two speakers, thus interpreting the passage strictly in the context of speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14.9, 13). The three examples from 1 Corinthians illustrate the main challenges of New Testament textual criticism, including those of contamination, coincidence of readings, incomplete transmission, and, in the case of bilingual manuscripts, mutual influence of readings.

Mark 2.21 uses unusual terminology in describing the ‘patch of an unfulled rag’ (ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου) as well as in relation to what happens when the patch subsequently fails (αἴρει τὸ πλήρωμα ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ καὶ χεῖρον σχίσμα γίνεται). While Matthew largely repeats Mark’s version verbatim (with only minor changes), Luke appears to make substantive changes to the ‘parable’. Several scholars have suggested that Luke lacked an understanding of the facts and rendered the situation entirely improbable. However, if one takes account of terminology associated with fulling processes in antiquity, recently illuminated by archaeologically grounded studies of ancient fulleries, Luke’s version emerges as a plausible interpretation of his predecessor’s and, in the other direction, certain interpretive possibilities in Mark’s account become legible.

This article argues that the statement in John 5.2, ‘There is (ἔστιν) in Jerusalem […] a pool […] which has five porticoes’, offers internal evidence for dating the Gospel prior to 70 ce, when Jerusalem was destroyed. Scholars usually discard the use of the present tense ‘is’ as a mere instance of the historic present, but this view is untenable, as I show by discussing the most recent grammatical studies concerning the historic present. Moreover, I argue that the formula ‘There is in …’ (ἔστιν δὲ ἐν) followed by a location (in the dative), with an architectural structure as the subject, is a formula that has been used since Herodotus’ time in geographic and topographic descriptions that assume the existence of this structure at the time of writing. I subsequently demonstrate that the colonnaded pool complex of Bethzatha had likely been destroyed and/or dismantled during the First Jewish Revolt, when the Bezetha area, where the pool was located, was twice destroyed and was also stripped bare of timber to construct the Roman earthworks that were thrown up against the walls of Jerusalem to help the Romans take the city. Archaeological reports on this neighbourhood confirm its desolation after 70 ce, and Eusebius’ description of the pool confirms the disappearance of its porticoes. Finally, I draw attention to the unanimous depiction of Jerusalem in Flavian and post-Flavian literature as a city entirely destroyed, burned down and reduced to ashes. This means that if the Gospel’s author describes the colonnaded Pool of Bethzatha as still standing, then the Gospel must have been written (and edited) prior to 70 ce.

In research literature and works of art, the textual gap of Mary’s bodily action, implicit in Jesus’ phrase μή μου ἅπτου (John 20.17b), is frequently filled either with a proskynesis or a standing embrace. Against the background of Judith Butler’s theory of gesture, this article analyses attempts at filling in the gaps in the text. The notion of gesture as bodily quotation helps to interpret Mary and Jesus not as counterparts, but as a performative unit enacting continuity and difference after Jesus’ death. The reading offered in this article focuses on the interaction between bodies, and it undermines the dichotomy between speech and body, man and woman, heaven and earth. This article examines exegetical interpretations of Mary’s gesture, alongside artistic interpretations, to show that the way the textual gap is filled is significant because gestures are significant.

The Latin translators of the New Testament often rendered the middle/passive verb διακρίνοµαι with words for doubt or indecision (haesito, dubito). However, in post-classical Greek, διακρίνοµαι never means ‘to doubt’. Earlier practitioners of a theologically driven philology supposed that the New Testament authors themselves created a new meaning for the word – an untenable position from the perspective of modern lexicography. How then did διακρίνοµαι become ‘doubt’? This article offers a two-pronged answer through literary-historical and cognitive linguistic analysis. First, I trace how the Greek words διακρίνοµαι and δίψυχος (‘double-minded’) became associated with the concept of ‘doubt’ through the Christian reception of the Jewish Two Ways tradition and the Letter of James. I show how the discursive connections between διακρίνοµαι, δίψυχος and ‘doubt’ (διστάζω) influenced the rendering of both terms within Coptic and Latin translation traditions. Second, I show how the same data can be analysed within a cognitive linguistic perspective, offering a model for lexicographical analysis that is grounded in modern linguistic theory.

This is a response to Fernando Bermejo-Rubio’s arguments that the original Testimonium Flavianum was a negative text. Bermejo-Rubio’s textual analysis ignores a great number of caveats and counterexamples that in the end render it far from certain or probable that the Testimonium Flavianum had a negative disposition towards Jesus. To the contrary, most of the terminology does not even appear to be problematic for a Christian scribe to interpolate. As a result, it is concluded that scholars are still stuck in the quagmire of attempting to arbitrate what is or is not authentic in the Testimonium Flavianum.

The second stanza (v.9–11) of the Christ-hymn in Phil 2.5–11 has led to two main difficulties of interpretation: first, it is disputed to whom exactly the triad in v.10b refers and what implications this has for understanding the scope of Phil 2.10–11. Second, Otfried Hofius has prominently argued that the scene in v.10–11 must be understood as universalism in the sense of salvation for all at the end of times. According to his interpretation, everyone, whether they have already put their faith in Christ, will worship Christ as Lord in the eschaton as a salvific event. A precise exegesis of the background of Phil 2.9–11 (i.e. Ps 148 and Isa 45.20–5) reveals a clear picture contrary to Hofius. The minority opinion that the triad ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων (v.10b) is to be understood as neuter nouns and encompasses the whole of creation has been neglected in the history of interpretation, but is plausible. Ignatius, Trall. 9.1, conversely, cannot be used as a meaningful parallel because its exact meaning remains vague. Moreover, Hofius’ idea of the eschatological salvific worship of all creatures is not tenable in Isa 45.20–5 and thus highly implausible in Phil 2.9–11. The expectation of universal judgement in the eschaton is also present in Rom 14.11, the only other instance in the NT where Isa 45.23 is directly alluded to (or even quoted). All three texts disagree with a notion of universalism. Rather, Paul expects an eschatological homage of the entire cosmos before Christ as Lord, willingly or unwillingly.

One of the intriguing features of the Petrine household code (1 Pet 2.18–3.7) is the lack of instructions to masters. A common view claims that there are no instructions because there were no Christian masters in the community. This view, however, is textually and historically unlikely. This essay, rather, considers how the instructions to enslaved persons and the lack of instructions to masters might have been heard from the perspective of a Christian master. The first part of the essay highlights some features of literature on household management and perceptions of enslaved persons’ moral competency. The essay then turns to 1 Peter to analyse the theological perspective of the household code and the description of enslaved persons. I propose that the author has intentionally ignored masters as part of his defining the house of God.

Hebrews scholarship regularly includes claims that the author used the word οὐρανός in either two or three distinct senses. Most basically, it is argued that the word can refer to created parts of the cosmos or to the uncreated place where God dwells, and that authors who use the word have one of these two distinct referents in mind. This is particularly important in Hebrews 12.25–9, where the οὐρανός is shaken. It is often argued that this must be the created οὐρανός in distinction to the divine or eternal οὐρανός. This article critiques this common understanding of οὐρανός and its application to Hebrews 12.25–9. First, it surveys some early Jewish and Christian texts that discuss humans ascending into heaven, illustrating that these texts do not indicate any ontological divisions between various entities named ‘heaven’. Second, it briefly examines the ten occurrences of οὐρανός in Hebrews against this background, and it becomes clear that the author of Hebrews was more interested in contrasting heaven and earth (and perhaps the highest from the lower heavens) than in separating ‘heaven’ into distinct realms based on ontology. Third, the article outlines the significance of this conclusion for understanding what Hebrews 12.25–9 says about the shaking of heaven and earth. The author of Hebrews does not mean that some uncreated οὐρανός will ‘remain’ while the created heavens and earth are shaken. Instead, all of the heavenly and earthly space will be shaken.

The essay explores the implications of Paul's description of himself as an ‘old man’ (πρεσβύτης) in Phlm. 9 for his rhetorical strategy, his psychological state and his social role. The essay first counters the interpretation of πρεσβύτης in Phlm. 9 as ‘ambassador’ and identifies the sources of the interpreters’ resistance to Paul’s description of himself as an ‘old man’. On the basis of demographic data, the essay suggests that Paul was a man of about sixty when he wrote to Philemon and that Paul would have aged prematurely in consequence of what he had suffered as an apostle. The essay then argues that Paul’s description of himself as an ‘old man’ functions in the argumentative rhetoric of his epistle both as a pathetic and an ethical appeal, simultaneously arousing pity and engendering respect. Finally, the essay contemplates the source of the ‘confidence’ shown by Paul in his appeal to Philemon, despite his senescence and imprisonment.

This article explores the critical possibilities that arise in New Testament studies when we view palaeography as a subjective discipline. In response to recent trends in palaeography that contrive new tools and techniques for making ‘objective’ judgements regarding the dates of manuscripts, I argue that another equally valid approach is to embrace palaeography as a practice akin to aesthetics, one that relies on observation and judgements about shapes to create new contexts for interpretation. Even if palaeography is no longer considered as ‘scientific’ as it was in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there are multiple new opportunities that arise when we place palaeographic discourse and its critical practices into conversation with other disciplines.

This article argues that Mark uses matronymics, that is, identifying someone by the name of their mother, to construct female communities that resist Jesus’ message. This happens precisely twice in the Gospel of Mark, at Mk 6.3 (Jesus ‘the son of Mary’) and at Mk 6.22 (‘the daughter of Herodias’). Through comparison with other Greek uses of the matronymic, I will show that both scenes draw on the link between matronymics and female lines of authority, but with slightly different valences. Mark 6.3 heightens the female context of the Nazareth speakers and the hometown resistance, while Mk 6.22 is more concerned to establish a competing line of authority to that of Jesus in the person of Herodias and her daughter. My argument complements previous research into the Markan characterisation of the positive portrayals of multiple unnamed women in Mark’s Gospel (e.g. the women with the flow of blood (Mk 5.25–34), the Syrophoenician woman (Mk 7.24–30), the poor widow (Mk 12.41–4) and the woman who anoints Jesus in Bethany (Mk 14.3–9)). Joining the negative named women to the positive unnamed women reveals a unique feminine pattern of Markan characterisation, with its own dynamics and inflections.

Prayer is one of the basic elements of religious life and is widespread in most religions. It is the human act, verbal and non-verbal, of communicating with a transcendent being (in the broadest sense). In comparison to its communicative function, the written form of prayer is secondary. This study differentiates between prayer as act, prayer as text and prayer as subject, understood as any reference to or statement made about prayer. In First Thessalonians, as in contemporary letters, prayer as subject can be found in a variety of ways. An especially remarkable feature is the prayer texts and acts of prayer (although these are not numerous and mostly short), which imply a change of addressee within the communicative situation of the letter. Against the background of ancient letters and epistolary conventions of the time, this article examines the characteristics and the specific function of prayer (as text, act and subject) in First Thessalonians. It argues that the Christian message shapes and multiplies the references to prayer, also integrating short texts and acts of prayer which transcend the epistolary communication, deepening not only the relationship between Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy and the Thessalonians but also their relationship to God and in God.