Picking up on the revived interest in the Song of Songs in biblical scholarship, the article focuses on the significance of the Song in the tradition of Jesus’ teachings. After a survey of rabbinic midrash on the Song, five examples show that Jesus as remembered in the gospel tradition expresses an unusual interest in the Song with a discreet mystical emphasis. The nuptial Christology that subsequently surfaces in Revelation and in Hippolytus and Origen suggests a continuous development as from the Jesus tradition. This continuity may explain the remarkable parallels between the interest of the Church Fathers in the Song and that of the Rabbis.

John 1.1–5 constitutes the original Prologue to the Fourth Gospel. This passage can still be read as functioning in this way.

This article argues that John 9.4–5 should be reanalysed as an appeal parallel to 12.35–6, so that the ‘night … when no one can work’ of 9.4 corresponds to the avoidable ‘darkness’ of 12.35. Viewed in this manner, ‘night’ represents the condemned state of the unbelieving after the departure of Jesus. Jesus urges his disciples to ‘work the works’ of God so that, at the historical onset of ‘night’, the Paraclete may mediate a continuing, covert experience of ‘day’ within them. That onset, then, marks a critical phase in the eschatological separation of the ‘children of light’ from ‘the world’.

Acts 13.6–12 has been viewed as highly significant in the debate about the historicity of Acts, since the beginnings of the Pauline mission among the Gentiles are supposed to be rooted here, and the story illustrates Paul's self-understanding as an apostle. On the other hand, signs of literary creativity of the author with regard to the overall theological concept and the controversy about miracles, magic and apocalyptic traditions are clearly seen in this section that seem to contradict the description of the beginnings of the Pauline mission. This paper explores the apparent contradiction in the debate about the historicity of Luke-Acts in general and Acts 13.6–12 in particular, and shows that magic and apocalypticism can be incorporated within the ancient understanding of historical verification.

Traditionally, Pauline exegesis has tended to reduce the Judaism which the apostle encounters in his argumentation to a legalist and particularistic religion; a religion from which Paul would have distanced himself, inventing a Christianity of universal grace in his critique of the Torah. If the New Perspective on Paul allowed us to correct this legalistic reduction of Second Temple Judaism, by highlighting the dimension of election with the foundation of the covenant of Israel, the instigators of this exegetical programme have, however, assented to the hypothesis of a supersession of Jewish particularism by Christian universalism. Hence the critique voiced on this issue by the adherents of what is now called the Radical New Perspective. We are especially indebted to Denise Kimber Buell and Caroline Johnson Hodge for this wave of protest, for both authors identify the use of an ‘ethnic reasoning’ in the Pauline reworking of the Gentiles’ identity. While this critique deserves to be heard, the thesis of a logic of ethnicity and kinship at work under the pen of the apostle cannot be ratified without discussion, since it is not consistent with a rigorous examination of the letter to the Galatians. In that context, indeed, the discourse of identity is not mainly ethnic but anthropological and cosmological, since the believers – Jews quite as much as Gentiles – through baptism have to become not a ‘new people’ but rather a ‘new creation’ (Gal 6.15).

The Augustan laws criminalising adultery and stuprum and promoting marriage and childrearing not only intruded into the family lives of citizens (including freedpersons and their descendants) but also made marital probity central to moral and political discourse in the first century. This was true not only for imperial figures like Seneca and Musonius Rufus, but also for Jews and the earliest Christians. Considering Philo and Paul as interpreters of the sixth commandment (‘you shall not commit adultery’) illuminates the subtle but significant ways that the Roman matrix set the parameters within which they worked out their arguments. For Philo the ten commandments are heads or summaries of the legislation as whole; the sixth commandment (following the LXX) takes pride of place in the ‘second pentad’ because adultery is the greatest of injustices and is rooted in pleasure, the most fatal of passions. He reads the commandment expansively and through first-century constructions of sexuality. Comparison with Pseudo-Phocylides suggests that Philo did not originate these positions, but shares them with other first-century interpreters. Paul also is concerned with summarising the law; he cites the sixth commandment in Romans, where he grants it first place in the second pentad, and reads it as prohibiting all unions and acts that contravened good sexual mores. But for Paul, the sixth commandment is no longer a guide for the blind; it is never cited when he advises his communities on sexual morality. Instead it supports his argument for freedom from the law in Christ.

A critical analysis of the statements of Eusebius from Caesarea makes plausible the presumption that the indications of Papias administering an office as an ἐπίσκοπος in the city of Hierapolis in Asia Minor are not based on historically confirmed information accepted by Eusebius himself. Moreover these indications seem to depict a post-Eusebian construction. This presumption is likely to unsettle the historical reliability of Papias' episcopacy. This implies that Papias can no longer be treated as evidence for the hypothesis that for the congregations in the west of the Roman province of Asia the institution of an ἐπίσκοπος of the local church had already developed in the second quarter of the second century ce.

This study examines every reference to πνεῦμα in NT Papyrus 46 (P. Chester Beatty ii / P. Mich. Inv. 6238) and whether or not it is contracted as a nomen sacrum. Against expectations, the scribe does not always use nomina sacra to designate the divine Spirit, nor are other kinds of spirits always written out in full. This discovery destabilises the assumption that we can access the scribe's understanding of πνεῦμα simply by identifying where nomina sacra do and do not occur. At the same time, such scribal irregularity itself may illustrate wider theological ambiguities among some early Christian communities concerning the status and role of the Holy Spirit.

The role of manuscript corrections in studying textual transmission of the New Testament has been long recognised by textual critics. And yet, the actual witness of corrections may at times be difficult to interpret. A case in point is Josef Schmid's seminal work on the text of Revelation. Following Wilhelm Bousset, Schmid argued that a particular group of corrections in Codex Sinaiticus reflected a Vorlage with a text akin to that of the Andreas text-type. By dating these corrections – unlike Bousset – to the scriptorium, Schmid utilised their witness to trace the text of Andreas back to the fourth century. Recently, Juan Hernández has shown that the corrections cited by Schmid were significantly later, hence calling his fourth-century dating of Andreas (among other things) into question. Through an analysis of the corrections cited by Schmid, supplemented by a fuller data-set of Sinaiticus’ corrections in Revelation, this study seeks to reappraise Schmid's claims concerning the textual relations of these corrections, and identify their role in the later transmission of the text of Revelation.