The purpose of this essay is to illuminate the character of Paul's appropriation of the ideal of ‘equality’ (ἰσότηϛ) in 2 Cor 8.13–15 by exploring the meaning of the term in each of the contexts in the Greek world in which thinking about ‘equality’ developed: friendship, politics, and the cosmos. The essay traces a consistent tendency in Paul to reverse the ancient logic of inverse proportion as the means for achieving ‘equality’. The essay highlights the novelty of Paul's attempt to create an economic structure—partnership in the collection—the goal of which was to achieve ‘equality’ between persons of different social classes through redistributive exchange.

The present study is prompted by Hellen Mardaga's recent discussion and definition of so-called hapax legomena (HLL), ‘rare words’ or ‘words occurring only once’, within and outside the MT, the LXX and/or the NT. After interacting with Mardaga's theses an alternative definition is provided, developed from and proved by several examples. By doing so the significance of HLL for the pragmatic linguistic analysis of a text is highlighted, of which HLL form an integral and interesting element. Throughout the study, however, it is stressed that HLL are only one element among many in a full analysis of a text and the language of its author. Consequently, HLL need to be evaluated within the context of all elements of such an analysis.

According to Seneca, a cardinal rule of benefaction is that the donor of a gift ought never to call attention to the fact that a gift has been given; it humiliates the donee and shames the donor. In reminding Philemon that he ‘owes’ Paul for the latter's mediation of the gift of salvation (Phlm 19), Paul breaks Seneca's rule. Both Seneca's ‘virtuous’ advice and Paul's ‘shameful’ breach of etiquette, however, are explicable as strategies calculated to maximize their access to valued goods and services—whether honor or the services of a wealthier man's slave—inflected by vastly different economic situations.

This article argues that the central question of Paul's letter to the Galatians is not ‘what time is it?’, but ‘what has Jesus done for you?’ In Paul's explanation of Christ's work, spatial categories are more important than temporal ones, as he impresses upon the Galatians that they have been delivered from the domain of slavery and transferred into the realm of freedom. The purpose of the letter is to urge the Galatians to remain in Christ's domain and not return to slavery by submitting to the law of Moses.

In 1 Clement 32–33, Romans 5–6 is alluded to in a summary statement concerning justification by faith (32.4), followed by two rhetorical questions that stress the ethical implications of this confession (33.1). These allusions to Romans are punctuated by an appeal for readers to imitate the pattern of good works established by God during creation (33.2-8). This article contends that the difference between Romans 5–6 and one of the earliest Christian readings of these chapters is not accidental, for the ethical appeal in 1 Clement 33 reflects the author's distinct cosmological perspective and rhetorical aims.

It has long been recognized that one of the main topics of the Gospel of Philip is ritual, including ‘the bridal chamber’, and numerous studies have discussed what practices and attitudes toward sexuality and marriage are implied by this imagery. This article will build on these studies to argue that the Gospel of Philip portrays the incarnate Jesus as actually married (to Mary Magdalene) and it represents that marriage as a symbolic paradigm for the reunification of believers with their angelic (spiritual) doubles in Christian initiation ritual, a ritual which effectively transforms initiates into members of the body of Christ and also enables ‘undefiled marriage’ for Christian partners by freeing them from demonic influences. The article aims to show that this distinctive position on Jesus' marital status was catalyzed by reading Ephesians 5 in conjunction with Valentinian incarnational theology.

The letter to the Colossians—most probably a deuteropauline document—reflects a theology of memory. Far from having the ambition of saying something new, the author aims at offering the addressed community a re-reading—paradoxically highly original in its form and content—of its own religious tradition so that the addressees will be able to interpret in a persuasive way their present situation, a situation that became more and more opaque and conflictual. The explicit confrontation with the ‘Colossian philosophy’ seems to be secondary at first sight, but a multiple reading of the letter allows one to discover strong ties between the non-polemical and the polemical parts of the letter. Read in this perspective, Col 2 reveals between the lines a conflict of interpretation about some central notions, such as ‘humility’, ‘intelligence’, ‘wisdom’, among others.

Following the recent emphasis on studying early Christian manuscripts as historical artefacts, whose text and meta-textual aspects comprise important embodiments of reception and interpretation, this article re-examines the early Titus fragment 𝔓32 (P.Ryl. Gr. 1.5) with respect to its physical situation within the manuscript. I expand the scope of current reconstructions to consider in detail the lost beginning of the epistle, and argue that Titus was not the first document in the codex: at least one other preceded. Although the identity of the accompanying material cannot be deduced codicologically, patristic evidence suggests that Titus was normally transmitted in a collection of thirteen or fourteen Pauline epistles when the 𝔓32 codex was produced, rendering these the prime candidates.

This article analyzes the widely misunderstood concept of ‘payback’ or ‘repayment’ (ἀντιμισθία) that, according to the so-called Second Letter of Clement, believers owe to Christ. Much of the secondary literature is laden with theological polemics (e.g. the author perverts Paul's gospel of grace), rather than an attempt to understand this concept relative to social relationships in antiquity. I argue that Second Clement presents Christ as salvific benefactor and patron. Christ offers salvation to those who accept the terms of his patronage, terms that include the obligation to render ‘payback’—for example, in the form of praise, witness, loyalty, and almsgiving. A failure to accept these terms would jeopardize the relationship between Christ and his earthly clients and thus call their salvation into question. As a corollary, I propose that a likely purpose for Second Clement was to convince a Christian audience that the benefits of salvation come with recurring obligations to Christ, their salvific patron.

This article identifies a structural and conceptual chiasm within the description of Jesus' death and resurrection in Acts 2.23b-24, which helps to account for the distinctive elements of the passage.

With the example of Aceldama, this paper shows that reception history must not be confined to ideas or stories, but may take an interest in places. It should not simply explore art or literature, but also envisage geography. The site purchased by Judas with the blood of Jesus in Acts 1.19–20 has suffered, once identified (or at least defined), from this terrible acquisition. At the same time, a legend has grown around the land, which is supposed to devour corpses while a sinister reputation was established making ‘Aceldama’ the paradigm of a scary place. This Wirkungsgeschichte should lead us to revise an initial preconception according to which historical work should stop at the writing of the text, and a second mistaken notion according to which the work of the exegete ends with ‘defining’ the ‘meaning’ of the text. There are potentialities in texts that only the study of their effects can perceive.

This study argues in favour of a new hypothesis about the Aramaic background of Jesus' ‘salt'-parable. In light of the analysis of Bekhorot 8b, the tradition of Syriac Church fathers and the text of the Vulgate the parable seems to refer to the preserving strength instead of the taste of salt. So, according to this study, the original Aramaic version contained סרי, while the first Greek version originally contained μαραίνω which was later corrupted to μωραίνω mainly under the influence of the Latin word insulsus.