The ‘Jerusalem decrees’ of Acts 15.20, 29 and 21.25 can be interpreted both as ‘Noachide commandments’, implicitly keeping the separation between Jews and Gentiles, and as analogous to the decrees for resident aliens in Lev 17–18 and elsewhere, implicitly allowing Gentiles to associate with Jews under certain conditions. What is at stake is the status to be assigned to Gentiles by the community of Jewish believers in Jesus. These interpretations correspond to the attitudes towards Gentile believers at Antioch manifested, according to Gal 2.11–14, respectively by James and by Cephas.

Despite the obvious differences between Plutarch's parties and James's churches, a careful look at the opening προβληματα of Plutarch's Quaestiones convivales sheds a helpful light upon the issues addressed in the Epistle of James. In both texts, the problems of quarrels, equitable seating arrangements and communal leadership are brought to the fore out of an assiduous concern for harmony. Nonetheless, unlike Plutarch, James does not ground his prescriptions for congregational peace in the friendship of the community but in ethical norms set up by God.

The identification of Junia in Rom 16.7 has been a familiar problem in biblical interpretation. Most studies, however, are preoccupied with the gender of the name, assuming that Junia's apostolic status is not in doubt. This article addresses the latter issue. The collocation of επισημος with its adjuncts shows that, as a rule, επισημος with a genitive personal adjunct indicates an inclusive comparison (‘outstanding among’), while επισημος with (εν plus) the personal dative indicates an elative notion without the implication of inclusion (‘well known to’). This study concludes that Junia was well known to the apostles rather than outstanding among them.

La controverse sur la virginité de Marie a dominé l’exégèse de Mt 1.18 dans des débats récents. Les références critiques de la littérature rabbinique n’ont fait que confirmer cette tendance – à tort, comme nous le verrons. Notre tâche ici est premièrement, d’expliquer comment une forte tradition académique – poussée par son intérêt sur la virginité de Marie – s’est appropriée certaines références rabbiniques, et deuxièmement, de nous concentrer sur la question de la culture contextuelle de Mt 1.18 que la littérature rabbinique peut nous aider à comprendre et cela dans une nouvelle perspective.

In 1 Tim 5.3–16 ist ein Konflikt erkennbar zwischen dem Idealbild der Witwe und dem Status quo. Gemäss Verfasser, dessen Ansicht christlicher Tradition entspricht, sollten ausschliesslich die ‘wirklichen Witwen’ und nicht alle Frauen, die zu seiner Zeit als Witwen bezeichnet wurden, Objekt der Versorgung sein. Unter diesen Witwen gab es auch jüngere Frauen, die gar nie verheiratet gewesen waren. Der Verfasser versucht nun, diese ‘jüngeren Witwen’ aus der Gruppe der Witwen auszuschliessen, indem er das traditionelle Witwenbild gegenüber dem Status quo stark macht. Seine Motivation ist wohl die Abwehr gegen eine asketisch orientierte Irrlehre, die besonders unter den ‘jüngeren Witwen’ grosse Resonanz gefunden hat.

Können Gold und Silber rosten? Meist verdrängen die Interpretationen zu Jak 5.3 das Problem, das mit diesem Bildgebrauch gegeben ist. Dagegen stellt der vorliegende Artikel den Fehler der Metaphorik in den Mittelpunkt seiner Überlegungen. Bereits in der Antike kannte man die Werkstoffeigenschaften von Gold und Silber sehr genau, was sich auch literarisch ausreichend sicher belegen läßt. Die Frage muß deshalb lauten: Wodurch konnte der Fehler im Bild bei Jakobus veranlaßt worden sein? Als Hintergrund bietet sich am ehesten die frühjüdische Vorstellung von einem ‘Schatz im Himmel’ an, die hinsichtlich des befristeten Wertes irdischer Schätze auch deren Vergänglichkeit assoziiert. In Jak 5.3 geht es um die Nutzlosigkeit gehorteter Güter angesichts des kommenden Gerichtes. Um dieser Intention willen nimmt der Autor den Fehler des Bildes in Kauf.

In addressing people living far away, the prophet Isaiah (56.5–7) says: ‘And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, every one who keeps the Sabbath, and does not profane it, and holds fast to my covenant – these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.’

The recent history of the modern Chabad (Lubavitcher) movement of Hasidic Judaism provides insight into the development of early Christianity. In both movements successful eschatological prophecies have increased belief in the leader's authority, and there is a mixture of ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ elements. Similar genres of literature are used to spread the good news (e.g. miracle catenae and collections of originally independent sayings). Both leaders tacitly accepted the messianic faith of their followers but were reticent about acclaiming their messiahship directly. The cataclysm of the Messiah's death has led to belief in his continued existence and even resurrection.

New information coming from the excavations at Sepphoris has redefined the understanding of life in central Galilee during the first century. Beginning in 3 BC, Herod Antipas built Sepphoris into a beautiful and fortified capital city, called by Josephus ‘the ornament of all Galilee’. Jesus grew up in Nazareth which was less than 4 miles south of Sepphoris, an hour's walk away. This paper focuses on the challenges to NT scholarship that arise from this new and exciting evidence.

Three translation issues in the Syriac NT are considered: the translation of καρπος, of παντα ταυτα or ταυτα παντα, and of διαβολος. In each case the Novum Testamentum Graece uses Syriac authorities to witness to a variant, but an examination of those authorities demonstrates that while they may support the readings for which they are cited they also could have arrived at their translation due to preferences peculiar to Syriac.

Rev 22.6–9 exhibits an elaborate structure. Fundamental to its structural complexity is the rhetorical technique of ‘chain-link’ construction, discussed by both Lucian of Samosata and Quintilian. Appearing in at least three other passages in the Johannine apocalypse, this transition device involves a back-and-forth (AbaB) arrangement of ideas that has not been adequately appreciated in modern scholarship. Rev 22.6–9 has occasionally been characterised as the product of a second-rate or ‘irregular’ mind. In fact, however, these verses evidence a structural feature commended by ancient rhetoricians concerned with presentational clarity and force.

Proponents of the Griesbach hypothesis have often appealed to a tradition handed down by Clement of Alexandria in support of their position that Mark used Matthew and Luke.For example, in the 1984 Jerusalem Symposium on the Interrelations of the Gospels, the position paper for the modern form of the Griesbach hypothesis argued: ‘This one direct statement by Clement, the most highly respected Christian scholar of his day, is of more historical value than all the theories that have ever been propounded about the sequence in which the Gospels were written, including the theories of Augustine’: William R. Farmer, ‘The Statement of the Hypothesis’, The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium (ed. David L. Dungan; BETL 95; Leuven: Leuven University & Peeters, 1990) 145.Other examples include William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina, 21976) 1, 225–7, 282; William R. Farmer, ‘The Patristic Evidence Reexamined: A Response to George Kennedy’, New Synoptic Studies: The Cambridge Gospel Conference and Beyond (ed. William R. Farmer; Macon, Ga: Mercer University, 1983) 1–15; Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon, Ga: Mercer University, 1987) 163–8; Bernard Orchard, ‘Response to H. Merkel’, Interrelations, 603; and David L. Dungan, ‘Two-Gospel Hypothesis’, ABD 6.677. Written early in his career in the now lost Hypotyposeis, Clement's information has been preserved for us by Eusebius of Caesarea as follows:

But again in those very books Clement presented a tradition of the original elders (παραδωσιν των ανεκαθεν πρεσβυτερων) about the ‘order’ of the gospels (περι της ταξεως των ευαγγελιων) in this manner: He said that those of the gospels comprising the genealogies were ‘written before’ (προγεγραϕθαι ελεγεν των ευαγγελιων τα περιεχοντα τας γενεαλογιας), that Mark had this ‘disposition’ (ταυτην εσχηκεναι την οικονομιαν): that when Peter was in Rome preaching the word openly (δημοσια) and proclaiming (εξειποντος) the gospel by the spirit, those present, who were many, entreated Mark, as one who followed him for a long time and remembered what was said, to record what was spoken; but that after he composed the gospel, he shared it (μεταδουναι) with those who wanted it; that, when Peter found out about it, he did not actively discourage or encourage it; but that John, last, aware that the physical facts were disclosed (συνιδοντα οτι τα σωματικα εν τοις ευαγγελιοις δεδηλωται) in the gospels, urged by friends, and inspired by the spirit, composed a spiritual gospel. So much for Clement. (Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.5–7)My translation, rendering the words in quotation marks as generally as possible to avoid prejudicing the interpretative issues. Other translations, however, are more specific. For example, J. E. L. Oulton translated Clement's statement for the Loeb Classical Library as follows: ‘He said that those Gospels were first written which include the genealogies’: Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History (ed. G. P. Goold; trans. Oulton; LCL 265; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1932) 2.47, 49.

The Rylands fragment of John (PRyl 457, usually known as P52) is widely acclaimed in the standard textbooks as the oldest surviving fragment of the text of the NT. At the time of the publication of the editio princeps, it was dated to the first half of the second century.C. H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library (Manchester, 1935) 16. Some doubts have been cast on this in recent years and a slightly later date (second half of the second century) proposed.A. Schmidt, ‘Zwei Anmerkungen zu P. Ryl. III 457’, APF 35 (1989) 11–12. Nevertheless it is widely agreed that the fragment is one of the earliest NT manuscripts that we possess.