Jesus is never explicitly identified as the ‘messiah’ or christos in Q. The conspicuous absence of this particular term—so frequently used in the Pauline letters and the Gospels—is often taken to mean that the Q community was uninterested in, unaware of and/or rejected kerygmatic traditions which understood Jesus as a ‘messianic’ figure. Yet a careful analysis of the literary structure of Q 3–7 demonstrates that the redactor of Q both appropriated and subverted ‘traditional messianic expectations’ of a popular warrior-king by framing Jesus' baptism, temptation and Inaugural Sermon within announcement and confirmation passages that serve to both affirm and qualify Jesus' relationship to ‘messianic’ traditions. Located within a text dominated by the theme of eschatological reversal, the literary structure of Q 3–7 serves as a rhetorical defense in the redactor's construction of a new identity for Jesus.

Galatians 5.11 refers to Paul ‘proclaiming circumcision’—a proposition that he is concerned to refute because he constructs two compact but powerful inferences designed to falsify it. One argues from present persecution, the other from the cross. Following a precise reconstruction of these it can be shown that the three main previous interpretations of the reference of Paul's ‘proclamation of circumcision’ are dubious, whether in terms of a blatantly false charge by opponents, a phase in Paul's pre-Christian Jewish life, or an occasional apostolic mission to Jews. A fourth, embarrassing reading is more likely, especially when other comparable missionary work is considered. Early on Paul proclaimed a fully law-observant gospel to pagans that included circumcision, but then later revised his praxis.

The present essay focuses on Paul's interactions with Philo's theory of two men in 1 Cor 15.45–49. It argues that instead of rejecting that theory, Paul transforms and reinterprets it in such a way as to substantiate his own doctrine of the resurrection as developed in 1 Cor 15.35–58 (i.e., his doctrine of eschatological bodily change). The essay provides a careful analysis of Philo's theory of two men as well as an exegesis of 1 Cor 15.35–58.

In view of some ‘Pauline’ sounding phrases, Eph 2.8-9 is held to be one of the most adequate receptions of the theologoumenon of justification by faith, not works. So could the text be an indicator in the discussion about the right ‘Perspective on Paul’? This paper argues instead that we should read Eph 2.8-9 in its own context and that means first of all that we should follow the flow of the dominant metaphor of ‘dead and alive’. While some phrases might be a Pauline reminiscence, the text as a whole deals with the grace of God in order to substantiate the demand for a life lived according to God's will, as described in greater detail in Ephesians 4–6. Nevertheless Eph 2.1-10 is broadly coherent with Paul's theology.

Throughout his letters, Paul uses several terms and images that originate from the world of ancient economics. Some of these terms are used metaphorically to describe God’s own attitudes and actions. The term ἀρραβών (‘earnest money, advance payment, bargain money’) may exemplify the use of a business term in the papyri in comparison with its use in Paul’s letters (in 2 Cor. 1.22 and 5.5; cf. Eph 1.14). In Paul’s image, God is depicted as a purchaser who offers ‘us’ his salvation for free and guarantees to complete it in the end. In using the term ἀρραβών, Paul emphasizes God’s reliability and unlimited trustworthiness within an insecure world.

This study examines comparison in Hebrews in the light of ancient rhetorical theory of syncrisis, identifying five epideictic syncrises: the messengers/angels vs. Jesus (1.1-14; 2.5-18), Moses vs. Jesus (3.1-6), the Aaronic high priests vs. Jesus (5.1-10), the Levitical priestly ministry vs. the Melchizedekian priestly ministry (7.1-10.18), and Mt. Sinai vs. Mt. Zion (12.18-24). The study shows that these comparisons collectively function as a single syncritical project that argues for the superiority of the new covenant to the old, and that the project, like most of the individual comparisons, is arranged topically in accordance with ancient rhetorical theory.

It is argued that ἐκκλησία was first used by the Hellenists, probably in Jerusalem, and that it was chosen because of its strong background in the lxx. This raises the issue of why ἐκκλησία was chosen rather than συναγωγή, which occurs over twice as often in the lxx. The case is put that ἐκκλησία was chosen because συναγωγή was already in use by Jewish communities as a designation for their groups and their buildings. This view has not been argued for in detail, and the implications of this choice have not been fully explored. Through the use of ἐκκλησία the Hellenists could express their continuity with the OT ‘assembly’ of the people of God and could also distinguish themselves from other Jewish communities, without making the claim that they alone were the heirs of that people.