In this article it is argued that in Rom 11.25–32 Paul starts from the situation of Israel that he has described in Rom 11.1–10: Israel is torn into two parts – a Christian minority and a non-Christian majority which has rejected the Gospel because it has been hardened. In these verses Paul develops an expectation according to which it is God himself who will take away the hardening of the non-Christian majority of Israel by leading them to faith in Christ. It is God himself whom Paul identifies as the ‘deliverer who comes from Zion’ (v. 26), although he does not expect a theophany but uses the quotations from Isa 59.20–1 and 27.9 as metaphorical circumscriptions for God's intervention in favour of the non-Christian part of his people. Although Paul is fully convinced that God will intervene in favour of the non-Christian Jews, he has no idea how this could happen. This discrepancy between Paul's assurance of the ‘that’ and his cluelessness regarding the ‘how’ is the reason why he presents his solution of the Israel problem in an apocalyptic mode as a revelation of a ‘mystery’ (v. 25).

A familiar feature in Pauline scholarship is the view that Sin as a power, and the concomitant forces of the flesh and death, are the dominant elements in Paul's account of the human plight. The present article seeks not to deny the significance of these elements, but to argue that equally important are ‘sins’ or individual infractions of the divine will. It is argued here that recent developments in Pauline studies have, in combination, led to an unwarranted downplaying of sins plural. In a number of key passages, Paul includes such acts of transgression in his account of the human plight.

Scholarship on Matt 5.25–6 has focused on the question of whether the saying offers mundane wisdom or threatens divine judgement, with the majority concluding that it refers to eternal punishment in hell. This article examines debt-prison and related phenomena before turning to the illuminating history of ancient interpretation. The article concludes that the ‘eternal damnation’ gloss widely favoured today is an overinterpretation first inspired by the exigencies of fourth- and fifth-century doctrinal controversy. Instead of eternal perdition, Matt 5.25–6 and its parallels suggest a time of straits followed by possible release.

This study explores the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, elucidating the details of Lazarus' worldly suffering – what it is that ails him, and whether the dogs are friends or fiends. Fresh evidence from the classical world is brought to bear, including medical texts, miracle stories and philosophical treatises, in addition to overlooked Jewish and Christian testimony. The results establish the plausibility of maladies unrelated to diseases or skin conditions, and reveal the dogs to be positive characters that highlight Lazarus' penury and the rich man's depravity. New avenues into several broader interpretive issues of the parable are explored.

The present paper offers a new interpretation of the three-clause reading of Jude 22–23 and demonstrates how Jude carries on the Jesus tradition by inverting the norms of invective. It is demonstrated that this interpretation is especially surprising given that the epistle follows many conventions of Greco-Roman invective. Given the character of invective, one would expect the writer to instruct the beloved to expel the ungodly from the community. Instead, Jude commands the beloved to ‘show mercy’ to the very ones with whom they contend (Jude 22), a profound reflection of Jude's understanding of mercy and faith.

Codex Bezae lacks the Greek text of Acts 10.4–14, but the Latin text survives on fol. 455a. Damage to the manuscript has caused traces of ink from the now-lost Greek text to be transferred onto the Latin page of Acts 10.4–14. They preserve a mirror image of text from fol. 454b, the facing page at the time of the damage. By reversing high-resolution images of fol. 455a with photo-editing software, the offset ink can be deciphered. As a result, the surviving Greek text from Acts 10.4–9 in Codex Bezae is published here for the first time.

In the Journal of Roman Studies of 2015, I argued that the evidence in Tacitus for a state-directed punishment of Christians in Rome in 64 ce was too weak to sustain the historical interpretation of it as a persecution. In a reply in this journal last year, Christopher Jones argued that knowledge of Christians under that name could well have reached Rome by the mid-60s, that the vulgus of the city could well have accused such persons, and that the Tacitean account is therefore generally credible. While admitting the justice of some of his criticisms, I attempt in this reply to clarify some of my arguments and to restate my original claim that a persecution of Christians by the emperor Nero in connection with the Great Fire of 64 seems improbable given the context of the relations between officials of the Roman state and Christians over the first century ce.

These three short papers were delivered at the 72nd General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, held in Pretoria, South Africa, on 8–11 August 2017. The ‘Quaestiones disputatae’ session was chaired by the President of the Society, Professor Michael Wolter. The first two papers engage with Teresa Morgan's book, Roman Faith and Christian Faith, and Professor Morgan responds to them in the third.

These three short papers were delivered at the 72nd General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, held in Pretoria, South Africa, on 8–11 August 2017. The ‘Quaestiones disputatae’ session was chaired by the President of the Society, Professor Michael Wolter. The first two papers engage with Teresa Morgan's book, Roman Faith and Christian Faith, and Professor Morgan responds to them in the third.

These three short papers were delivered at the 72nd General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, held in Pretoria, South Africa, on 8–11 August 2017. The ‘Quaestiones disputatae’ session was chaired by the President of the Society, Professor Michael Wolter. The first two papers engage with Teresa Morgan's book, Roman Faith and Christian Faith, and Professor Morgan responds to them in the third.