The article addresses the question ‘What is “New Testament Study”?’, considering as possible alternatives ‘Theology’ or ‘Religious Studies’. The issue may be critically determined by who is doing the study, and in what context; but in the context of the SNTS, it is argued that a non-confessional approach is more appropriate today. Part of the distinction between the two approaches may lie in one's attitude to non-canonical literature. In the second part of the article the question is raised as to what difference study of non-canonical texts might make in understanding the NT documents. Examples of the passion narrative in Q, and beliefs about the resurrection of the body (by Paul and other early Christians), are examined. Such issues raise questions about the NT canon, which are briefly addressed in a final section.

The parable of the prodigal son is considered by most commentators to be part of Luke's special tradition (L). Nevertheless some exegetes, struck by its strongly Lucan character, consider it Luke's creation. Another option should be considered – that Luke rewrote a parable that was originally analogous to Matthew 21.28–32. Even if this hypothesis cannot be conclusively proven, it helps heuristically to reveal more fully Luke's literary and theological genius. In line with our increasingly clear conviction that the evangelists were not mere compilers of traditions, this suggestion deserves to be discussed afresh.

In recent decades, emphasising the ‘orality/aurality’ of the Roman world, some scholars have asserted that in early Christian circles texts were ‘performed’, not ‘read’ (and could not have been read), likening this action to descriptions of oratorical delivery of speeches (from memory) or theatrical performance. It has even been suggested that some texts, particularly the Gospel of Mark, were composed in ‘performance’, and not through an author working up a text in written form. These claims seem to be based on numerous oversimplifications (and so distortions) of relevant historical matters, however, and also involve a failure to take account of the full range of relevant data about the use of texts in early Christianity and the wider Roman-era setting. So, at least some of the crucial claims and inferences made are highly dubious. In this essay, I offer corrections to some crucial oversimplifications, and I point to the sorts of data that must be taken into account in drawing a more reliable picture of the place of texts and how they functioned in early Christianity.

Dale Allison is right to assert that ‘the twelve tribes in the Diaspora’ invokes Jewish ideas about the Ten Lost Tribes, but wrong to disassociate this thesis from the scholarly consensus that the pseudepigraphal author sees the church as Israel. For James, rather, the restored Israel consists of members of the Two Tribes of Judah and Benjamin (= Jewish Christians) plus members of the Ten Tribes. The latter, rather than being far away in some mythical, inaccessible realm, have been living since the Assyrian invasion in known Diaspora realms, where they lost their Israelite identity until it was reawakened by their recent encounter with the Gospel. Gentiles who respond positively to the Christian message, then, are for James the Ten Lost Tribes.

One facet of group identity is the construction and description of ‘the outsider’. A key dimension of this is the way outsiders are labelled. οἱ ἄπιστοι and τὰ ἔθνη, two outsider-designations used in Pauline texts, are examined here to determine what their use and function indicate about group identity. In these cases, we see the creation of a new designation and linguistic innovation in the way a designation is used, which includes the alteration of the referent of an established term. Defining and understanding ‘the outsider’, grappling with how to represent outsiders to ‘ourselves’ and negotiating across group boundaries were key undertakings that led to linguistic creativity, change and transformation. That such linguistic creativity can be seen as going on ‘at the boundary’, to create and define the boundaries of the movement, shows how important such boundaries were.

Paul's boasting is often considered to be problematic. This paper explores Pauline boasting from the perspective of Plutarch's views on self-praise. Outlining what kinds of self-praise were and were not acceptable to someone like Plutarch, the paper analyses and positions Paul's boasting in Phil 3 in this context, concluding that, however offensive it may be to modern ears, this boasting was probably less so to the ears of his contemporaries.

Christian and Jewish sources of late antiquity employ ἡ ἐντολή as a term for almsgiving. The development of the locution passes through at least two stages before reaching semantic maturity around the fourth or fifth century. Tobit and Ben Sira record the early notion of charity as a paradigmatic precept, while the Didache attests to a more stabilised and syntactically developed, but still transitional, expression. The use of ἐντολή in 1 Tim 6.14 does not belong to the mature usage, and Test. Ash. 2.8 is a problematic reference point (pace Nathan Eubank). The Didache is more helpful in contextualising the NT evidence.

This narrative-critical study of Acts proposes that Luke has deliberately arranged events so that the discussion about circumcising baptised Gentiles is postponed for as long as possible. When the issue does surface, it is raised by a delegation of second-wave Christians from the sect of the Pharisees. These factors combined give the impression that circumcision of Gentiles, a matter long settled by Luke's own day, had never been original, favourable or sanctioned by God or the apostles. By portraying the movement to circumcise Gentiles as belated, extrinsic and pernicious, Luke's representation of difference in the church resembles that of later heresiologists.

This essay argues that Deut 29–32, especially Deut 31, plays a significant role in 2 Cor 3, especially vv. 7–18: Paul's elusive allegorical narrative draws on Deuteronomic motifs of ‘closure’ (the end of Moses, of the law and of the Israelites); the national observance of reading the law and encountering the Lord face to face; and the succession of Moses by one named Ἰησοῦς in the LXX. This analysis extends scholarly discussion of Paul's use of Deuteronomy and contributes to the wider debate about Paul's use of scripture and his understanding of Jesus' relationship to Moses and the Mosaic covenant.

This article discusses briefly a category of New Testament manuscripts with ‘hermeneiai’ before offering a critical edition of P.CtYBR inv. 4641, a Coptic codex leaf containing portions of the text of John that was recently discovered by the present author in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. Unidentified until now, this codex leaf represents the first known example of a hermeneia manuscript of John written solely in Coptic. As such, the Yale fragment has much significance for discussions about the ἑρμηνεία manuscripts, their origin, influences and functions.

This article endeavours to illuminate the socio-economic dimension of Paul's κοινωνία with the Philippians. It initially adduces a representative sample of philological evidence which demonstrates that κοινωνία and its cognates (κοινωνός, κοινωνέω) frequently convey the sense of partnership in some economic enterprise, and establishes a semantic equivalence between κοινωνία and societas (partnership). It is then argued that, from a Roman socio-economic and legal perspective, Paul's κοινωνία consisted of a societas unius rei (i.e. societas evangelii), whereby Paul supplied the ars and opera (skill and labour), while the Philippians contributed the pecunia (funds) to ensure the progress of his mission.

Jesus' preaching at Nazareth in Luke 4 is usually read as the rejection of a prophet because he is too familiar to his home town, as is the case in Matthew and Mark. This reading puts Luke's text under heavy strains that make it seem inconsistent or misconstrued. We propose that it should rather be read as Jesus refusing to be used for his home country's benefits, based upon a reconsideration of Luke 4.24 in the light of Luke 4.19. We then put this reading in synoptical perspective.

The present essay offers a fresh contribution to the long-standing debate regarding the nature of the resurrection of Christ within the pre-Pauline formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5. The article first provides an analysis of the current state of the discussion, offering new observations and lines of evidence which suggest that a number of common arguments on both sides of the debate are lacking or inconclusive. The essay then offers a new proposal regarding the verb used within the formula for the resurrection event. The article presents previously neglected evidence significant for the debate regarding Jesus' resurrection within this primitive confession.

This essay examines Ephesians in light of current research in ethnic studies. The methodological advance of such an approach is twofold: first, it moves the exegesis of the domestic codes to the wider frame of the letter; and, second, it goes beyond the limited hermeneutical framework of the ‘origins’ of the reconciliation language to the more productive examination of its function in the text. The concept of ‘one new humanity’ provides evidence for the author's ethnic reasoning, which participated in ancient cultural affirmations of the essential fluidity and changeability of all ethnicity. The author of Ephesians domesticates the mythical language of baptism by making it fit the conventional morality of a household economy, thus presenting the letter's most important ecclesiological concept, that of ‘the body of Christ’, as a unity that is more moral than mythic.

In several studies of Galatians, J. Louis Martyn has argued that in the allegory of Hagar and Sarah (4.1–5.1), the ‘two covenants’ of 4.24b, traditionally identified with Judaism and Christianity respectively, refer, on the one hand, to a Christian Jewish Law-observant Gentile mission, Teachers from whom are disturbing Paul's Galatian converts, and to the Law-free Gentile mission promulgated by Paul, on the other. In the light, particularly, of Paul's overall usage of ‘covenant’, Martyn's interpretation is not sustainable – though this need not imply a return to an anti-Jewish interpretation of the text.

1 Thessalonians 1.2-10 is generally understood to be making reference to the Thessalonians participating in missionary activity in which they proclaim the salvific message of Christ. Read this way, the text presumes that the Thessalonians have evangelized areas even before the Paul party arrived. That a newly constituted group of artisans would undertake such an aggressive program seems unlikely. The rhetoric of the passage is better understood in light of the practice of associations in proclaiming honours for their gods and their founders and benefactors, the news about which spread via networks of traders, artisans, and other travelers throughout the provinces of Macedonia and Achaia.

Recent archaeological and historical research has stressed the manifold relationship between Nero and Domitian thereby opening fresh insights into both the ‘remembered persecution’ of Christians by Domitian and the probable date of the Book of Revelation. It is this form of memorial strategy that throws new light on the old problem of Domitian and Revelation.

This article investigates the relationship of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in the letter to the Romans. God is presented as the guarantor of a moral structure, who judges people in symmetrical fashion. However, in Christ God goes beyond the commonsensical in a counter-intuitive initiative to overcome ‘bad’ through ‘good’. The Christ believers are admonished to imitate this approach (12.21). Still, the authorities are respected as divine agents, who imitate God's abiding concern for symmetrical judgement. Paul's major concern in Romans 13.1–7 is reassurance: the believers' higher paradigm of love is compatible with the demands of political authority, which is unambiguously ‘good’ for them (13.4).

Against the consensus that ‘peace and security’ in 1 Thess 5.3 is an allusion to a common Roman imperial slogan, it is argued that, while ‘peace’ does, in fact, evoke Roman propaganda's promise of a stable society to her loyal subjects, ‘security’ has its roots in the Hellenistic conception of the polis as the guarantor of stability. Paul himself combined these two catchwords, thereby promoting a counterclaim both to Roman imperial power and to Hellenistic visions of the ideal civic society. Neither can offer true security in the face of the apocalyptic cataclysm he is convinced is coming. That can be found, as far as he is concerned, only in identifying with the community of believers in Jesus.

There is a widespread assumption in Acts' scholarship that the Ethiopian eunuch is an elite official who reflects Luke's larger interest in high-status individuals. Such an assumption, however, overlooks the inextricable connection between status, gender and ethnicity in the Greco-Roman world, and how the eunuch's repeated designation as ‘the eunuch’ would have affected his status in particular. This article thus problematises the depiction of the eunuch as an elite convert by contextualising the eunuch's identification as both a ‘eunuch’ (εὐνοῦχος) and an ‘Ethiopian’ (Αἰθίοψ). Overall, the eunuch is an ambiguous figure who embodies the boundary-crossing nature of the gospel itself.