The observation that the exemplary narrative of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16.19–31) has a ‘sister-story’ in the parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15.11–32) takes us to the centre of Luke's theology. In 16.19–31 two motifs collide, which in different ways determine a person's eschatological fate: the repentance of a sinner (16.30) and the compensating balance between the good and the bad that one receives in this life and in the next (16.25). Through the connectedness of the parable-trilogy in Luke 15 and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus both concepts are set in tension with one another. The theological centre of Luke's Gospel lies in the tense inter-relationship between Luke 15 and Luke 16.

Against the consensus that John 2.19 alludes to the destruction of the temple and is dependent on Synoptic traditions, it is argued here that: (a) there is some interdependence between the Johannine and Synoptic sayings on temple destruction, but not so as to posit Johannine use of Synoptic material; (b) Jesus' saying in John 2.19 does not refer to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, but to his death and resurrection (proof of his temple-cleansing authority), formulated in distinctively and exclusively Johannine terms; (c) Mark takes Jesus to have predicted the destruction of the temple, but the notion that he also predicted its rebuilding (Mark 15.29) can be explained only as a distorted version of John 2.19, known to Mark via a source hostile to Jesus.

This article argues that John 7.15 claims neither literacy nor illiteracy for Jesus, but rather that Jesus was able to confuse his opponents with regards to his scribal literacy. According to the Johannine narrator, Jesus' opponents assumed he did not ‘know letters’, but also acknowledged that he taught as if he did. This article also suggests that the claim of John 7.15 is historically plausible in light of first-century Christianity's corporate memory(ies) of Jesus' literacy.

This article demonstrates that according to the Acts of the Apostles, the major charges brought against Peter, Stephen, and Paul—as well as, in later Christian texts, against James—are violations of the Temple's sacredness, both by means of statements about and actions within it. On the narrative level, in their portrayal of the conflicts and trials of these early Christian leaders, the ancient Christian sources argued that because the early Christian community in Jerusalem sought to partake in the Temple worship in its own way, Jesus' followers were falsely accused of violating the Temple's sacredness. On the historical level, it may be concluded that these events were authentic, and that they were affected by two factors: (a) The assumption, on the part of the Jewish community, that Jesus represented an anti-Temple stance. This assumption was based on Jesus' ‘cleansing’ action at the Temple, and the saying attributed to him regarding the destruction of the Temple and the erection of a new one ‘not made with [human] hands’. As such, Jesus' followers were viewed as posing a threat to the Temple as well. (b) The meticulous approach to Temple rituals held by the Sadducean high priests in charge of the prosecutions. According to their approach, any deviance from the proscribed procedure desecrated the sacrificial cult and was to be avoided at any cost.

Erastus (Rom 16.23) has featured prominently in the ongoing debate over the social and economic make-up of the early Pauline communities, since how one renders his title (ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως) dramatically affects the range of economic stratification represented in the Corinthian church. Relying chiefly on epigraphy, including an important new inscription from the Achaean colony of Patras, this article engages the scholarly dialogue about the Latin equivalent of Erastus' title, rebutting the arguments in favour of arcarius and aedilis, and contends that he served as quaestor, a high-ranking municipal position exclusively occupied by the economic elite.

In face of the religious and cultic claims of the Roman emperors, Philo (Legatio ad Gaium) and Revelation develop contrasting perspectives in positioning their respective religious communities within the cultural majority of their day. The Alexandrian Jew Philo opts for critical integration and social cohabitation—a solution that is conventionally ascribed to early Christianity. John pleads strongly for the self-isolation of the Christian minority groups in the Province of Asia—a solution conventionally ascribed to Jewish self-definition in the Tannaitic period. The article illustrates this remarkable exchange of religious and social self-conceptualisations in both authors. Social rather than religious boundaries determine the framework in which the Roman Empire and its ruler are conceptualised, literary reactions are developed, and strategic alternatives are formed.

While allowing for polysemy, scholars seem mostly averse to ambiguity, as in the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate; but, it would seem, without engaging with ancient semantic theory. There the model of ‘naming’ and so of evoking an otherwise unspecified mental impression, predominates. Meaning is taken to lie in the mind, not in the word or words that are hoped to evoke it, as is also shown in ancient discussions of metaphor, allegory, and paraphrase. Connotations of individual words are rarely distinguished, rarely if ever purged. We are not justified in expecting verbal precision where our ancient authors will neither have attempted it nor will their hearers have expected it; nor, indeed, do modern psycholinguists appear to find space for it.