The narration between the second and third prediction of Jesus’ suffering in Matthew's Gospel (Matt 17.24–20.16) can be entitled ‘The life and the acting of the disciples in the light of the Kingdom of God’. The last part of this section is the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Although there are quite different proposals for defining the function of this Kingdom of Heaven Parable, its specific function in the narrative development of the basileia-line in Matthew's Gospel has not yet been the focus of the interest. The article at hand tries to close this gap by analysing the basileia-sayings in Matt 17.24–20.16 and exploring in detail the function of the Vineyard Parable in this frame. Special attention is paid to the examination of the interrelationship between divine and human action.

Reading Jesus’ conception and genealogy in the context of claims about Augustus brings clarity to the perplexing identification of Adam as God's offspring (Luke 3.38). Jesus was fathered by God's spirit (1.35), as was his ancestor Adam (through Joseph). Likewise, some claimed Augustus was fathered by Apollo and that his ancestor Aeneas (through adoption by Julius Caesar) was the offspring of Aphrodite/Venus. This comparison suggests that Jesus is comparable to Augustus and that Jesus’ kingdom of God is comparable to Augustus’ Golden Age. Moreover, the logical force of these parallels favours the inferring of Joseph's adoption of Jesus in Luke.

The parable of the unrighteous steward encouraged rich individuals outside the Christian community to use their wealth to make friends of Jesus’ poor disciples, specifically by reducing their debts, so that in the eschatological kingdom Jesus’ disciples would receive these benefactors into their eternal dwellings. It had its setting in the efforts of early Palestinian Christians to enlist the financial support of the wealthy. Since many of these did not wish to sell all their possessions and donate the proceeds to the Christian community, this parable suggested an alternative way that the rich could use their wealth to assist the community.

This essay supports the thesis that the Beloved Disciple is a purely literary character employed as a literary device of authentication recognisable during the late first and early second centuries CE. As evidence, three works are thoroughly compared with the Fourth Gospel in regard to their eyewitness appeals: Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana (a biography), the Wonders beyond Thule by Antonius Diogenes (a historiographical novel) and the Diary of the Trojan War (a revisionary history) attributed to Dictys of Crete. All three works are roughly contemporaneous with the Fourth Gospel and offer important insights into the sophisticated use of an eyewitness as a literary character to guarantee the (spiritual and moral) truth of a narrative.

The form of Paul's citation of Isa 28.16 and 8.14 in Rom 9.32–3 indicates not only that his source was an early Christian collection of stone texts but also that this collection followed a particular interpretation of Jesus’ death: Jerusalem's ruling class planned Jesus’ death because of his controversial approach to the law and the temple. Paul quotes these texts to help explain why unbelieving Israel has rejected the gospel. Like Israel's ruling elites, they have lost sight of the law's weightier matters. Punctuated correctly, 1 Thess 2.14–16 confirms this understanding of Rom 9.32–3.

Much has been made in recent years about the role of the secretary in the construction of Paul's letters, most notably by Randolph Richards and Ian Elmer. This article focuses on the most famous secretary – Tertius. Through an analysis of what can be learned of Tertius’ identity and his relationship to Paul and to ancient authorial practices in households, it argues that Tertius was probably a slave in the household of one of the Corinthian Christ-followers, whose role was simply to inscribe the letter. His inability to use Paul's signature phrase ἐν κυρίῳ in a Pauline fashion highlights his lack of authorial input. Tertius’ self-initiated greeting in Rom 16.22 probably began life as a marginal comment that was moved early into the letter body.

Though commentators often claim that Rev 18.13 entails a critique of the slave trade, a robust defence of this assertion has not been offered. In this article, I first analyse the use of the terms σώματα and ψυχαὶ ἀνθρώπων in the extant Greek literature and demonstrate that the peculiar conjunction of these terms in Rev 18.13 is best understood as a critique of the slave trade. I then demonstrate that such an interpretation accords with the literary context of Rev 18.13. This article thus offers an important contribution to the ongoing debate concerning the early Christian view of slavery.

Barnabas 10 offers an allegorical discussion of kashrut. The writer addresses dietary laws in two groups of three: prohibitions against the eating of pig, vulture and eel, followed by prohibitions against eating hare, hyena and weasel. In each case, the allegorical interpretation construes diet as comportment (e.g. one should not behave like a pig, vulture etc.). Concerning the hare, readers are admonished not to emulate its corruption of children – a behaviour linked to its annual acquisition of an anus. Parallel allegorical interpretations of the Jewish food laws can be found in the Letter of Aristeas and Philo, De specialibus legibus 4 and similar quasi-scientific observations about animals occur in texts ranging from the rabbis to Physiologus. However, the rabbit poses a particular problem since no known precedent exists for either its behaviour or its physiology. The present investigation thus focuses on the rabbit, attempting to reconstruct the literary and historical background for its unusual characterisation.