Hebrews was written to dissuade certain Jewish-Christian members of the community from lapsing; it proclaims a Pauline-type faith, the incarnation and the atonement. Our earliest account of Jewish Christians is of Irenaeus's Ebionites: they thought Christ to be an angelic power who possessed the human Jesus from his baptism to before his passion. Such a creed would explain Hebrews' deprecation of angels and insistence on Christ's humanity through his passion. This then gives sense to the widely mistranslated 6.1, and gives context and force to the paraenesis in chapter 13: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, before his incarnation, and today – not as the Jewish Christians claim, in a temporary possession by an angel.

At least for Jewish audiences, the meaning of the parable of the undeserving servant (Luke 17.7–10) is clear enough: slaves can claim no credit for doing what they have been ‘commanded’ (the redoubled τα διαταχθεντα of vv. 9–10). Both the passive voice and parallels from Jewish literature indicate that ‘Master’ and ‘slave’ are ciphers for God and the pious. Mishnah 'Abot 1.3, for example, is widely cited: ‘Do not be like slaves who serve the Master for the sake of reward, but be as slaves who serve the Master other than for reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.’ J. D. M. Derrett has adduced a wealth of material documenting master–slave relations in Judaism as they relate to the circumstances depicted in the text.

The denial of angelic rule in the world to come (Heb 2.5) provides an important clue to the purpose of Christ's exaltation over the angels in Heb 1–2. The excessive reliance upon angels for national deliverance and personal protection within Second Temple Judaism posed a threat to the pre-eminence of Christ among Jewish Christians. Rather than seek ‘help’ from angels, the author exhorts his readers to hold firmly to their confidence in Jesus. For as messianic ‘Son’, only Jesus is able to ‘help’ them (Heb 2.18; 4.16) remain faithful through the perils of the coming eschatological judgment.

Most critical scholars have adopted some form of recapitulation theory to explain the chronological relationship between the seven seals, trumpets and bowls, but John was more interested in the chronological progression within the last days than is usually acknowledged. The seventh (or sixth) seal does not describe the ‘end’, but ushers in the Day of the Lord, which culminates in the seven bowls. While John does use the technique of recapitulation, he does not do so in the key texts usually adduced in support of the theory.

Leading images in the message to Laodicea (Rev 3.14–22) are often thought to allude to the Laodicean water supply, banks, textiles, and medical school. Re-examination of available evidence, however, shows that this is unlikely. Instead, the references to hot, cold, and lukewarm draw on common dining practices. The admonitions concerning poverty and gold, blindness and eye salve, and nakedness and white garments invoke expressions and commodities that were familiar throughout the region. Using such common images enables the message to address local issues while being read and appropriated by a wider audience.

Generally speaking, J. Louis Martyn is rather dubious regarding recent attempts to interpret Paul's Galatian letter in terms of ancient rhetorical canons. He does, however, express considerable interest in the rhetorical strategies employed in Galatians. Of particular concern in the present study is Martyn's understanding of Paul's rhetorical use of ‘we’ (ημεις) in Gal 2.15–17.

Wisse's Group 1519 is selected as a test case. An initial analysis of Text und Textwert (TuT) finds support for the existence of the group. The data provided in TuT is then used to provide Claremont Profile Method profiles of manuscripts in the group. This approach is used to look for additional group members among manuscripts not profiled by Wisse and McReynolds. The TuT analyses of Mark and Matthew indicate that Group 1519 exists there too. The relationship between the two core members of the group (871 and 1566) is studied. Specific and theoretical conclusions are drawn.

Rom 1.16f. is often seen as the propositio of Romans. More specifically, if 1.17 summarizes the developments of chapters 1–8, v. 16b introduces chapters 9–11 and v. 16a points to the life programme of 12.1–15.13. However, Paul's explanation of his Roman visit in 15.14–33 ought not to be overlooked. Forming an inclusio with 1.8–15, it sets forth the main purpose of the letter. Therefore 1.8–15 is also to be considered as the propositio of the letter, to which vv. 16f. are subordinated in the same way as the theological consideration of Rom 1–11 are subordinated to Paul's mission perspectives.

In letzter zeit mehrten sich die Stimmen, die in Bezug auf das 1905 von Bernard P. Grenfell und Arthur S. Hunt im heutigen mittelägyptischen Behnesa, besser bekannt als Oxyrhynchos, gefundene und 1908 veröffentlichte ‘Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel’ (P.Oxy. V 840) explizit herausstellen, dass es sich bei der vorliegenden, beidseitig beschrifteten Realie nicht um ein Papyrus-, sondern ein Pergamentblatt handelt. Es heißt dann, P.Oxy. V 840 sei ‘ein beidseitig in winziger Schrift beschriebenes Pergamentblatt (also kein “Papyrus”)’, anderen Orts ‘Obwohl als Papyrus gezählt, handelt es sich bei POxy 840 um ein Pergamentblatt’ oder auch ‘This fragment is a leaf of parchment; therefore even if it has been published among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri it is not actually a papyrus’.

The title of this short study is modelled on that of Bruce W. Longenecker, ‘ΠΙΣΤΙΣ in Romans 3.25: Neglected Evidence for the “Faithfulness of Christ”?’, which appeared in this journal in 1993. My reasons for evoking that earlier study are twofold. Longenecker well remarks on how, in all the toing and froing of the debate over πιστις Χριστου in Paul, one can easily get lost in inconclusive details when one focuses just on the disputed genitive phrases (Gal 2.16, 20; 3.22; Phil 3.9; Rom 3.22, 26), and his turn to Rom 3.25 is a model for searching the surrounding contexts for clues to factor into the debate. But more than this general connection, there is a material one from that study to this, from Rom 3.25 to Gal 3.26, which allows me both to cast an alternative light on the former text and, more importantly, to introduce some ‘neglected evidence’ of my own for the objective genitive reading of πιστις Χριστου (‘faith in Christ’). In order to set the evidence of Rom 3.25 in a different light, I draw briefly upon the text of Gal 3.26; the neglected evidence for the reading ‘faith in Christ’ lies in the P46 variant reading of Gal 3.26.

In the framework of his grand argument on the law in Rom 6 and 7, Paul in Rom 7.1-4 uses a comparison that specifically appeals to ‘those who know the law’.

‘Der Träger des gemeindeleitenden Amtes herrscht nicht über die Gemeindeglieder, sondern begegnet ihnen dienend in der Haltung geschwisterlicher Solidarität.’ Diese Aussage Roloffs charakterisiert die Gemeindeleitung in den Pastoralbriefen (Past) einseitig als Dienst. Immerhin hält Roloff es aber für angeraten, den Gedanken der Herrschaft explizit zurückzuweisen. Hierin deutet sich m.E. an, dass das Verständnis der Gemeindeleitung in den Past tatsächlich zwischen den Polen von Herrschaft und Dienst oszilliert. Dieses Phänomen möchte ich anhand eines zentralen Aspektes der Gemeindeleitung beleuchten: des Lehrens.