2 Cor 10–13 may be seen to hang together closely, both internally and with the rest of the canonical letter, once one notices the very careful manner in which Paul distinguishes between and handles three groups: (i) the Corinthians as such, a group that includes his ‘own people’ and sometimes also (ii) his internal critics; and (iii) the rival missionaries. The four chapters are built over a set of four motifs: 2nd or 3rd person? absence or presence? meekness or boldness? building up or tearing down? In light of this, one finds the following structure: A (10.1–11) on the i- and ii-groups; B (10.12–11.21), C (11.22–12.10), and D (12.11–13) on the iii- and i-groups; and E (12.14-13.13) on the i- and ii-groups. The four chapters – and indeed, the letter as a whole – have an inner dynamic that reaches its writerly goal in the comparison of Paul to the iii-group (C). The final, rhetorical aim, however, consists in establishing the proper relationship between Paul himself and the i-group as he is about to reach Corinth once more in the flesh.

The title σωτήρ, ‘saviour’, is bestowed on Christ and God in the New Testament and rendered in the Latin translations by conseruator, saluificator, salutificator, salutaris and saluator. Although these terms convey the same meaning, they are not interchangeable: this study argues that conseruator, which is the most frequent word for saviour on imperial coins, is rarely attested in the Latin versions because of its association with the imperial cult. The predominant translation, saluator, was coined as an alternative rendering to the other words which had religious and political connotations.

Two Greek gospel manuscripts with an exegetical commentary in catena form present a text of Mark which ends in the middle of Mark 16.8. One is GA 304, a twelfth-century codex which is often adduced as a witness to the Short Ending. The other is the eleventh-century GA 239, which has not previously featured in discussions of the conclusion of Mark. In each case, it is shown that considerations of scribal practice, codicology and the broader traditions of text and catena mean that neither witness should be treated as evidence for the Short Ending as found in Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Most scholars assume that 1 Timothy 3.16b is a hymn, or a fragment of a hymn, belonging to another context. However, Furley (1995) points out that even the ancients had difficulty categorising their poetic materials. 1 Timothy 3.16b has no metre and neither praises God nor asks him for benefits, which are the usual indicators of a hymn. This article argues that 1 Timothy 3.16b was written by the writer for insertion into the letter, and it was intended to be used in his congregation as a bulwark (1 Tim 3.15) against his opponents. 1 Timothy 3.16b more closely resembles an epigram, normally written to accompany an epiphany of a god.

The saying in Matthew 9.37–8 and Luke (Q) 10.2 reads as follows: ‘He said to his disciples: The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. So ask the Lord of the harvest to dispatch workers into his harvest’. The present study attempts to illuminate this logion by considering its setting in first-century Palestine. The focus here is not on the logion's possible metaphorical application, but on the literal saying, which involves ancient agriculture.

Ruben van Wingerden's articles on carrying a patibulum and σταυρός are admirably precise. However, his analyses of two texts of Plautus and a fragment of Clodius Licinus are problematic. In contrast to van Wingerden's rather minimalistic conclusions regarding carrying a patibulum or σταυρός, it seems likely that carrying a patibulum was a general element in Roman practice in accounts in which patibula are mentioned in conjunction with crucifixions – even when there is no explicit reference to carrying the patibulum through the streets.

Onomastic congruence (a feature defined in this article) is characteristic of historiographic biographies from the Early Empire. The Synoptic Gospels display onomastic congruence, as well as conservatism in their treatment of names. The preservation of names, especially those centred around key roles and events, suggests that some names may have been preserved in the oral archives of early Christian communities to footnote living eyewitness sources, paralleling historiographical situations.

Aus dem direkten Vergleich der beiden möglichen Leseweisen lässt sich ein Fazit formulieren. Die Technik der „Doppelkodierung“ (R. Feldmeier) zeigt sich darin, dass Lk 18,1–8 eine Alltagsepisode mit einem Moment des spöttelnden, vielleicht sogar stumpfen Humors erzählt und dabei eine Semantik benutzt, die auch in den Schriften Israels beheimatet ist. Auch wenn die „jüdische“ Denkwelt der Weisheitsliteratur in Lk 18,1–8 auf den ersten Blick keine Rolle zu spielen scheint, so wird sie dann für die Folgeszene in Lk 18,9–14 relevant. Lk 18,1–8 ist keine Relecture der Weisheitsliteratur, sondern mutet mehr wie eine Hommage an. Es klingt hier sprachlich bereits etwas an, das erst in der nächsten Perikope inhaltlich sichtbar verarbeitet wird. M.E. handelt es sich bei dieser Technik nicht um ein Zufallsprodukt, sondern um eine bewusste Entscheidung. Lukas ging so souverän mit den Schriften um, dass er sie kreativ mit hellenistisch anmutenden Erzähletappen verschmelzen konnte. Ebenso zeigt sich, dass er in den Schriften nicht nur Dekoration sah, sondern mit Hilfe der Frömmigkeitskritik arbeitete, um daraus für die Völkerwelt geöffnete, „jüdische“ Ideen über Gerechtigkeit und Glaubenspraxis entstehen zu lassen. Vor dem Hintergrund der Lektüre zeigt sich eine Unsicherheit, ob die Kategorien „Judenchrist“ und „Heidenchrist“ bei Lukas wirklich funktionieren.