Relatively little scholarly work has attempted to change the perception that the Bible is a non-humorous book. Drawing upon contemporary humor theory, this article explores how Mark's third sea crossing (8.14–21) is intended to evoke a humorous response. Although laughter emerges from the comedic depiction of the Twelve, humor complements the evangelist's broader theological agenda. In Mark, humor is a natural byproduct of performance and is a powerful means of communicating a central theme of the Gospel.

The scene with two angels that Mary Magdalene sees in John 20.12 could have been visualized as an icon of resurrection by the first readers of the Fourth Gospel, especially by those familiar with the iconography of the Isis cult which was spread over the Roman Empire. Using traditional exegetical, hermeneutical, historical, and iconographic methods, this article stresses the importance of the resurrection in John 20, as corroborated by the motif of Isis and Nephthys flanking Osiris while mourning his death and assisting him in his resurrection.

Many New Testament exegetes have taken the reference in Acts 9.43 to Peter's stay at Simon the Tanner's house as proof that purity laws are no longer relevant for the author of Acts, since tanning conveys ritual impurity. These interpreters have relied primarily on rabbinic passages to make their argument. This article shows that none of the solicited rabbinic passages refers to tanning as ritually defiling. Rather, the rabbinic sources reveal a disdain for tanners because of their stench and filth. At times, the rabbinic sages also criticize tanners for their supposed lack of moral scruples. Peter's visit to Simon the Tanner's house, therefore, cannot be taken as evidence that the author of Acts dismisses the relevance of the Jewish purity system, let alone kashrut. At best, the reference in Acts to Simon the Tanner informs us about the social-economic status of some of the members of the Jesus movement.

This article discusses the Pauline anacoluthon in Romans 8.12. The usual interpretations consider it a communicative accident on the part of Paul or as a case of laudable laconicism. Against such an understanding the present author proposes to consider the anacoluthon as a figure of speech, deliberately chosen by the Apostle both to emphasize the total character of the filial relationship of Christians to God, as opposed to their past dependences, and to help them discover this particularity of their new status on their own.

The purpose of this essay is to illuminate the character of Paul's appropriation of the ideal of ‘equality’ (ἰσότηϛ) in 2 Cor 8.13–15 by exploring the meaning of the term in each of the contexts in the Greek world in which thinking about ‘equality’ developed: friendship, politics, and the cosmos. The essay traces a consistent tendency in Paul to reverse the ancient logic of inverse proportion as the means for achieving ‘equality’. The essay highlights the novelty of Paul's attempt to create an economic structure—partnership in the collection—the goal of which was to achieve ‘equality’ between persons of different social classes through redistributive exchange.

This article argues that the central question of Paul's letter to the Galatians is not ‘what time is it?’, but ‘what has Jesus done for you?’ In Paul's explanation of Christ's work, spatial categories are more important than temporal ones, as he impresses upon the Galatians that they have been delivered from the domain of slavery and transferred into the realm of freedom. The purpose of the letter is to urge the Galatians to remain in Christ's domain and not return to slavery by submitting to the law of Moses.

The letter to the Colossians—most probably a deuteropauline document—reflects a theology of memory. Far from having the ambition of saying something new, the author aims at offering the addressed community a re-reading—paradoxically highly original in its form and content—of its own religious tradition so that the addressees will be able to interpret in a persuasive way their present situation, a situation that became more and more opaque and conflictual. The explicit confrontation with the ‘Colossian philosophy’ seems to be secondary at first sight, but a multiple reading of the letter allows one to discover strong ties between the non-polemical and the polemical parts of the letter. Read in this perspective, Col 2 reveals between the lines a conflict of interpretation about some central notions, such as ‘humility’, ‘intelligence’, ‘wisdom’, among others.

With the example of Aceldama, this paper shows that reception history must not be confined to ideas or stories, but may take an interest in places. It should not simply explore art or literature, but also envisage geography. The site purchased by Judas with the blood of Jesus in Acts 1.19–20 has suffered, once identified (or at least defined), from this terrible acquisition. At the same time, a legend has grown around the land, which is supposed to devour corpses while a sinister reputation was established making ‘Aceldama’ the paradigm of a scary place. This Wirkungsgeschichte should lead us to revise an initial preconception according to which historical work should stop at the writing of the text, and a second mistaken notion according to which the work of the exegete ends with ‘defining’ the ‘meaning’ of the text. There are potentialities in texts that only the study of their effects can perceive.

This study argues in favour of a new hypothesis about the Aramaic background of Jesus' ‘salt'-parable. In light of the analysis of Bekhorot 8b, the tradition of Syriac Church fathers and the text of the Vulgate the parable seems to refer to the preserving strength instead of the taste of salt. So, according to this study, the original Aramaic version contained סרי, while the first Greek version originally contained μαραίνω which was later corrupted to μωραίνω mainly under the influence of the Latin word insulsus.