Among those texts that vied for a position as authoritative Scripture, but were eventually rejected by ecclesiastical authorities, was the so-called Diatessaron of Tatian. Having been compiled from the four canonical gospels, Tatian's work occupies a liminal position between the categories of ‘canonical’ and ‘apocryphal’, since the majority of its content was common to users of the fourfold gospel, though this content existed in a radically altered form and was tainted by association with an author widely accused of heresy. In order to demonstrate the originality of Tatian's gospel composition, this article gives a close reading of the only surviving Greek witness to it, a fragment of parchment found in excavations at Dura-Europos. Dura's very location as a borderland between Rome and Persia corresponds with the fact that in this outpost garrison city Christians were using a gospel text that would have appeared markedly strange to those in the mainstream of the Christian tradition. The wording that can be recovered from the Dura fragment shows how Tatian creatively and intelligently combined the text of the four gospels to produce a new narrative of the life of Jesus, choosing to leave out certain elements and to make deliberate emendations along the way. However, it was precisely such originality that made his gospel appear problematic, so in order to rescue his text from censure, later scribes had to domesticate it by making it conform throughout to the canonical versions. Comparison of the Dura fragment with the medieval Arabic gospel harmony and with the Latin version in Codex Fuldensis illustrates well this process whereby Tatian's gospel went from being a rival to the fourfold gospel to a designedly secondary, and therefore acceptable, work.

Since the publication of John Mill's Greek New Testament in 1707, scholars have shown repeated interest in the number of textual variants in our extant witnesses. Past estimates, however, have failed to tell who estimated, how the estimate was derived, or even what was being estimated. This study addresses all three problems and so offers an up-to-date estimate based on the most extensive collation data available. The result is a higher number than almost all previous estimates. Proper use shows that the number reflects the frequency with which scribes copied more than their infidelity in doing so.

Around the turn of the fifth century Rufinus of Aquileia translated many important Greek theological works, especially by Origen and Eusebius. These translations have received a great deal of criticism for their lack of fidelity to their Vorlagen, a criticism that extends to their statements on the New Testament canon. Several scholars now assume that the list of New Testament books to be found in Origen's Homilies on Joshua 7.1 (available only in Rufinus' Latin translation) should be attributed to the translator rather than to Origen himself. This paper calls this assumption into question by comparing Eusebius’ statements on the books of the New Testament to Rufinus' translation of those statements. We will find that Rufinus does, in fact, alter his text in some subtle ways so that the statements on the canon correspond more closely to the increasingly stabilised canon of the late-fourth and early-fifth centuries, but such subtle alterations do not overturn the translator's basic fidelity when reporting earlier views. This analysis suggests that Origen did produce a list of books in the mid-third century that closely – though not exactly – resembled the list of New Testament books published by Athanasius in 367.

Is Christianity a ‘religion of (canonical) books or a ‘religion of memories’? What role did the books that would eventually become canonical play in various early Christian contexts? This article explores the history of the canon, especially in relation to early Christian ‘landscapes’ and ‘places of memory’. The role of ‘canonical’ and so-called ‘apocryphal’ writings in the construction and development of these ‘places of memory’ is discussed. It is argued that instead of labelling the latter works ‘apocryphal’, it would be better to call them ‘useful for the church’.

As one of its rules, thoroughgoing eclecticism in New Testament textual criticism puts great store by an author's consistency of language, style and usage when assessing variation. This article examines the theoretical justification for such a rule and sets out a number of examples from throughout the New Testament to show how such an application works, even when the preferred solutions may go against traditional principles of text-critics such as the age, quality or quantity of witnesses in supporting a selected initial text. One section deals with conjectural emendation.

What is the meaning of the expression τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ when set within its original context? In this article it is argued that in Philippians 2.6b Paul asserts that Christ did not consider it an advantage to be regarded as equal to a god (or to God). This argument is developed by way of an examination of the structure of the hymn of Philippians 2.6–11, a philological analysis of v. 6, and a contextualisation of the Christ-hymn addressed to Christians living in Philippi, a Roman colony which was like a Rome in miniature.

Scholars rarely appeal to Gal 5.5–6 in the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate. However, two points show the relevance of these verses to the discussion: (1) in 5.1–6 Paul picks up the contrast between πίστις and νόμος he developed in chs. 2–3 so that πίστις in 5.5–6 is equivalent to πίστις Χριστοῦ in the earlier chapters, and (2) πίστις in vv. 5–6 is human faith because it works through human love. Gal 5.5–6 therefore supports the position that πίστις Χριστοῦ is an objective genitive meaning faith in Christ.

Jacob's blessing of his youngest son Benjamin (Gen 49.27) was widely understood in the early Church as a prophecy of that most (in)famous Benjaminite, the apostle Paul. This exegesis enjoyed enduring popularity and can be traced to every corner of the Roman world. It is also early: it was already well established by the time of its earliest surviving witnesses at the end of the second century. But if it predates the late second century, when did it originate? While we can only speculate, this paper offers reasons for supposing that this exegesis may reach back into the first century.

David M. Moffitt has recently put forward an interpretation of Hebrews whereby purification is understood as a victory of life over death, and atonement is effected by the resurrected life of Jesus entering the heavenly sanctuary. We discuss this reading and defend an alternative whereby the moral category of sin is the final target of purification and the notion of ransom, life given in death in place of another life, is key for understanding atonement in Hebrews.

Following the introduction of a ‘Quaestiones Disputatae’ session at the 69th General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in Szeged, Hungary in 2014, a second such session was held at the 70th General Meeting at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam on 29 July 2015. The theme was proposed by the President of the Society, Prof. Judith Lieu.

It is commonly thought that the apocryphal Letter to the Laodiceans was composed by an author who was little more than an editor, piecing together phrases from Pauline texts in a mediocre fashion. Not only does the text seem devoid of conceptual rigour and theological merit, but it is also thought to lack a coherent structure. This essay proposes that, to the contrary of most estimates, the Letter to the Laodiceans exhibits a discernible structural coherence from which a rhetorical strategy is evident.

In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp of Smyrna offers a reading of 1 Timothy 6 in which he uses the term ‘the commandment’ as an apparent reference to the practice of almsgiving. Polycarp's Philippians, therefore, offers important and heretofore neglected evidence that supports recent contentions that ‘the commandment’ in 1 Tim 6.14 is almsgiving.

Previous reconstructions of the ‘Miracle on the Jordan River’ (Papyrus Egerton 2, 2v.6–14) are unconvincing because they lack clear parallels with known texts. This short article proposes a new transcription, based on the apparent parallels with Elisha's miracles in 2 Kings and Josephus, Jewish War 4.460–4. It concludes that the author of the Egerton Gospel used Elisha typology in the depiction of Jesus’ miracle on the Jordan.

A causal clause is often used to translate ὅτι in John 8.47. This, in combination with a problematic translation of the prepositional phrase διὰ τοῦτο, creates (in the translations) a logical argument that is contrary to the argument in Greek. The NRSV translates: ‘Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God.’ The translation is somewhat different from the King James Version, which interprets the ὅτι-clause as causal: ‘He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.’ Both translations and the implied logic must be rejected for philological reasons. The correct translation is: ‘He that is of God hears God's words. From this follows: you do not hear. Thus, you are not of God.’ The difference is obvious: the logical argument is turned on its head. The usual way to translate this argument implies a predestination: the Jews are simply ‘not of God’. The semantically correct translation makes obvious the connection between their decision (i.e. not to listen to Jesus) and the judgement spoken by Jesus.

It is generally agreed among contemporary scholars that the modern critique of the authorship claim of the New Testament letters addressed to Timothy and Titus originated in early nineteenth-century Germany with the studies of Schmidt and Schleiermacher on 1 Timothy. However, a late eighteenth-century study by the British clergyman Edward Evanson challenges this consensus as it proves Titus to have been suspect of pseudonymity before. This ‘new’ perspective found in Evanson's neglected source also nuances the common assumption that from its very beginnings the critical campaign against the letters' authenticity was mainly driven by linguistic considerations.