Journal for the Study of the New Testament

This article describes the use of Philippians in triumphalist narratives about the rise of Christianity. Outlining the place of two key terms in the reception history of the letter – praetorium (Phil. 1.13) and ‘Caesar’s household’ (Phil. 4.22) – the article critiques the underlying assumptions and ideologies that have often guided its interpretation, focusing especially on the use of canonical Acts. A brief survey of the evidence for these two key terms in their original context – literary, epigraphic, lexicographical – suggests new interpretive possibilities for understanding Paul’s life and letter.

This article premises that Paul wrote the letter to the Philippians while he was detained in Ephesus, not Rome as has been the traditional view, and that the πραιτώριον mentioned in Phil. 1.13 is a topographical reference – that is, a reference to a Roman administrative building, not the Imperial Guard in Rome. This πραιτώριον is likely also the place where Paul met the members of ‘Caesar’s household’ mentioned in Phil. 4.22. Engaging with Michael Flexsenhar III’s recent study Christians in Caesar’s Household (2019a), I explore the social profile of this group of imperial slaves as well as Paul’s place as a social actor in the Eastern Mediterranean in light of recent trends in Migration Studies. Both Paul himself and also the members of the familia Caesaris to whom he refers embody typical features of migration such as interconnectedness, multiple belongings and super-diversity; these are shown to be important prerequisites for Paul’s conception of early Christian identity formation.

The Greek expression οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας in Phil. 4.22 is unique. Late antique interpreters identified the group with the imperial court or immediate imperial family. In the nineteenth century, however, Ferdinand Christian Baur was skeptical that the historical Paul preached to Nero’s family and therefore counted Philippians among the post-Pauline pseudepigraphical letters. Against this radical historical-critical approach, Joseph Barber Lightfoot and Adolf Deissmann developed their influential hypothesis: οἰκία Καίσαρος ‘represents’ the Latin familia Caesaris – that is, the whole of the imperial household, including all slaves. However, because there is no technical Latin term familia Caesaris in antiquity, οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας cannot mean imperial slaves and freedpersons. Instead, I argue that the expression is a spontaneously coined code, a creative metaphor reflecting the conditions of a prisoner in an imperial prison in Ephesus. The saints from the house of Caesar are most likely Paul’s believing co-prisoners.

This article explores the legal contexts which led to the multiple imprisonments experienced by the Paul of the letters (as attested in particular by Phil. 1.13) and depicted also in Acts, contrasting these with the numerous occasions where the apostle faced opposition or even violence from local populations and authorities without being jailed. By looking at the realities of law enforcement operations and criminal procedures in the Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, this article helps reassess two major issues with regard to the rise of Christ-groups from the middle of the first to the beginning of the second century, namely: For what reasons were Christians arrested and imprisoned by Roman authorities? What was the agenda of the author of Acts in paying so much attention to the legal context of Paul’s arrest and later transfer to the emperor’s court?

A critical synthesis of the arguments made by Flexsenhar, Omerzu, Standhartinger and Brélaz, concerning the provenance of Paul’s letter to the Philippians, suggests: (1) ‘the whole of the praetorium’ referenced in 1.13 is a group of people working in an official provincial building, hence (2) in view of Paul’s incarceration awaiting imminent trial, this is probably in a provincial capital, (3) where a group of imperial slaves, who, following attested practice, identify themselves as ‘a household of Caesar’ (4.22), and originally from Philippi, have migrated to join the local congregation. Further critical consideration suggests, moreover, that, although Ephesus is a plausible location for the explanation of this data, Corinth is a still more powerful and economic explanation of this and related data points.

This article studies Ps. 21.23 LXX in Heb. 2.12 and zeroes in on the fascinating image that it presents: Jesus worshipping within the Christian community. This image is sometimes lost as it appears in the second half of a quotation in which the first part seems to make the more significant point (Jesus’ solidarity with his siblings). Yet this striking image of Jesus praising God makes an important theological and sociological contribution to the epistle’s argument. As this article will argue, this image contributes to a larger attempt by the author to solidify commitment to the community and ground the group’s identity in Jesus.

The quest of New Testament studies for a well-resourced future would be substantially aided by its explicit abandonment of a narrow methodological focus in favour of building links with other disciplines and by its acknowledgment that exegetical insights may arise from examining the impact of biblical texts down the centuries. In the potential appropriation of Jesus by Christian transhumanists interested in human bodily enhancement, for example, the healings of his earthly ministry are ignored because they are understood to restore human bodies to a previous form (a position recognizable in much of New Testament scholarship) rather than augment them to a new one. Building on deaf nineteenth-century interpretations which see the mental abilities of the deaf man in Mk 7.32-37 as being enhanced beyond human norms by Jesus, this article examines the healings of three blind men (Mk 8.22-26, Mk 10.46-52 and Jn 9.1-41). While the Johannine blind man is explicitly said to be blind from birth (whatever New Testament translations have often been made to say!), this article proposes that Blind Bartimaeus in Mk 10 should also be viewed this way. While their becoming sighted restores them to a common human pattern, their lack of prior sighted-experience means that it is their ability to see instantly that strongly implies the presence of an augmentative element to their healings. A postscript notes the different attitudes to the permission required to transform the human body within these narratives and suggests transhumanists consider the ethical implications of each story carefully before they incorporate the earthly Jesus into their arguments.

Acts 14.20a contains a peculiar genitive absolute phrase that has been consistently overlooked by scholars and commentators. After Paul is stoned in Lystra and dragged out of the city, Luke notes that the disciples ‘encircle’ him before he gets up (ἀναστὰς). These disciples seem to appear from nowhere, and the standard interpretive options for their ‘encircling’ fall short. In this article, I evaluate all the available interpretive options and suggest that this ‘encircling’ is best understood as a ring-dance, an early Christian practice about which little is known today. I conclude that the ring-dance supplies the best explanation for the sudden appearance of the disciples and has some important implications both for our knowledge concerning the significance of this motif in early Christian literature as well as for Luke’s characterization of Paul.

This article examines 33 ‘generic’ citations of Israel’s scriptures in the NT, defined as passages containing an introductory formula or other overt reference to a source, but lacking any actual quoted text. Each passage (from the gospels, Acts and Pauline epistles) is examined in terms of its citation form and particular meaning in context, and then this broader pattern of ‘generic’ citation is compared with Second Temple citation practices. Having rarely been studied collectively, these citations provide interesting insight into how the NT authors draw upon the whole of the OT – without reference to specific prooftexts – to make assertions about Israel’s history, Christology, and the church. They should be given more consideration in the broader field of biblical intertextuality.

Responding to objections raised against the parousia, the author of 2 Peter seeks to defend the validity of Jesus’ return by pointing to the experience of the apostles at the Transfiguration (1.16-18) and to prophetic scripture (1.19-21). But how these two proofs relate to one another has been a matter of dispute since the earliest days of critical scholarship. Standing behind this disagreement is a difficult grammatical construction involving the comparative adjective βεβαιότερον (2 Pet. 1.19a). This article seeks to bring resolution to the debate through a comprehensive assessment of the force and function of this key term.