Salt had many uses in antiquity, several of which might supply background to part or all of Mark 9:49-50. The article provides ancient background for each of these uses. These include sacrifices (Lev 2:13), preservative (note its use for preserving even human bodies by mummification), flavor and covenant relationship or table fellowship. Given the context in Mark 9:49-50, the preservative function of salt might be dominant, perhaps combined with salt’s use in sacrifice and cooking to relate to the preservation of resurrection bodies—possibly those of the damned burning in Gehinnom (9:43-48) and especially (and significantly more likely) for the preservation of the righteous tested by fire. Ultimately, Mark may apply the image especially to the salt of peace preserving the righteous when they come to the fiery eschatological test of judgment day.

While many studies focus on proselytes in diaspora settings, this article explores those in Late Second Temple Judea, where the majority of the population surrounding them was no longer composed of non-Judeans and diaspora Judeans. While proselytes, along with other diaspora Judeans, resided in Judea, whether permanently or temporarily, they encountered the local Judeans in the predominantly Judean culture and society. The article investigates their conversion, pre- and post-conversion requirements, and status within a Judean context. It underscores that conversion was not necessarily a straightforward process of adopting Judean identity and customs. Apart from male circumcision, which served as a clear marker of transition, the diversity encompassed the customs that proselytes would adopt or expect to follow, as well as Judean interests in and concerns with these individuals. Judean boundaries with proselytes could have been formed because of situational factors or even through the Judeans’ imaginations.

This research navigates the scholarly discourse on the Prestige Religious Language within the early Jerusalem church, focusing on the code choice for the dissemination of the Jesus tradition. The scholarly debate primarily centers around two hypotheses: (1) the ‘Aramaic Jesus Tradition’ hypothesis, which posits that Jesus’s teachings were initially conveyed in Aramaic and later translated into Greek, and (2) the ‘Early Greek Jesus Tradition’ hypothesis, suggesting that Greek was the original language of Jesus’s teachings in the earliest stage of first-century Christianity. The study challenges the Aramaic hypothesis for not adequately accounting for the complex linguistic choices in a multilingual context, advocating instead for a sociolinguistic approach to understand Peter’s use of Greek during the Pentecost sermon. Paul’s Greek preaching shows the early adoption of Greek as the Prestige Religious Language within the official settings of the Jerusalem church due to the complex multilingual environment where a large number of Greek speakers did not understand Aramaic. The findings suggest a higher likelihood of the Jesus tradition being circulated in Greek, highlighting the importance of sociolinguistic perspectives in unraveling the linguistic landscape of early Christianity.

In Acts 26, Paul delivers a speech before King Agrippa and Festus. This paper argues that the author of Acts deliberately shapes this forensic defense in a manner that echoes Plato’s Apology. By drawing an analogy between Paul and Socrates—who defended himself against charges before the Athenians—the narrative underscores Paul’s ethos and frames his mission as a divine commission. Furthermore, points of similarity between Socrates’s self-defense and Paul’s testimony suggest that the author of Acts sought not only to vindicate Paul but also to present his defense with a deliberative dimension, urging the audience to acknowledge and seek divine truth.

Most scholars consider the account of Jesus’ encounter with the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5.1-20 to be partly historical with later additions. Instead of holding form-critical presuppositions, this study reexamines the account in light of recent discussions on criteria of historicity, the genre of Gospels, eyewitness testimony and memory studies. The historical analysis indicates that the narrative largely fits the geographical, economic, and social relations between Upper Galilee and the Decapolis. The literary analysis shows that Mark’s account is highly likely to have come from eyewitness memory. This study concludes that the entire account is historically plausible at least at the gist level.

Richard Bauckham’s, in his book Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, argues at length that two New Testament documents—the letter of Jude and the genealogy of Luke—provide a glimpse into the character of an expression of early Jewish Palestinian Christianity led by the relatives of Jesus. There is, however, a noticeable lack of scholarly engagement with Bauckham’s thesis in this book and, as such, this paper seeks to fill this lacuna by giving attention to one main aspect of his argument, namely, the possible window that the genealogy of Luke (Lk. 3:23-38) provides into the activities and beliefs of the relatives of Jesus in the early church

In 2015, Raymond Jachowski published an article that proposed dating Herod the Great’s death to 3 BC. His claim was backed by a conjecture of how Josephus’s mention of Herod’s son Philip dying in Tiberius’s twentieth year was changed to ‘twenty-second year’ in some Latin manuscripts. Jachowski’s motive was to disprove the contention of some that, using the twenty-second year figure, Philip antedated his reign to a time before Herod’s death. While conceding that Jachowski’s conjecture of how the ‘twentieth year’ was changed to ‘twenty-second year’ in some Latin manuscript may be correct, this paper rebuts Jachowski’s contention that Herod died in 3 BC. This is demonstrated by a close analysis of information from both Josephus and numismatics, specifically the coins issued by Philip and his brother Antipas. The evidence, instead, points to Herod dying in a year with a spring lunar eclipse, either 4 BC or 1 BC, with the evidence favoring the latter.

First-hand examination of primary and secondary literatures is necessary, in order to avoid either misunderstanding the material or referencing it incorrectly. Two examples illustrate this problem. The first example is a case where there is in fact no primary literature that supports an assertion. The second example is a case where the primary text is misunderstood and misapplied. It is concluded that first-hand examination, or 'autopsy', is essential.