The alternation between second-person singular and plural forms in 2 John has often been interpreted as reflecting a degree of literary artificiality. This study reexamines the issue through the lens of documentary papyri and ancient epistolary practice. Through a survey of eight papyrus letters, I will argue that the alternation between second-person singular and plural forms represents a phenomenon attested in ancient letter writing and marks the relationship between a primary addressee and a broader collective audience. In such contexts, the singular can identify an individual who bears primary responsibility for communication or execution, while the plural forms frame shared accountability within a broader household or communal structure. In light of these parallels, the singular–plural alternation in 2 John may be more plausibly explained in an epistolary context rather than as evidence of literary artificiality. Even if we assume that 2 John is a literary letter, the alternation between second-person singular and plural should not be taken as evidence of literary artificiality, but rather as an indication that the letter carefully imitates authentic epistolary conventions for verisimilitude.
This article responds to Jonathan Rowlands’s remarks (in the current issue of JSNT) on my critique of his earlier article on the theological interpretation of the New Testament.
John C. Poirier has recently criticised some aspects of my earlier article outlining a defence of so-called ‘theological’ readings of biblical literature. In this article, I respond to Poirier’s work, demonstrating how he has misunderstood the aims and content of my argument. I also raise some broader concerns about the ways in which aspects of Poirier’s work seeks to dismiss large sections of scholarship both within biblical scholarship and across the humanities more broadly.
The themes of faith and salvation are evident in the literary, historical, and grammatical context of Mk 5.25–34. St. Veronica, or ‘the woman with the issue of blood’, was not seeking physical healing, but holistic salvation, salvation that she received through faith in Jesus. Her story is a classic story of conversion, not only physical healing. Mark’s grammatical use of σῴζω places holistic salvation on center stage in the passage. Veronica was a woman of faith and a daughter in the Kingdom of God, before and after she was physically healed. This paper uses a feminist, disability hermeneutic to argue that the main theme of Mk 5.25–34 is faith and salvation, shown by St. Veronica’s faith and active search for holistic salvation, against the traditional interpretation of the passage being solely about healing.
In Matthew and Mark, Jesus’s death on the cross is immediately preceded by the offer of a drink (Mt. 27.48//Mk 15.36). While many have argued that Jesus never receives the drink, this paper makes the case that Matthew and Mark both intend the reader to think that he did. This article demonstrates that Matthew and Mark have deliberately set up the scene of Jesus drinking from the cross with his pledge not to drink until the kingdom (Mt. 26.29//Mk 14.25), as well with as other scenes that link the kingdom to drinking imagery (e.g., Mt. 20.22–23//Mk 10.38–39). Luke’s account of Jesus’s death omits many of these details and relocates Jesus’s pledge not to drink until the kingdom. Matthew and Mark, then, emphasize the cross as a proleptic event of the kingdom, an emphasis muted by Luke.
