How was poverty interpreted in the New Testament? David J. Armitage explores key ways in which poverty was understood in the Greco-Roman and Jewish milieux of the New Testament, and considers how approaches to poverty found in the texts of the New Testament itself relate to these wider contexts. - back of the book.

A well-known characteristic of the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls are their assertions that membership in the Qumran movement included present and eschatological fellowship with the angels, but scholars disagree as to the precise meaning of these claims. To gain a better understanding of angelic fellowship at Qumran, Matthew L. Walsh utilizes the early Jewish concept that certain angels were closely associated with Israel. Moreover, these angels, which included guardians and priests, were envisioned within apocalyptic worldviews that assumed that realities on earth corresponded to those of the heavenly realm. A comparison of non-sectarian texts with sectarian compositions reveals that the Qumran movement's lofty assertions of communion with the guardians and priests of heavenly Israel would have made a significant contribution to their identity as the true Israel.

The Letter to the Hebrews lies at the heart of a tradition that views repetition as a uniformly negative phenomenon. Nicholas Moore argues that repetition in fact has a variety of functions in the letter, including an essential role in the believer's appropriation of the eternally valid work of Christ. (Publisher).

Could it be that some biblical verses are both an obstacle for and an invitation to genuine dialogue? Laura Tack shows how the often problematic truth claim of John 14:6 can still inspire a dialogical process of revelation.

In Mark's Gospel, the Shema language of Deut 6.4 is not merely reiterated in a traditional sense but reinterpreted in a striking way that links Jesus directly and inseparably with Israel's unique God. Such an innovative rereading of the Shema must be understood in light of (a) various elements involved in and surrounding each of the three monotheistic references (Mark 2.7; 10.18; 12.29) relating to their respective literary contexts, and (b) Mark's nuanced, complex, and even paradoxical portrait of Jesus' relationship to God throughout his gospel. John J.R. Lee shows that Mark's use of the one-God language implies that his Jesus is not merely one who, as a Shema-observant Jew, speaks on behalf of God but also one whose status and significance fundamentally correspond to those of Israel's unique deity.