The tradition delivered by the missionaries at the foundation of the Thessalonian church had been received as authoritative but had, at the same time, caused the new converts to grieve hopelessly over fellow believers who had died. In response to this situation Paul could not simply abrogate the founding tradition in favour of some new and more palatable ‘word of the Lord’. However, he could perhaps guide the Thessalonians towards an alternative interpretation of the authority they had already embraced. This observation enables the isolation of two distinctive properties of the founding tradition: it caused the Thessalonians’ grief, while also being open to Paul’s alternative reinterpretation. These two features, in combination with other indicators in 1 Thessalonians, provide a means of rigorously testing Didache 16 as a potential candidate for the role of the eschatological tradition behind 1 Thessalonians.

Since the earliest commentators, Mark's account of the rich man has almost universally been read as evidently suggesting the character's ultimate rejection of Jesus' call. However, if this man is typical of Mark's portrayal of minor characters, then he may be regarded as a positive foil to the disciples; and his sadness in departure is nonetheless consistent with considered reflection on the severe cost of discipleship. Such a reading is also consistent with Mk 8—10, which challenges that true discipleship is indeed costly, and not to be entered upon lightly. Jesus subsequently gives a critical rejoinder to the precipitate self-congratulation of the disciples—`many who are first will be last, and the last will be first'. Mark's silence about whether or not the rich man did, after due reflection, accept Jesus' invitation encourages the reader to focus rather on the cost of following Jesus, than speculating about what has been left unstated.

The purpose of this article is threefold: to analyze the structural markers in Mk 10.13-16 that signal that the reader should render the simile in 10.15 `welcoming the kingdom of God as one welcomes a child', to sketch the narrative and symbolic functions of this simile within its immediate literary context, and to highlight those aspects of 10.13-16 that indicate this passage is an expanded Markan relecture of 9.33-37.