The present article is an attempt to clarify the relationship of the place where Isaac was bound with the site of Solomon's Temple, and that of the “land of Moriah” ( [Gen 22:2]) with “Mount Moriah” ( [2 Chr 3:1]) in Hebrew Bible historiography. It will also suggest an explanation both for the failure of 1 Kings 6 to give the precise location of the Temple and for the fact that such details are to be found in the parallel passage, 2 Chronicles 3.

The following study treats two distinct but related questions. First, were the Pharisees the dominant party in Palestinian Judaism before the destruction of the temple? And second, did Jesus of Nazareth engage in controversy with them? Many scholars today would answer one or both of these questions negatively. My thesis, however, is that both should be answered affirmatively and, further, that it was precisely the status of the Pharisees as the dominant party that makes intelligible Jesus' charge of hypocrisy.

The martyr stories, the earliest hagiographical writings, were not composed simply as memorials to the courage of those who preferred death to apostasy. Their authors recorded the stories both to preserve beliefs and to enforce norms of behavior. The authors of the martyr stories often provided explicit testimony to why they wrote. They expected the stories to proclaim the validity of the charismatic authority of the martyrs, to manifest martyrs as exemplars of virtue, and to show people how to react during interrogation by Roman authorities. Thus the readers were inscribed in the narratives as potential martyrs. They came to know the attitudes they ought to have, the phrases they should use to parry the insults of their tormentors, and the prayers they should offer for endurance. In this way those who promulgated the martyr stories achieved or attempted to achieve some control over the behavior and beliefs of readers by assigning value to community standards. In doing so the stories provided cohesion and stability for their churches.

When the inaugural volume of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was published in February 1776, the English public greeted it with a mixture of veneration and anxiety. Many agreed that it was a classic work, but some critics, mostly clergy, questioned its treatment of Christianity. Scholars have approached the ensuing controversy from several angles: Gibbon's reticence reduced it, theologically speaking, to a sampling of doctrinal viewpoints; considered as a literary phenomenon, the controversy merely provoked Gibbon to relegate his opponents to literary oblivion; historiographically, it affirmed the subordination of religious to civil history and the application of philosophical principles to the study of early Christianity. Though each is valid, none of these approaches accounts sufficiently for the historical context in which the controversy occurred. Yet an appreciation of the historical context of the controversy is necessary if Gibbon's achievement and eighteenth-century England's perspective on the problem of Christian origins are to be understood. This article observes Gibbon as he perfected his approach to religion, pondered the criticisms of his opponents, and sought to vindicate himself. In contrast to previous appraisals, it emphasizes that Gibbon was an occasional polemicist, that the controversy affected him deeply, and that, judged by contemporary standards, his critics successfully exploited their advantages in the debate.

In Catholic social thought since the time of Leo XIII, two important developments have influenced justificatory arguments for the institution of property. First, the traditional language of the “common good” has been augmented by an emphasis in recent encyclicals upon the dignity of persons and the rights of individuals. I shall analyze the warrants for this shift in formulation to see how changes in the language of justification reveal both continuities and discontinuities with the earlier tradition. Second, in the past century of Roman Catholic social thought, understandings of natural law have been subject to significant revision. Especially since the time of John XXIII, the papal encyclicals have sought both to “historicize” and to update those elements in the traditional discussion of property that fail to reflect modern socioeconomic circumstances. In reviewing the recent encyclical literature on these themes, I will consider how, or whether, earlier discussion can be successfully modernized without undercutting the raison d'etre of natural-law terminology in the process.