A frequent source of consolation among Christians is that, while they do not have the same attitudes towards creeds, liturgies, or church structures, they all share the same canon of the NT. That common heritage might seem to be reinforced by B. S. Childs' recent insistence, or even hyper-insistence, on canonical dimensions in studying NT text questions, in interpreting individual NT books, and in evaluating the whole collection. In point of fact, despite Childs's emphasis (which, while exaggerated, makes some very important points), scholarship has gone in the opposite direction. For various reasons and from various vantage points, the validity and value of the NT canon are being seriously questioned.

‘L'Esprit du Seigneur a rempli l'Univers et lui qui maintient tout dans l'unité, il connaît toute parole.’ Tel est l'introït de la fête de la Pentecôte dans la liturgie de l'Eglise catholique latine; c'est une citation du livre de la Sagesse (1. 7). La thèse d'une omniprésence de l'Esprit saint s'est trouvée, au cours des siècles, développée dans différentes directions. Sensible à la question de la vérité, le Moyen-Age aimait commenter une maxime datant du 4e siècle: ‘Toute vérité, quel que soit celui qui la dise, vient du Saint-Esprit.’ Préoccupé de la sécularisation contemporaine, le Concile Vatican II disait: ‘L'homme, sans cesse sollicité par l'Esprit de Dieu, ne sera jamais tout à fait indifférent au problème religieux.’ Et, soucieux comme toute notre génération de la justice dans la société, il affirmait: ‘L'Esprit de Dieu qui, par une providence admirable, conduit le cours des temps et rénove la face de la terre, est présent à [l'] évolution [des mentalités dans le sens du progrès social].’

This paper explores some relations between dominant scientific Paradigms and hermeneutical schemas currently used in analyses of the history of biblical interpretation.

In the past fifteen years or so New Testament scholars have sought to balance the predominantly historical orientation of biblical studies with insights and methods derived from literary studies and literary criticism. In addition, discussions of hermeneutics and pastoral ‘application’ have attempted to replace the overall framework of meaning that has been eroded by the eclipse of biblical theology understood as salvation history. Finally, the studies of the social world of early Christianity have focused anew on the social-political situation and economic-cultural conditions of the New Testament writers and their communities. However, these discussions have not yet led to the formulation of a new integrative paradigm in biblical interpretation. This paper seeks to contribute to this three-pronged discussion by utilizing rhetorical criticism for the interpretation of Paul's first extant letter to the community of Corinth. My main goal is thereby not to add a ‘new interpretation’ to the many variant readings of 1 Corinthians but to explore the questions, methods, and strategies involved in the interpretation of the letter.

There is not the slightest doubt about the immense significance of Paul's Damascus experience. It changed Paul's life and turned a persecutor into a missionary. Jesus Christ became and remained the centre of Paul's existence.

It is another question, however, to what extent Paul's theology was conceived soon after the call experience.1 Was Paul's peculiar view of the law as found in Galatians or in Romans an immediate consequence of his Christophany? That is at least a very common view.2 Paul's call experience resulted, it is held, in his making immediately a sharp contrast between ‘works of righteousness’ and ‘righteousness by faith’. In his Damascus experience Paul perceived that Christ was the end of the law and God's judgment ‘upon all human accomplishment and boasting’3. It is also commonly held that that experience made Paul regard the law as a ‘spur to sin’, from which the death and resurrection of Christ had liberated the believers.

The person of Simon encountered in Acts 8 has been a controversial figure ever since the rise of historical criticism. The range of opinions in the history of research varies from denying his existence to regarding him as the instigator of the gnostic movement that threatened the nascent early church in the second century. These contradictory results reflect the particular difficulty of the Simon question, which consists not least in the span of time that lies between the two oldest sources (Acts and Justin). Furthermore, an orderly report of Simon's gnostic teaching is encountered first in Irenaeus. In modern research, Simon Magus has been treated more or less as a test case for the larger question about gnostic backgrounds of the NT or about the existence of a first century Gnosis. With conscious or unconscious reference to this first century Gnosis, the majority of investigators (especially of German origin) has affirmed the existence of a first-century Gnostic Simon, and has neglected the above mentioned chronological problem. Only recently has the following judgement begun to gain dominance: ‘All attempts so far made have failed to bridge the gap between the Simon of Acts and the Simon of the heresiologists.’ This statement points to the lack of Simon's companion Helen (= ἔννοια) in Acts 8 and to the fact that the expression ‘great power (of God)’ (Acts 8. 10b) is not gnostic as such.

In composing the opening paragraph of Acts, Luke has drawn on four main literary forms: prologue, appearance (epiphany), farewell scene, and assumption. However, these forms do not provide the basis for a rigid subdivision of the passage, Acts 1. 1–14. In what follows, the literary background of each of the forms will be analysed. And it will be seen how Luke has combined features of the various forms, in order to create a unified introduction to the book of Acts as a whole.

The importance of an awareness of the wider social context of any movement or individual is widely acknowledged, and does not need arguing. It constitutes a necessary criterion of the adequacy of any historical account. Yet there does not seem to have been any significant development in our critical appraisal of it among other criteria, and we still fail to produce agreed results. As a check on how things stand with other historians we may take, as a typical current survey, C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions. McCullagh makes a distinction that I have myself made before, but he makes it rather more elegantly. It lies in a contrast between the explanatory ‘scope’ and the ‘power’ of an historical account. An historical reconstruction may have a very wide scope, appearing to include all the data that is conventionally allowed to be relevant, and thus seem very persuasive. But the question remains to be asked, what power has it to exclude competing explanations?

Es ist zu beobachten, daß Untersuchungen zum theologischen Begriff Evangelium neben Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gattung Evangelium weitgehend unverbunden herlaufen.