In a recent article on ‘1 Cor 7:32–35 and Stoic Debates about Marriage, Anxiety, and Distraction’, David L. Balch offers a contribution to the debate whether Stoic ideas, are reflected in Paul's discussion. Balch concludes, in part, that the Roman Stoic Musonius Rufus and the Apostle Paul agree that ‘marriage is helpful for some, not advantageous for others’.

This essay examines Ephesians in light of current research in ethnic studies. The methodological advance of such an approach is twofold: first, it moves the exegesis of the domestic codes to the wider frame of the letter; and, second, it goes beyond the limited hermeneutical framework of the ‘origins’ of the reconciliation language to the more productive examination of its function in the text. The concept of ‘one new humanity’ provides evidence for the author's ethnic reasoning, which participated in ancient cultural affirmations of the essential fluidity and changeability of all ethnicity. The author of Ephesians domesticates the mythical language of baptism by making it fit the conventional morality of a household economy, thus presenting the letter's most important ecclesiological concept, that of ‘the body of Christ’, as a unity that is more moral than mythic.

At the primary, narrative level the riddle of Mark's brief account of Jesus' death and its immediate aftermath must still be pronounced unsolved. There has been a steadily growing awareness among scholars that, for all the insights they have afforded us, form and redaction criticism have tended to deprive the Evangelists of reputations for competence as narrators and their story-lines of coherence and integrity and that this tendency does them injustice. Yet though the latest study of Mark 15. 37–39 is sensitive to this issue, it cannot be pronounced successful in making complete sense of Mark's narrative qua narrative. This paper offers a solution to the riddle and argues what I realize is the rather radical thesis that Mark intended a connection between the events of these verses that has never been fully and properly understood.

The brokerage relationship has been applied as a model to various passages in the NT. Surprisingly, only a few have applied it to the Pauline corpus. Among them is Stephan Joubert, who uses the model to reach a very hierarchical conclusion on Paul's apostleship in the Corinthian Correspondence. Against Joubert, this essay will demonstrate that, when the brokerage model is applied to 2 Cor 1.3-11, a characteristic relational pattern in the economy of grace emerges, one which is marked by interpersonal solidarity and a mutual channelling of χάρις. This discovery, however, only emerges once the ‘unfitting’ nature of the model is acknowledged.

The fact that many of the initial German members of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas were also supporters of the NS regime and among the authors of scholarly antisemitism (G. Kittel, K. G. Kuhn, W. Grundmann) is one that requires proper examination. This paper uses relevant archival material, such as previously unexplored documents from the Reich Ministry of Education (Reichserziehungsministerium), to explain this perceived link, demonstrating how Professor Gerhard Kittel (1888–1948) from Tübingen used his political power to control the selection of the first German scholars in the Society.

Exegetical study in the days of liberal theology assumed that Paul spoke on impulse, according to the mood of the moment, deeply moved, and with often changing emotions. Scholars read between the lines, searching for crises in the life of the apostle that might explain his changes of attitude. If we consider Adolf Deissmann's research on Paul it is not difficult to see that an interpretation assuming a far too detailed knowledge of the apostle's spiritual life is an exaggeration. The actual material of our study is the texts, not the man behind them. And Paul is not as spontaneous as was believed by the older generation of exegetes. The letters are those of an experienced missionary, used to preaching and instructing. And it is possible that in the letters he is dealing with subjects he has discussed before, so that the expressions he uses have not necessarily been new minted for this particular occasion.

Our General Meeting this year is to concern itself with a subject of a highly technical and specialist character. Your President has been expressly absolved from the obligation of selecting a subject related to Qumran. And indeed it may be thought more fitting that a Presidential Address should deal with a subject of a more general interest and with a more immediate bearing upon the life and destiny of mankind.

I think I should begin with an apology for my temerity in accepting your invitation to discuss the Dead Sea material as a whole. Such a discussion is certainly premature while the greater part of the material is still unpublished, and while certain basic studies of the documents have yet to be made, or, at least, made public. The question of the palaeographic dating of the manuscripts, for instance, which could have great consequences for the reconstruction of the history of the sect, must remain sub judice until we have the material fully before us.

In recent years the importance of the title ‘Son of God’ for Matthew's Gospel has received well-deserved recognition. There need be no hesitation in acknowledging the programmatic role which it plays in the christological development of the First Gospel. Thus, in considering this appellation, we are not lightly extracting a vacuous designation appropriated by the Evangelist from his tradition, but are dealing rather with a confessional title of continuing vitality for the Matthean church. All the more surprising is it, then, that the actual content of this expression has of late received comparatively little attention from many of those concerned to establish its importance. Moreover, among those who have dealt in more detail with the meaning of the title in Matthew's Gospel, little by way of a satisfactory consensus has been achieved.

Recent New Testament scholarship has rightly emphasized the significance of urban features at Sepphoris for gospels and Historical Jesus research. However, some of these studies have greatly exaggerated the quantity of evidence for Greco-Roman influence in the first-century city. Most of the architectural features associated with the Greco-Roman city are missing, evidence for use of Greek is minimal, and signs of pagans are rare. In light of this, questions about the influence of Galilee's Hellenistic milieu on the Historical Jesus must be reconsidered.

Everybody knows that the relation between Paul's beliefs and expectations about life beyond death and those of his contemporaries is obscure and hotly disputed. Everybody knows, too, about the debate over the origins of gnosticism and the extent to which Paul shared its dualism; and I am not so simple as to imagine that I can provide clarity and precision where great scholars, past and present, have confessed to bewilderment. In discussing Paul's attitude to the material world, all that I shall attempt is, after defining certain areas of the problem, to defend Paul's basic consistency on certain particular issues; and, in this connexion, to suggest an interpretation of certain parts of II Cor. v which, as I believe, throws light on his degree of consistency.

The role of the mother of Jesus is explored in view of ancient constructions of paternity especially as expressed in the Aristotelian theory of epigenesis. It concludes that beyond framing Jesus' life in the flesh, she is present under the cross as his kin in a group uniquely composed of family and friends together. As Jesus entrusts her and the beloved disciple to each other, a process is begun whereby a familia dei comes into being – in which the matter provided by the mother is superfluous. These children are begotten/born from above ‘not of blood(s) or of the will of flesh or of the will of man but of God’ – alone.

‘If you do not understand this parable’, says Jesus to his disciples in St Mark's gospel, with reference to the parable of the sower, ‘how can you understand any of the parables?’ The saying is certainly not meant to indicate that this parable is the most easily understood of all that Jesus told. It indicates rather that the parable of the sower is fundamental; that it is concerned, in some way, with the innermost secret of Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God. That this is so is further indicated by the fact that the parable serves to introduce a section about Jesus' preaching in parables and that the conversation which ensues is concerned with two questions, the significance of Jesus' use of parables as a whole, and the meaning of this parable in particular. Such is the case in Mark; the extent to which Matthew and Luke are in agreement must be examined later.

This paper discusses Galilee–Jerusalem relations in the context of the ‘geography of restoration’ as this is represented in various Jewish writings of the Second Temple period. The literary and archaeological records for the Jewish presence in Galilee in the Hasmonean and Herodian periods are examined against this ideology of a greater Israel. Finally, the alleged opposition in early Christianity between Galilee and Jerusalem is judged to be poorly grounded when various NT documents are read within this larger horizon of meaning.

It is widely assumed that Mark's introduction consists of i. 1–13 and that these verses ‘introduce’ what Mark has to say. At the same time, there is little agreement about what it is that Mark wants to say. For example, Bultmann has contended that it was Mark's aim to combine the Hellenistic kerygma with the traditions about Jesus; at the same time, he agrees with Wrede that the ‘Messianic secret’ is designed to explain why faith arose only after Easter. More recently, Schille has held that Mark answers the question, How is one to grasp more precisely the nature of Jesus' work, since he not only suffered but appeared as Son of God? Eduard Schweizer, on the other hand, emphasizes Mark's interest in discipleship and the way of the cross as the meaning of the kerygma, and sees this as a polemic against a Gnosticism in which Jesus is in danger of becoming a mere symbol of the kerygma. T. A. Burkill claims that Mark is concerned with ‘the exposition of two central themes, namely, the secret fact of the messianic status of Jesus and the mysterious meaning of that fact’, the first controlling the first half, the second the latter half of the gospel. We need not present an exhaustive catalogue of suggested aims for Mark in order to make the point that unless Mark is haphazard, each of these alleged aims is probably reflected in the introduction—both in its scope and content. Yet almost never does the introduction figure in discussions of Mark' purpose. This same phenomenon doubtless lies behind the fact that there is relatively little discussion about what constitutes the introduction. It is the purpose of this article to analyse the introduction in the light of these two questions and their bearing on each other: the extent of the introduction and the intent of the author. This investigation is based squarely on what is obvious—that Mark assumed his contemporary readers (in contrast with modern scholars) did not have the whole of his work in mind when they began, and that therefore the opening paragraph was his opportunity to orient them to what he wanted to say and to how he wanted to say it.

The question of the ‘opponents’ in 1 John has long been recognized as significant for the study of that ‘letter’. The great commentaries by Theodor Häring, R. Law and Rudolf Schnackenburg make the conflict with the ‘schismatics’ the key to their interpretations. Most recently Raymond E. Brown1 has presented a detailed account of the conflict in the context of the history of Johannine Christianity as the basis for his own commentary. I find myself in general agreement with the approach and position set out there. But I remain unconvinced on a number of important issues where I find that my views remain fundamentally unchanged,2 not through stubbornness I trust. These views will need further elaboration and defence in due course. Before doing this certain preliminary matters need to be dealt with.