There has been in recent years an upsurge of interest in the social description of early Christianity, particularly in the reconstruction of its ‘social world’. Any valid sociological analysis of early Christianity of necessity depends upon the exacting interpretation of the NT texts, since these constitute the necessary data for such studies. In many cases such exegetical ground-work has been done thoroughly and well, so that fruitful social studies can be conducted on the basis of the resulting data. Unfortunately, in the case of early Christian disciplinary practices, relatively little careful research has been done, and much of what has been done is, in the opinion of the present writer, seriously flawed. Social descriptions based upon this data are inevitably likewise flawed, and a distorted picture of early Christian communal life is the unfortunate result. The nature of early Christian discipline is obviously a problem of a social nature, but before serious sociological studies can be done, there must be a correction of the distortions which are currently prevalent in the scholarly consensus regarding this subject.

Erastus (Rom 16.23) has featured prominently in the ongoing debate over the social and economic make-up of the early Pauline communities, since how one renders his title (ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως) dramatically affects the range of economic stratification represented in the Corinthian church. Relying chiefly on epigraphy, including an important new inscription from the Achaean colony of Patras, this article engages the scholarly dialogue about the Latin equivalent of Erastus' title, rebutting the arguments in favour of arcarius and aedilis, and contends that he served as quaestor, a high-ranking municipal position exclusively occupied by the economic elite.

Interpreters of Paul have expressed no doubt until the present era that Paul's viewpoint on sexual intercourse is articulated in 1 Cor. 7.lb: καλòνανθρωπωγυναικòς μń âπт*σθαι This association of the most outstanding Christian theologian with sexual asceticism has caused significant repercussions in Western culture. But now there is much uncertainty as to whether the apostle was: (a) asserting his position in his own words; (b) quoting a slogan of some Corinthians that he accepted; or (c) quoting a Corinthian slogan that he rejected. In this essay a sampling will be given of these major interpretive positions and an argument in favour of the third will be presented.

It is hardly necessary to emphasise the problematic nature of this passage. Its tragic misuse, in past and present, in the interests of supporting oppressive regimes and suppressing protest can neither be denied nor condoned. It is easy to lay the blame for such abusesat the door of non-contextual literalism, with its hidden agenda of endorsement of the status quo. Liberal interpreters, however, also work with a hidden agenda and cannot be allowed to assume that they know from the outset the ‘right’ interpretation of the passage.That is why we have described it as a test case for New Testament interpretation. It is not simply that the passage is being tested. Thetest is whether New Testament hermeneutics is able to handle acase as difficult and controversial as Rom 13. 1–7 while remaining true to its principles and without resorting to emergency procedures, such as drastic surgery!

The ‘enigmatic ending’ of Acts continues to baffle the exegetes. Not the least of its difficulties is the status of ‘the Jews’ after Paul's peculiarly solemn pronouncement of Isa 6. 9–10 against a ‘closed’ and ‘hardened’ people (Acts 28. 26–27). Coming as it does as a climax to the equally ponderous pronouncements of judgment in Acts 13. 46 and 18. 6, for many scholars the cumulative, three-fold impact of this indictment resounds a note of finality, of foreclosure upon Israel which consequently consummates an era and looks ahead almost exclusively to a Gentile church. The two leading clusters of opinion expressing this understanding are those associated with E. Haenchen – viz., that repentance for Israel by the end of Acts is de facto now over, with Gentiles replacing Jews as the people of God – or with J. Jervell – that a core of repenting Jews constitutes a restored Israel which, along with increasing numbers of Gentiles, by the end of chapter 28 has completed its mission to unrepenting Jews who no longer have a right to the name ‘Israel’ or ‘people of God’.

The Letter to the Hebrews develops a theological topography in which conventional biblical goods are desanctified by means of christological reorientation. The ‘land of promise’ (11.9), the promised rest, the sanctuary of the first covenant, Mount Sinai, are left behind in the shadows of earth whereas all light is shed upon their counterparts in God's heavenly realm, which turns out to be the faithful's true fatherland. This theocentric transformation is ascribable to the author's radical interpretation of επαγγελια: any earthbound hope will look vague because with Christ's ‘new and living way’ (10.20) promise has come to be bright.

This article seeks a fresh answer to the difficult question of the meaning of the phrase τα στοιχεια του κοσμου in Gal 4.3. The answer is sought by paying close attention to (1) the argumentative context of Paul's use of the phrase in the letter (he posits some sort of equivalence between the veneration of τα στοιχεια του κοσμου and the observance of the Law; he does so for contextually relevant theological and rhetorical reasons), and (2) the cultural-historical context of the addressees, the Gentile believers in Galatia (τα στοιχεια are ‘the gods’ they once venerated; this veneration involved calendrical observances).

The purpose of this paper1 is to survey most of the lines along which, in recent years, attempts have been made to establish a relationship between the addressees of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Essene movement in general or the Qumran community in particular, and to suggest what, in fact, these attempts amount to.

1 Corinthians 11. 2–16, because of the social concerns of much contemporary exegesis and theology, has provided a rich vein from which to quarry materials for current feminist agendas. However, exegetes have tended to neglect the ‘male issue’ in this text and the Corinthian context underlying it. The purpose of this article is to reconstruct the most plausible matrix of the practices addressed by Paul in 1 Cor 11. 4 when he refers to . Numerous exegetical issues and ancient social practices relevant to a full study of 1 Cor 11. 2–16 do not fall within the purview of this narrow investigation. Questions such as the origin and character of Paul's views of women as well as their apparel, and the question of ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish customs concerning the veiling of women in their domestic and street apparel will not be broached here.

It is widely recognized not only that Luke was a literary artist but that his literary methods involved specifically Hellenistic approaches and techniques. The primary purpose of this article is to indicate that the enigmatic relationship of part of Luke's text (7. 11–17, the raising of the widow's son) to part of the LXX text (1 Kgs 17. 17–24, Elijah's raising of the widow's son) is a literary relationship, a relationship which is the result of a sophisticated and coherent process of dramatization and christianization. The article is also intended to suggest briefly that this literary relationship is to be understood, in considerable part, in light of the Hellenistic literary practice known as imitatio, and that the practice of imitatio may be an important clue in detecting and unravelling other areas of Luke's sources.

It is usually assumed that Matthew did not know Luke, nor Luke Matthew. The non-Marcan (‘Q’-) materials common to Matthew and Luke, then, ultimately go back to a common source or sources, oral or written, much of which anyway had reached a fixed Greek form. Attempts have been made to split up the source of the Q-materials into two documents, into one-sheet ‘tracts’, and into individual floating sayings.

The New Testament discipline is a rather odd bird within the university. The object of our research is small, a book we can have in our pocket. And the learned work with this book has been carried out for a long time: acute theologians have studied it for almost two millennia and critical scholars for two centuries; there is hardly any counterpart. The secondary literature is as the grains of sand on the sea-shore.

One of the most puzzling aspects of our much overworked field of New Testament studies – puzzling particularly at a time when individualism and personal religious experience have become central themes in our culture – is the fact that so little attention has been given to the most obvious, indeed the only clearly accessible instance of a personal religious experience in the New Testament. While some exegetes have shunned psychological contributions almost as if they might somehow impugn the authenticity of the event itself, others have undoubtedly reacted to the excesses of earlier attempts to psychoanalyse Paul's personality. But whatever the justification, the decision to follow a literary path, to the exclusion of the psychological, has meant that exegetes have lost touch with the dynamic, experiential dimension of Paul's conversion and have been forced to isolate it from other facets of his career.