1.1. Keine menschliche Gemeinschaft kommt ohne ein Ethos aus, das denen, die ihr angehören, ‘mit dem Anspruch von Verbindlich-keit gegeniübertritt’.2 Dies hat seinen Grund darin, daß es aller-erst das gemeinsame Ethos ist, in dem sich die Identität einer Gemeinschaft objektiviert und in dem sie lebensweltlich – nämlich als soziale Identität – wahrnehmbar wird. In diesem Sinne stiftet ein Ethos soziale Kohäsion, denn es bestätigt den einzelnen die Zugehörigkeit zur überindividuellen Gemeinschaft. Mit W. Kluxen kann man darum sagen, daβ die ‘Sozialität’ einer Gemeinschaft ‘im Handeln verwirklicht wird’.3 Dies impliziert, daβ ein Ethos niemals um seiner selbst willen existiert, sondern immer Ver-weisfunktion hat: Es weist über sich selbst hinaus, denn ihm kommt die wichtige Aufgabe zu, die gemeinsame überindividuelle Identität unverwechselbar zu repräsentieren. – Dies gilt selbst-verständlich auch für christliche Gemeinschaften, und darum möchte ich im folgenden danach fragen, wie sich diese Korrelation in den paulinischen Gemeinden und bei Paulus selbst darstellt.4

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.

The purpose of this essay is to illuminate the character of Paul's appropriation of the ideal of ‘equality’ (ἰσότηϛ) in 2 Cor 8.13–15 by exploring the meaning of the term in each of the contexts in the Greek world in which thinking about ‘equality’ developed: friendship, politics, and the cosmos. The essay traces a consistent tendency in Paul to reverse the ancient logic of inverse proportion as the means for achieving ‘equality’. The essay highlights the novelty of Paul's attempt to create an economic structure—partnership in the collection—the goal of which was to achieve ‘equality’ between persons of different social classes through redistributive exchange.

1 Timothy defines the ekklēsia as the οἶκος θεοῦ. This has led to the conclusion that the Pastoral Epistles regard the ekklēsia as an enlarged oikos, where the roles of the officials and the norms regulating the behaviour of its members reproduce the relationships of the patriarchal household. However, οἶκος θεοῦ is not a household properly speaking. Ekklēsia is a term with political connotations, and thus the community acquires a public dimension. In addition, oikos is used metaphorically, for a larger community. In this, the definition reflects the ancient custom of describing larger communities (the cosmos, the polis, or an association) through the metaphor of the oikos. The ekklēsia is therefore a public, quasi-cosmic space, whose laws and structures receive divine legitimation.

Pauline Anthropology has long been seen as the key to the quest for the human being in New Testament theology. But there are other concepts in ancient Roman and early Jewish religious-philosophical thinking that deserve our attention in this regard. Exegetical analyses of James 1.2–18 and 3.13–18 point to a view of the human being that traces the ability to do what is good back to God's working within and his bestowal of wisdom. Surveys of ethical passages in the Wisdom of Solomon and Epictetus indicate that the origin of ethical decisions can be understood in psychological as well as religious terms. In the light of such anthropological discourses the Pauline argument about the human being in Romans 5–8 can be seen from a new perspective.

After discussing the scholarly preference for dating Jesus' crucifixion to 7 April 30 CE, this article argues that the precise date can no longer be recovered. All we can claim with any degree of historical certainty is that Jesus died some time around Passover (perhaps a week or so before the feast) between 29 and 34 CE. The emergence of the Johannine tradition (in which Jesus died on the day of Preparation) and the Markan tradition (in which Jesus died on the Passover itself) are explored through the lens of social/collective memory.

This article clarifies Luke's portrayal of both John and Jesus as Elijah-like figures by considering how Malachi 3 was interpreted by Ben Sira, 4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q521) and the LXX. These ancient readers shared with Luke a concern to interpret the prediction of Elijah's return in the context of Malachi 3 even though they reached diverse conclusions. Luke's solution to the puzzle of Malachi 3 involved distinguishing between the Elijah of 1–2 Kings, who is associated with Jesus, and the Elijah of Malachi 3, who is consistently identified with John, the forerunner of the messianic ‘Lord’.

This paper seeks first to refute the recent thesis of J. R. Edwards that the Gospel of the Ebionites may be identified as a source of Luke. It then discusses the importance of the Gospel of the Ebionites as a potential witness to two variant readings in the synoptic tradition, and argues that its evidence deserves a place in the apparatus to Luke 3.22 in hand editions of the Greek NT.

Gehenna, we all know, is a Hebrew word which means hell. It appears often in Jewish texts of the Hellenistic and Roman periods as well as in the New Testament. In this paper we hope to show that the use of this word in Matthew and Luke, when analyzed in the context of Jewish notions of retribution, offers us an important key to understanding Matthew's and Luke's beliefs concerning eschatology, retribution, and their interrelationship.

The article addresses the question ‘What is “New Testament Study”?’, considering as possible alternatives ‘Theology’ or ‘Religious Studies’. The issue may be critically determined by who is doing the study, and in what context; but in the context of the SNTS, it is argued that a non-confessional approach is more appropriate today. Part of the distinction between the two approaches may lie in one's attitude to non-canonical literature. In the second part of the article the question is raised as to what difference study of non-canonical texts might make in understanding the NT documents. Examples of the passion narrative in Q, and beliefs about the resurrection of the body (by Paul and other early Christians), are examined. Such issues raise questions about the NT canon, which are briefly addressed in a final section.

In a recent article, Goodrich has revived the thesis of Theissen, that Erastos, the οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως (Rom 16.23), held the office of quaestor when Paul met him in Corinth. This article, however, argues that the municipal office of quaestor did not exist in Corinth.

Previous attempts to explain the case of πορνεία in 1 Cor 5 have inadequately addressed the social and legal consequences of the relationship and the motivation of the individuals. When these are considered from the perspective of Roman law and customs it is more likely that the woman was the concubina of the man's father, not his stepmother. As such, the relationship was unusual but it was not considered illegal or immoral by the Corinthians. Paul, however, would not have understood the difference and thus saw it as.πορνεία

Anders als früher wird der erste apokalyptische Reiter (s. Apk 6.1–2) in unserem Jahrhundert (u.a.: W. Bousset; M. Rissi; A. Kerkeslager) oft als negative Gestalt begriffen (I). Wichtige Argumente sprechen gegen diese jüngere und für die ältere Sicht. Synchron (II) ist zunächst das Vokabular geltend zu machen, nämlich zumal das intransitive ṿιкόλεụкό ς; auβer-dem unterscheidet sich das zu diesem Reiter Ausgeführte auch struk-turell erheblich von den Formulierungen hinsichtlich der folgenden Pferde (vgl. bes. 6.2,4 mit der Entgegensetzung in 12.1,3). Überdies gilt diachron (III): Apk 6.1–8 weist deutliche Entsprechungen zu Theo-phanieschilderungen auf, und da hat haufig der positive Aspekt des Erscheinens Gottes vor negativen Phänomenen seinen Platz (s. z.B. Hab 3LXX; äthHen 87–9).

Als niemand ahnen konnte, daß die urchristliche Bewegung einmal die ganze Kultur verwandeln und gestalten sollte, waren ihre Missionare nicht die angesehenen Gründer des Christentums, sondern heimatlos vagabundierende Propagandisten ohne Erwerb und Wohnsitz. Sie verkörperten eineForm sozial-abweichenden Verhaltens, das sich grundlegenden Normen und Notwendigkeiten der Gesellschaft entzogen hatte; man denke an die Nachfolgegebote der Heimat- und Besitz-, Schutz- und Familienlosigkeit. Sie predigten und lebten so eine Freiheit gegenüber grundlegenden sozialen Verpflichtungen, die nur für den praktizierbar ist, der sich den stabilisierendenund domestizierenden Wirkungen kontinuierlichen Arbeitslebens entzogen hat – nicht durch Privilegien des Besitzes, sondern durch die asketische Armut einer ungesicherten Randexistenz, die dem Leben kynischer Wanderphilosophen vergleichbar ist. Nun ist aber auch der größte Asket auf Lebensunterhalt angewiesen. Wenn er selbst nicht arbeitet, heißit das: Er ist auf andere Menschen angewiesen, die für ihn arbeiten. Er bleibt so auf handfeste Weise an diese Welt gebunden, mag er sich auch sonst noch so sehr von ihr distanzieren. Die Frage des Lebensunterhaltsrührt daher an die Wurzeln seiner geistigen Existenz, sie berührtdie Glaubwürdigkeit seiner exponierten Lebensweise. Es ist daher sicherlich kein Zufall, daß diese Frage in den Anweisungen an urchristliche Wanderprediger einen breiten Raum einnimmt (vgl. die Aussendungsrede Lc. x. 3 ff. parr.), daß sie in den Gemeinderegeln für den Umgang mit wandernden Charismatikern dominiert (Mt. x. 40–2; Did. xi) und zu einem zentralen Thema in den Auseinander-setzungen zwischen konkurrierenden Wanderpredigern werden konnte (I Cor. ix; II Cor. x-xiii): Die soziale Legitimität der wandernden Prediger hängt in der Tat weitgehend davon ab, wie sie sich ihren Lebensunterhalt verschaffen.

Galatians 3. 28 illustrates the fact that all too often meaning is in the eye of the beholder and that without proper care and attention to the context, text becomes pretext. We are told by some commentators that Gal. 3. 28 is the ‘Magna Carta of Humanity’, and especially the ‘Emancipation Proclamation for Women’. Others insist just as strongly that this text is dealing with one's position Coram Deo and has no implications for social relations within the Body of Christ. One scholar has even suggested that Paul's male–female terminology and his mentioning of baptism means that Paul is arguing for infant, as well as adult, baptism. In light of the present confusion concerning this text, it will perhaps be best to attempt to set this verse in its historical and literary context before proceeding to examine the exegetical intricacies involved.

‘For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.’ This hard saying has been attributed by the consensus of commentators in this century to rabbinical teaching. Obedience or disobedience to certain laws, such as that about fringes and phylacteries, had the status in late Judaism of observing or transgressing the entire code. The rule of the epistle, then, merely repeats current midrash. In an earlier century, however, the association of this verse was Hellenistic rather than Judaic. Corresponding with Jerome concerning his perplexity about its meaning, Augustine indicates the affinity of James 2. 10 with the Stoic paradox that all virtues and vices are equal, and its corollary that he who has one virtue has all while he who lacks one has none. A Stoic source for this verse was still evident more than a millennium later to the editor of the first Greek New Testament to be published (1516), Erasmus of Rotterdam. In the same era another distinguished exegete, Martin Luther, likely considered James 2. 10 a Stoic paradox. At the turn of this century Joseph B. Mayor reported Augustine's attribution neutrally and catalogued numerous resemblances between the theories and maxims of Stoicism and this epistle. Martin Dibelius deliberated to indecision about its source, conceding that while the Stoic paradox and the rabbinical praxis were in origin distinct, by the time of Philo at least they had become indistinguishable teaching.

It has long been almost taken for granted that Luke-Acts is a historical work. Recently, however, C. H. Talbert has argued that Luke-Acts is biography rather than history, thereby re-opening the question of the genre of Luke-Acts. In what follows I will discuss one feature of Luke-Acts which does not support the contention that it is biography. I will argue that the preface of Luke-Acts resembles the prefaces of histories more than those of biographies or any other ancient prose writings. And I will further attempt to specify what historical prefaces it most resembles, and thus what sort of historian, on the evidence of the preface, the author of Luke-Acts was Comparison of prefaces cannot by itself settle the question of the genre of Luke-Acts, but it may make an important contribution. It is often true (and certainly true in the case of Luke-Acts) that the author speaks most directly in his preface. Because of this the preface may provide the best indication of the writer's own understanding of what he is doing, which is an important consideration in addressing the question of genre.