The question, What did Paul know about Jesus of Nazareth?, has long been debated by students of the New Testament. The debate has not issued in any consensus. Indeed, critical appraisals of Paul's relation to the Jesus of history and to traditions about him have been unusually disparate. Thus, on the one side, W. D. Davies has argued that ‘Paul is steeped in the mind and words of his Lord.’ On the other side, R. Bultmann could claim that ‘the teaching of the historical Jesus plays no role, or practically none, in Paul’. The contrast between these two assertions is puzzling, and all the more so as neither can be regarded as idiosyncratic: Davies is not alone in avowing that sayings of and traditions about Jesus were of momentous significance for Paul, and it is not difficult to find critics at one with Bultmann. Moreover, as our two quotations do not simply represent two circles of opinion but also mark poles between which appears a variety of viewpoints, matters are even further complicated.

From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s New Testament scholars produced groundbreaking work illustrating that the household code had its origins in discussions of ‘household management’ among philosophers and moralists from Aristotle onward. Despite this general consensus, many points of disagreement remained, especially with respect to the function of the codes in particular New Testament documents and what the codes reveal about the relationship of Christians with the wider world. This article revisits some of the initial debates and traces their influence on subsequent scholarship. The recognition of the household codes as a type of ‘political’ discourse is of particular interest, as well as its impact on subsequent feminist, political and postcolonial interpretation. The conclusion suggests five promising directions, closely tied to the study of early Christian families, for future analysis of the codes leading to a more complete understanding of household management in a house-church setting.

Since World War II a considerable number of New Testament scholars (many of them German) have come to the conclusion that Paul did not write II Thessalonians. Among these the names of Rudolf Bultmann, Günther Bornkamm, Willi Marxsen, and Helmut Koester come to mind. What is curious is that to date no single commentary has appeared in any major European language which interprets II Thessalonians as pseudonymous. C. Masson in the introduction to his commentary decides against Pauline authorship, but in the commentary itself interprets as though Paul were the author – an anomaly perhaps related to his view of pseudonymity. The forth-coming commentaries of Marxsen and Koester will therefore provide scholars with the first examples of exegesis of the letter as non-Pauline. Since the issue of authorship is evidently by no means settled, the present article examines the evidence for both positions and concludes with a discussion of pseudonymity in the ancient world.

Bien avant de poser un problème littéraire aux exégètes modernes, la pluralité et la diversité des évangiles ont préoccupé les anciens chrétiens: il y a en effet des difficultés théologiques évidentes à reconnaître comme normatifs plusieurs témoignages divergents sur une révélation unique.1

The following article is the result of frequent conversations between the two authors about the fragments of a scroll from the 11th Cave at Qumran, recently published by A. S. van der Woude. At a later stage the fragments as well as the material for this article were discussed in a number of meetings of the Qumran seminar in the University of Groningen. The authors wish to thank the members of that seminar (and others) for stimulating comments and suggestions and hope that their article in turn will stimulate others to further research on this interesting new document.

Recent investigation of the Pauline corpus has brought into focus several important facets of Paul's rhetorical skill. It is now generally recognized that Paul knew and used the forms and techniques of classical rhetoric. Various analyses of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Corinthians 1–4, Galatians, for example, have reinforced the conviction that Paul consciously constructed his letters using rhetorical patterns and appeals. This type of investigation does not, however, operate in opposition to the epistolary analysis that was pioneered by Robert Funk and others. Indeed, attention to epistolary clichés and formulae proves especially valuable in reconstructing the ‘rhetorical situation’ of each letter, since these provide a road map of the conversation between Paul and his partners, indicating, for example, what is prior shared knowledge, what is new information and what are the points of controversy in the matters discussed.

Es ist zur Zeit eine liebgewordene Gewohnheit, auf die drückende Last des noch ungelösten johnneischen Rätsels hinzuweisen. Kein anderer als Ernst Käsemann hat dieses jüngst erneut zum Ausdruck gebracht; freilich nicht ohne zugleich seines Rätsels Lösung zu umreißen. Daß sein viel beachteter Diskussionsbeitrag vor allem Rudolf Bultmann mit seiner Deutung des Johannesevangeliums zum Gesprächspartner wählt, ist die einzing angemessene Entscheidung. Dabei läßt sich die Antwort des gegen seinen Lehrer rebellierenden Schülers in ihrer Gegensätzlichkeit zum Wort des Meisters kaum extremer denken. Solche Antithetik ist für den Exegeten allemal ein Stachel, der zu erneuter Textinterpretation reizt. Dabei gilt es festzuhalten, daß dieser Gegensatz neben dem historisch-exegetischen auch seinen theologiegeschichtlichen Aspekt besitzt: Bultmann interpretiert mit Hilfe der durch die Existentialanalyse bereitgestellten Begrifflichkeit und zu einem nicht unwesentlichen Teil auch unter Rückgriff auf die Paradoxchristologie Sören Kierkegaards. Käsemann hingegen greift auf die alte liberale Johannes-Interpretation zurück, wenn er den johanneischen Christus als über die Erde schreitenden Gott darstellt. Der Aufweis theologiegeschichtlicher Bedingtheit sollte dem Exegeten stets ein Achtungszeichen sein. Doch ist über die Angemessenheit der herangezogenen Interpretationshilfen damit noch nichtentschieden. Allerdings müssen die Denkmodelle im Blick auf den auszulegenden Text ihre Bewährungsprobe bestehen. Diese Kritik soll an einem entscheidenden Punkt johanneischer Theologie vorgeführt werden, nämalich an dem Verhältnis von Wunder und Christologie.

In a recently-published article, P. Stuhlmacher has outlined three major contemporary theories of the occasion of Paul's letter to the Romans: 1) Romans is addressed to a specific situation within the Roman community itself, 2) it is composed primarily with Paul's forthcoming delivery of the collection to Jerusalem in mind, and 3) it emerges from a convergence of the first two motivations. While not wishing to deny that the Jerusalem trip was a preoccupation of Paul as he composed Romans (see Romans 15. 25, 30–32), I intend in this study to strengthen the Roman side of the equation, first by surveying a range of arguments about the Roman situation as it relates to the letter, then by suggesting a new approach to the question.

Paul's ‘therapeutic epistle’ in 2 Cor 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 provides material for a comparative analysis of Paul's view of the emotions and emotional therapy in the context of ancient psychagogic literature. Paul's treatment of ‘remorse’ and ‘repentance’ demonstrates his familiarity with the discourse of the philosophers on the role of the passions in moral progress. Paul's account of ‘pain’ is shown to be anomalous in the context of ancient psychagogic literature shaped by a Stoicizing theory of the emotions. Paul emerges from this comparative analysis as the harbinger of change in the ancient theory of the emotions and the practice of emotional therapy.

The question of Paul's identity is raised by his history as a diaspora Jew, then Pharisee, who became a believer in Messiah Jesus and apostle to the gentiles. How did he think of himself? The essay focuses on the categories ‘Jew’, ‘(in) Judaism’, ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Israel(ite)’, with particular reference to Rom 2.28–9, 1 Cor 9.20–1, Gal 1.13–14, 2 Cor 11.22, Phil 3.4–7 and Rom 11.1. It also contrasts Paul's devaluation of circumcision and food laws with his continued and characteristically Jewish hostility to idolatry and sexual licence. Paul's identity was evidently in transition, both rooted in his Jewish heritage and responding to fresh revelation, thus reflecting the emerging identity of Christianity.

In this essay I take issue with Paul Trebilco's recent argument in this journal that the Christian self-designation of ἐϰϰλησία has a background in the Septuagint. I argue that its Graeco-Roman political meaning in the sense of ‘civic assembly’ was decisive in its adoption by Paul, and that Paul wished to portray his communities as alternative organizations existing alongside the civic assemblies. At the same time, however, I am critical of Richard Horsley's anti-imperialist understanding of the Pauline communities. Paul's contrast between two types of ἐϰϰλησία is an expression of his view on two types of πολίτευμα, a distinction which finds its background in the Stoic doctrine of dual citizenship. Through a sustained analysis of ἐϰϰλησία in the Hellenistic and Roman periods I show that, in many respects, the functioning of the Christian ἐϰϰλησία mirrors the operations of the civic assemblies.

Mark 7.15, which contrasts two modes of defilement, appears in the gospel as a response to the Pharisaic custom of washing hands before eating. In this article, it is argued that this custom embodies an innovative approach to ritual impurity. Hand washing, which originated, so it is argued, in the Greco-Roman practice, was promoted by the Pharisees along with other purity laws, but stands in contrast to the biblical priestly purity system. In this logion, Jesus rejects the Pharisees' new conception of ritual purity, which was designed to guard the self from impurity. This interpretation offers both a coherent narrative and a plausible understanding of the custom within its historical-social context.

1. What does Gal. 1–2 tell us about the relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles during the ‘tunnel’ period between his conversion and his earliest correspondence? That is one of the key questions relating to the beginnings of Christianity which has never achieved a completely satisfactory resolution. It is clear enough that in Galatians itself Paul is striving to assert his independence from Jerusalem – that is hardly to be disputed. But that explanation has always left a number of puzzling loose ends. It is certainly a necessary explanation but has proved insufficient in itself to explain all that Paul says. We may think, for example, of the admission in 2. 2 that the decision of the Jerusalem apostles regarding Paul's gospel could have rendered his missionary work useless; and the awkward syntax of 2. 3–5 has given rise to various theses at odds with the clear overall thrust of these two chapters.

Die folgenden Erwägungen und Darlegungen sind ein besonders problematisches und deshalb des Gedankenaustauschs im Voraus sehr bedürftiges Teilstück eines Manuskriptes einer ‘Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments’, die in der Evangelischen Verlagsanstalt Berlin erscheinen wird. Für die Voraussetzungen, die im Rahmen dieses Ausschnitts nicht begründet und geklärt werden können, darf ich auf dieses hoffentlich bald gedruckt vorliegende Buch verweisen.

Amongst scholars who say that Paul's letters provide evidence of change and development in Paul's thinking,1 the major emphasis has been seeing this change taking place towards the later stages of Paul's writings, rather than in the earliest stages.2 However, the most significant change in Paul's thinking probably took place shortly before he wrote what are generally regarded as his earliest letters, the letters to the Thessalonians. An exegesis of these letters, together with established research revealing the stages behind the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians3 (though with modifications to certain conclusions about Paul's earliest eschatology), gives support to this suggestion. Whilst changing emphases appear in Paul's later letters, attention should be directed to the probability that the biggest change in his Christian eschatology took place with the surviving correspondence.

Amongst the many incidental issues raised by J. T. Milik in his edition of the Aramaic fragments of Enoch from Qumran1 that of the date of the Parables of Enoch is perhaps one of the most important. Although there has never been anything approaching a consensus as to the exact date of this work, I would think it fair to say that many scholars in this century, if not the majority, have taken the view that the Parables are Jewish in origin; many have also argued that they date from before A.D. 70.2 Milik's view that the Parables are Christian and date from around A.D. 270 has such enormous implications for our understanding of the development of intertestamental Judaism and of the use of the term ‘Son of Man’ in the gospels that it demands very careful consideration. It also suggests that the evidence on which the Jewish origin and pre-A.D. 70 dating has been based needs to be re-examined.

This article argues two major theses: (1) Paul was trying to teach the Corinthian church to think eschatologically; (2) Paul was trying to teach the Corinthian church to reshape its identity in light of Israel's Scripture. These theses entail two important corollaries: (1) the Corinthians did not have an ‘overrealized eschatology’; (2) scholars who contend that Paul engaged in OT interpretation only when his hand was forced by Judaizing opponents cannot explain Paul's rich and varied use of Scripture in 1 Cor. These theses are explained and defended with reference to 1 Cor 10.1–22; 1.18–31 and 5.1–13.

The phrase ‘Peace and security’ in 1 Thess 5.3 has traditionally been understood as an echo of the OT prophetic warnings (Jer 6.14; Ezek 13.10; Mic 3.5) against false claims of peace. Stronger evidence exists, however, that the apostle is making use of a popular theme of the imperial Roman propaganda machine. The Romans vigorously promoted themselves through various public media as those who provided not only ‘peace’ but also ‘security’, thereby providing a closer parallel to Paul's statement in 5.3 than any OT text. This essay reviews four kinds of evidence—numismatic, monumental, inscriptional and literary—in order to demonstrate in a decisive fashion that the phrase ‘peace and security’ involves an allusion not to prophetic warning but to Roman political propaganda.