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.

My task is twofold. First, I want to uncover some puzzles and ambiguities in the notion of conscience. Reflection upon the history of words associated with this notion, and upon our current usage, will help us bring some useful distinctions to Paul's text. Second, I wish to examine two passages in Paul, 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. 23–11. 1, in order to determine how we are best to understand Paul's appeal to what is commonly translated as ‘conscience’. The result should be not only a clearer appreciation of Paul's meaning but also the resolution of a puzzle about his ethical advice.

In 1859 Friedrich Düsterdieck, then Director of Studies at the Prediger-seminar in the Monastery of Loccum near Hannover, published a commentary on the Revelation of John. It was his contribution to the series inaugurated in 1829 by another Hanoverian cleric, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer. Commenting upon the description in Rev 14. 4 of the 144,000 elect, οῡτοί είσιν οί μετὰ γυναικην ούκ έμολύνθησαν παρθένοι γάρ είσιν, Düsterdieck wrote:

‘παρθένοι) Das Prädicat wird nicht selten auch Männern gegeben. Vgl. Fabricius, Cod. apocr. vet. Test. II, p. 92.98 (wo Joseph ein άνὴρ παρθένος heisst), Kypke, Observ. sacr. ad h.1. (παρθένον υα, aus Nonnus ad Joh. 19,26), Suidas, s.v. ‘Άβελ.’

There is an abundance of evidence to support the thesis that the teachings of Jesus, what the early church called ‘The Holy Word’, functioned as the basis of Christian doctrine and practice from the beginning of the Christian era at least as far as Eusebius. The key to it all seems to have been the sanctity with which these teachings were regarded, treasured and used within the early church. They believed he was the Son of God, and they treated his words accordingly. As the author of 2 Peter summarized it: ‘Remember … the commandments of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles' (3. 2). Clement of Rome echoed the same message: ‘Let us walk in obedience to his hallowed words’ (Epistle 13. 3); and Papias characterized himself as one who ‘took delight in those who recall the commandments given to the faith by the lord’ (HE III, 39. 2–4). The church was the church of the Holy Word; and the NT is the written record of that word as it found expression in the life and thought of the church. So the history of the word, the history of the church and the history of the NT are one and the same history.

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.

Josephus' Life raises many important literary and historical questions that are not easily resolved. This may explain why, for the most part, it has been ignored by New Testament scholars, despite the fact that it is the only extant writing from the first century that bears directly on Galilean life and culture and was written by somebody with immediate experience of that location. Its tendentious character has been ably exposed by Shaye Cohen's study, Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as an Historian, Leiden, Brill, 1979. Yet it can still yield invaluable information on social relations within the province, provided we approach it in the proper critical fashion, framing our questions carefully and being attentive to the presuppositions of the author.

The question of interpolations in the Pauline letters continues to provoke debate. Recent years have seen numerous attempts to identify particular passages as non-Pauline and occasional arguments for extensive interpolating throughout the letters. Nevertheless, as Victor Paul Furnish has pointed out, ‘no general scholarly agreement’ has emerged ‘on the probability, or even the plausibility, of any of these hypotheses about … interpolations’. A major problem is the fact that most of the discussion has focused directly upon individual passages, with little or no systematic attention to such preliminary matters as the burden of proof in the identification of interpolations or specific techniques or criteria that might aid in identifying interpolations. Although the burden-of-proof question and the question of criteria are clearly related, and both are crucial, it is possible to separate them for purposes of discussion, and it can even be argued that the former question is, at least logically, prior to the latter. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to raise only the burden-of-proof question; that of criteria must be reserved for treatment in a different context.

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.

Almost all students of Luke-Acts have called attention to the special place of scripture in these documents. The fundamental Lukan strategy seems to be presented in the closing chapter of the gospel. In his post-resurrection appearance to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, Jesus assumes the role of the authoritative interpreter of scripture and shows that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer. He interprets all the scriptures ‘beginning with Moses and all the prophets’ (Luke 24. 27; cf. 24. 35, 45). This chapter suggests to the reader that, although the scriptures are authoritative, they must be rightly, i.e. Christologically, interpreted. This widely acknowledged principle has certain implications that require investigation.