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.

Since the rise of the interdisciplinary approach to the study of Christian origins in the 1970s, little attention has been given to the problem of social control within the early church. This is true although control issues arose early in the Christian movement and have continued throughout Christian history. Before 1970 scholars treated the problem historically and theologically under the topic of discipline. Among scholars who utilize the social sciences in their approach to Christian origins, there are some scattered materials on internal social control but little direct, sustained investigation.

By any standards, discussion of Paul's reaction to slavery and slave-ownership is exceptionally complex and controversial. There are more than enough difficulties in attempting to grasp the true character and significance of slavery in the Graeco-Roman world of the first century, due not merely to the fragmentary and one-sided nature of our evidence but also to the deep-rooted political and philosophical commitments which influence almost every significant treatment of the topic. But to discuss Paul in relation to slavery is to add further complications. If, with the majority of scholars, we bracket off Col 3. 22–4. 1, Eph 6. 5–9, 1 Tim 6. 1–2 and Tit 2. 9–10 as Deutero-Pauline, we are left with comparatively few texts which refer directly to the institution of slavery: Gal 3. 28 (cf. 1 Cor 12. 13), 1 Cor 7. 21–24 and the letter to Philemon are all that remain. But even these texts contain sufficient complexities and ambiguities to render an assessment of Paul's view of slavery far from straightforward. Moreover, varying ideological commitments play a significant role in interpretation here too.

An abiding challenge for NT study is that of defining generic relationships among texts. The problem is especially significant for gospel sayings material, literary texts which most explicitly evoke and imitate the styles and forms of spoken language. It will be useful, then, to define generically a hitherto unnoticed Synoptic sayings-type exemplified just seven times in the gospels, especially if a class of unusually difficult texts may thereby be illuminated. Its rarity notwithstanding, the ‘Gnomic Quatrain’ (GQ) should be of particular interest as a special elaboration of the much more fundamental genre of the gnomic sentence.

By anybody's reckoning, the Parable of the Dishonest Steward in Luke 16.1–8a is a problem. Here Jesus seems to be holding up a criminal act as an example to be emulated. A steward is accused of not doing his job properly, and is dismissed by his master. Before he is actually deprived of his job, he considers what to do about his dilemma. He does not wish to do manual labour or to beg, so he lowers the debts of each of his master's debtors with the hope that they will care for him when he must leave. The master thereupon commends him for his cleverness (16.8a).

There are problems with the text and interpretation of 1 Cor 6. 1–11 which call for a reappraisal of Paul's injunctions regarding the maintenance of discipline at Corinth. Doubts as to the meaning of words, even the punctuation, can be solved if one undertakes the unexpected, and places the problem at 1 Cor 5 along with that at 6. 1–11 (not neglecting ch. 7), and takes seriously words hitherto glossed over in the interests of a much more familiar conception of Paul's intentions. First we should consider the situation in which they all were, and finally we shall look into the risks Paul has obviously taken.

Philemon 10 gives a clear indication that the slave Onesimus and the apostle Paul came to be together in a place of imprisonment. How exactly this transpired is a matter of debate. Some have simply asserted that ‘Paul somehow got to meet Onesimus’, or that Onesimus ‘came into touch with Paul’. Others, however, have offered one or more of several hypotheses.

La question des relations de Paul avec d'autres églises, qui revient au thème des tensions au sein de l'Église primitive, est un des grands contentieux qui divisent les exégètes depuis plus d'un siècle.

In der Johannesexegese ist die Ekklesiologie nur ein Randthema. Wo die Erwähnungen von Taufe und Abendmahl in Joh 3. 5; 6. 51c–58; 19. 34b–35 für literarisch sekundär erklärt werden, stellt sich die theologische Sachfrage nach der Gestalt der johanneischen Ekklesiologie letztlich nicht mehr umfassend. Aber auch dort, wo die extensive Literarkritik nicht das theologische Denken bestimmt, gelten die ekklesiologisch relevanten Texte des Johannesevangeliums nicht als zentraler Ausdruck johanneischer Christologie, so daβ ihnen nur eine uneigentliche Funktion zugebilligt wird. Sie sind für die Erhellung des ‘eigentlichen’ johanneischen Denkens ohne Bedeutung. Beide Ansätze werden dem Jetzttext des Johannesevangeliums, der Theologie des 4. Evangelisten und der johanneischen Gemeinderealität kaum gerecht. Sie resultieren aus literarkritischen und theologischen Vorentscheidungen, die zumindest sehr anfechtbar sind.

Chr. Maurer hat schon 1965, ‘aus der Anfechtung unserer Zeit heraus’ (S.3), dazu aufgerufen, angesichts einer ‘in der Sache begründeten Freiheit (der neutestamentlichen Zeugen), in historischer und methodologischer Hinsicht so unbekümmert zu reden’ (S.12), der ‘uns bedrängenden theo-logischen Wahrheitsfrage’ (S.11) ‘vor (uns) selbt und vor andern … in ehr-licher Weise Rede und Antwort zu stehen’ (S.8). Wenn ‘in diesem Jesus Gott selbst gehandelt hat’, dann ist er ‘von alien Mythen …, aber auch von allem, was Menschen sich unter dem letzten “Sein” vorstellen, so zu unter-scheiden wie der Schöpfer von der Schöpfung’(S. 12), und doch soil ‘dieses Geschehen denkbar sauber erarbeitet, sprachlich klar formuliert und verstandlich weitergegeben werden’ (S. 16). Darum reden die neutestamentlichen Zeugen ‘missverständlich’ und ‘nehmen die sich darbietenden unpassenden oder doch nur halbwegs passenden Bilder, Redewendungen und Vorstellungen auf’, ‘aber sie machen zugleich durchsichtig, wie missverständlich all ihr Reden notwendigerweise sein muss’ (S. 17). Damit ist das Programm umschrieben, das ich hier anhand der Redewendung ‘Gott sandte seinen Sohn, damit (er die Welt rette)’ in Gal 4. 4–5; Rom 8. 3; Joh 3. 16,17; 1 Joh 4. 9 bedenken möchte.

1 Corinthians presents many problems, whose difficulty consists in large measure in their interrelatedness; but the major problem of the first four chapters is the nature of the σοφία against which Paul polemicizes. This is especially mysterious because the apostle treats it with unquestionable seriousness, and yet it does not apparently recur in any other letter, not even in 2 Corinthians. As it is so closely linked in the text with the σχίσματα which are the topic of 1.12–17, 3.1–17 and 3.22–3, if not other verses, it is necessary to begin with a brief discussion of that question.

The introduction to the book of Revelation (1.1–3) shows a typical literary development, moving from the overall presentation of the book (ὰποκάλυψις … $$$σα ἐ$$$δἐν: 1.1–2) to the solemn form of a proclaimed beatitude or ‘macarism’:

The interpretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16. 19–31) shows both how misleading extra-biblical parallels to biblical motifs can be when misused, and also how enlightening they can be when correctly used. The parable makes use of two major narrative motifs which can be paralleled in other ancient literature: (1) a reversal of fortunes experienced by a rich man and a poor man after death; (2) a dead person's return from the dead with a message for the living. Since Gressmann's monograph drew attention to one important example of (1) – the Egyptian story of Setme and Si-Osiris (together with later Jewish stories derived from it) – much discussion of the parable has been dominated by this one parallel. Both the way in which this parallel has been used in the interpretation of the parable and the restriction of interest to this one parallel have had unfortunate consequences.

Die traditionelle Definition der Gattung des Briefes als eines ‘halbierten Zwiegesprächs’ gilt auch für die echten Paulusbriefe: Sie vermitteln einen verhältnismäβig klaren Einblick in das Denken und in die unmittelbaren Absichten des Briefautors; wir wissen dagegen unmittelbar nichts über die Gesprächspartner, d.h. über das Denken der ursprünglich intendierten Rezipienten der Briefe und ihre besondere Situation. Allerdings können wir versuchen, aus den Briefaussagen jedenfalls die von Paulus angenommene Lage der Adressaten und ihre theologische Position – wie sie der Apostel in seiner Argumentation voraussetzt – zu rekonstruieren. Die Briefe nach Korinth bieten für diesen Versuch besonders günstige Voraussetzungen, vor allem beim Thema ‘Eschatologie’, das im Ersten wie im Zweiten Korintherbrief eine Rolle spielt. ‘Eschatologisch’ nenne ich dabei im folgenden solche Aussagen, in denen die (erhoffte oder befürchtete) geschichtliche Zukunft in irgendeiner Weise auf Gott hin transzendiert wird, sei es im Blick auf den einzelnen Menschen, sei es im Blick auf die Kirche, sei es im Blick auf die Welt als ganze.

Both secular and sacred texts indicate that the verb έμβρ. and its congeners may convey, at times, a more violent expression of ‘wrath’ such as is found in the description of the persecutors of Christians in Gaul (Eusebius) or in the meaning of ‘curse’ (cf. Hermias on Empedocles) or ‘exasperation’ (Aquila in Jer 10.10) or even as a substitute for όργή (Symmachus and Theodotion on Ezek 21.36). At other times, έμβρ. and its congeners shade into the meaning of έπειλή ‘threat’ (Basil on Ps 37) or even of έπιτιμάω ‘rebuke’ (cf. Symmachus on Isa 17.13).

Literarkritische Briefteilungshypothesen sind zur Zeit nicht sehr beliebt. Zunehmend setzt sich die Einsicht durch, daβ die Gestalt des textkritisch gewonnenen Textes gegenüber alien auch noch so plausibel erscheinenden Zerlegungen und Umstellungen einen Vorrang hat. Doch kann dieser Vorrang keineswegs ein absoluter sein, da die Möglichkeit, daβ mehrere an denselben Adressaten gerichtete Paulus-Briefe im Zeitraum zwischen ihrer Erstrezeption und der handschriftlichen Vervielfältigung im Rahmen eines überregionalen Corpus Paulinum redaktionell zu einer Briefeinheit kombiniert wurden, nicht generell von der Hand zu weisen ist, wie der immer noch bestehende groβe Konsens in der gegenwärtigen Einschätzung des 2 Kor eindrücklich belegt.

There can be no doubt that Paul considered himself an apostle at the point of his conversion. In the words of Ferdinand Hahn, Paul's ‘concept of apostleship is characterized by the fact of his being simultaneously converted, entrusted with the gospel, and sent out to the Gentiles’ When we say that Paul considered himself an ‘apostle’ we must clarify at the beginning what is meant by this term since it is susceptible of two interpretations. It could be used loosely to refer to any missionary who was ‘sent out’, as it is commonly used in the Didache. Indeed Paul occasionally used the word in this sense (e.g. 2 Cor 8. 23). However as John Knox observes, Paul's customary use of the term ‘apostle’ means ‘one who saw the Lord and was commissioned directly by him. Certainly when Paul saw himself as an “apostle”, he invariably has this higher meaning in mind.’

The repeated elements in the mission speeches of Acts have attracted considerable attention. Some scholars believe that these repeated elements reflect a pattern of early Christian preaching; 1 others see in them a pattern of Lukan theology.2 Narrative criticism, the study of biblical narratives in light of literary theories of narrative,3 suggests that past study should be balanced by a different approach. It suggests that we should investigate the functions of the individual speeches within their narrative settings. Despite the repeated themes, the speeches differ significantly in emphasis and function. These differences relate to the narrative setting in which each speech is found, and the setting influences the speech more profoundly than is commonly recognized. It is illuminating to think of each of the speeches as an action in the unfolding narrative plot. In speaking, Peter acts to influence a particular audience at a particular point in the plot. This action and the hearers’ decision about how to respond will determine

Paul's teaching about the attitude of the Christian towards the state is well known in Rom 13. There the rulers are God's vicegerents, God's deacons for the praising of those who do good and for the punishing of evil-doers. All are to be subject to them in order to avoid God's wrath and to maintain a good conscience. They are deserving of financial support as God'a λειτουργο and are to be shown honour and respect. Does Paul espouse a contradictory view of the state in 1 Cor 6? Here they are not God's λειτουργο, but οἱἄδικοι, the unrighteous, v. 1. They are those least esteemed in the κκλησα, v. 4, and appearing before them is plainly wrong for Christians, v. 6. The Corinthians were not called upon to honour them by Paul in 1 Cor 6, if they are indeed the same persons mentioned in Rom 13.

The earliest New Testament account of the institution of the Eucharist is found in 1 Cor 11. 23–30. The first important point to consider is whether Paul is claiming to know about Jesus' eucharistic words through a personal revelation, or through a tradition handed down to him from the leaders of the Jerusalem Church. I shall argue that the view of earlier scholarship (e.g. Loisy and Lietzmann) that Paul is speaking here of a personal vision has been too easily dismissed.