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.

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.

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.

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).

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.’

Der Streit zwischen Paulus und Petrus in Antiochien war ein Ereignis, dessen Bedeutung für die Geschichte des christlichen Glaubens nicht überschätzt werden kann. Hier haben sich nicht persönliche Spannungen entladen, sondern es sind Weichen für das Verhältnis der jungen heidenchristlichen Gemeinde zu Judentum und Judenchristentum gestellt worden, die für die Geschichte der christlichen Kirche entscheidend waren.

One of the most troubling statements of the New Testament is to be found at Matt 27. 24–25, part of the special Matthean material of the Passion Narrative in the First Gospel:

The importance of the style of authors in solving textual problems in the Greek New Testament is without dispute in New Testament textual criticism today. It is an acknowledged part of every version of the eclectic method currently in use, although it does not always carry the same weight in the different versions of this method. However, when one turns to the practice of textual criticism, it becomes apparent that this aspect of text-critical methodology is not without its problems. Not only has it been shown by critics of UBS/NA26 that an author's style is often overlooked by the editors of these texts,3 but when one pages through the Textual Commentary the problems of putting this criterion into practice become clear, since it is sometimes acknowledged that other evidence forced the editors to print a reading which does not display the general style of an author.

The message and world of the epistle of Jude are strangely unfamiliar to the modern reader. Even among students of the NT this unfamiliarity is conspicuous. One is hard-pressed to find a single monograph which deals with exegetical or theological problems raised by the letter. The general neglect of the book is doubtless due, at least in part, to a lack of understanding regarding the epistle's historical setting.

The Epistle, or perhaps preferably The Homily to the Hebrews, has always been one of the more intriguing and neglected documents in the NT canon. The history of the difficulties this document had getting into the canon do not need to be rehearsed here. It appears in the end Hebrews made it into the canon because it was deemed a Pauline letter, or at least a document that came from the larger Pauline circle.

Christian Orientalists have always been fascinated by the fact that the Greek text of the canonical Gospels is in some way secondary to a Semitic tradition. Indeed, even if we accept that all four Gospels were written in Greek, we must allow, somewhere in the chain of tradition from the teaching of Jesus to the Gospel-writers, for a transition from Aramaic to Greek. Consequently, a fruitful exegetical approach to the Gospel text has been the attempt to go beyond the Greek text-form to the more original Aramaic wording and to understand this wording in its proper setting in Palestinian Judaism of the 1st century AD. Several methods have been applied within this approach. G. Dalman championed the retroversion of significant New Testament terms into Palestinian Jewish Aramaic (and Hebrew), and investigated the use of the retroverted terms in Jewish texts of the first centuries. J. Wellhausen, and others, searched for anomalies in the Greek Gospel-text which might be explained as mistaken translations of Aramaic expressions. The history of research on this question up to 1946 is discussed and evaluated by M. Black in his Aramaic Approach to the Gospels.

Die Entstehung des P. Oxy. III 405 ‘is not later than the first half of the third century, and might be as old as the latter part of the second.’ Er umfaßt sieben Fragmente und zeigt unter anderem eine Parallele zu Mt 3. 16 f. Ich befasse mich mit den Zeilen 39–45.