It has long been the common opinion that the Zealots were the party founded by Judas the Galilean — so Graetz and Jost, for instance, writing in the middle of the past century. Derenbourg, it is true, observed that the term ”Zealots” was not applied to the opponents of the Romans before the revolt, but when he came to the events of the revolt he made a descendant of Judas, Menahem, the leader of the Zealots and so apparently assumed the connection of the party with Judas. Schürer's adherence canonized the common opinion, and also the common description of the Sicarii as a more fanatical fraction of the party — though the sources contain nothing to suggest that the party had split before the Sicarii appeared. Hence, with only minor variations, Eduard Meyer, Bousset, Baron, and Yadin's account of the Zealots in Masada, to name only the largest studies.

In 1872 F. Overbeck wrote an essay on Justin Martyr and Luke's Acts of the Apostles, stating that the author of Acts was unprincipled when dealing with the law.1 On the one hand, Luke offers justification by faith without the law (i:8f.); on the other, the Jewish Christians are obliged to keep the law unabridged, while gentile Christians have modified freedom from the law. Like Justin, the author of Acts tolerates Jewish Christian adherence to the law, whereas he pretends to regard it as compulsory. Actually Luke merely toys with the problem; the question is of no concern to him.

This essay is an analysis of the natural law theory of one of the most important of the seventeenth-century Puritan philosophers and theologians, William Ames (1576-1633). Ames' theory of natural law has historical importance because of its contribution to the formulation of fundamental doctrines upon which modern democratic institutions were raised — such doctrines as the duties and inalienable rights of individual citizens, the social contract or government by consent of the people, and the right of resistance when a government exceeds the bounds of its authority. For although Ames spent his life in England and Holland, and although he died in the midst of his preparations to emigrate to America from Holland, his greatest impact and predominating influence were in the New World, He has justifiably been called ”the spiritual father of the New England churches,” ”the favorite theologian of early New England,” and ”the father of American theology.”

Exegetes are probably no less prone than anybody else to long for something mathematical, something clearly right or wrong, in their discipline. It is thus hardly surprising that in recent years at least two attempts have been made to examine, on a purely objective statistical basis, the disputed question of synoptic relationships.1 It is our intention in this paper to comment briefly on these two studies and to add new figures to the discussion.

In any discussion of the origins of Christian ”anti-Semitism,” among a number of New Testament passages that can be adduced, i Thessalonians 2:14-16 will inevitably be brought to the fore. The purpose of this article is not per se to contribute to the current Jewish-Christian ”dialog,” but to discuss historically and exegetically this important passage in Thessalonians. (Such a study, of course, will not be completely irrelevant to the contemporary theological scene.)

Modern discussion of the enigmatic οὐχ ⋯ρπαγμ⋯ν ⋯γ⋯σατο τ⋯ εἶναι ἶσα θεῷ of Phil. 2:6 received its most significant contribution from Werner Jaeger in a notable article published half a century ago. Jaeger contended that this much-disputed phrase belongs to a cluster of idiomatic expressions in which literal notions of robbery or violent seizure are not present. These idiomatic expressions feature double accusative constructions in which ἃρπαγμα as well as ἒρμαιον, εὔρημα and εὐτύχημα regularly appear with such verbs as ⋯γείσθαι, ποιείσθαι and τίθεσθαι with the meaning, ”to regard something as a stroke of luck, a windfall, a piece of good fortune,” etc.2 When it occurs in such a construction ἃρπαγμα is to be understood as a synonym of the above-mentioned nouns (”Studie,” pp. 548-49)—a judgment which Jaeger believed is most patently indicated in Heliodorus, Aethiopica VII.20, since there both ἅρπαγμα and ⋯ρμαιον occur in the same phrase: οὐχ ἃραγμα οὐδ⋯ ἒρμαιον ποιείται τ⋯ πράγμα

There are, notoriously, a number of general literary observations on the large number of Christians in Caesar's household and in Caesar's employ in the late second and in the third centuries A.D. but there are remarkably few particular examples to substantiate these general claims. Particularly rare (for reasons of security?) are traces of such individual Christians outside the literary remains. C.I.L. 6.8987 (= Diehl I.L.C.V. 3872) would appear to be an exception and to record two such Christians of Caesar's household. It thus provides welcome attestation, though, curiously, the inscription has seldom been exploited for this information.