136 Chrys C. Caragounis of lust as is the case with the Gentiles”. Then vs. 6 τὸ μὴ ὐπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ... τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ is understood of one’s invading a brother’s home to commit adultery with the man’s wife. In other words, this interpretation seems to assume that the Thessalo- nian Christians were in the habit of visiting prostitutes, then at home they showed unbridled sexual passions towards their wives, and finally they invaded another man’s house to commit adultery with his wife. This is simply too much! To relieve the obvious absurdity of this interpretation, it is suggested that the three sins refer to two distinct groups of Christians. But the difficulties are still not removed. Why, for example, does not Paul treat the alleged adultery and the alleged fornication together, as would have been more natural, but separates them by inserting between them his treatment of the husband’s relations to his wife? More importantly, the flow of the text gives no indication that Paul is treating of different matters (see below). Best37, who accepts Maurer’s thesis, is led by considerations of the meaning of κτᾶσθαι, which he finds inappropriate in connection with ‘body’38, to choose ‘wife’ as the meaning of σκεῦος. He rejects, however, Frame’s making the σκεῦος rather than κτᾶσθαι the object of εἰδέναι. With respect to vs. 6a he thinks ἐν τῷ πράγματι refers to πορνεία, but the ἀδελφός to a brother who will marry the woman later39. For Holtz40 the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῦ is inappropriate with σκεῦος understood as ‘body’, but natural if σκεῦος is understood as ‘wife’. What is decisive, however, is that the infinitive κτᾶσθαι demands taking σκεῦος as ‘wife’ rather than as ‘body’. Holtz accepts Maurer’s interpretation. A variation of the above understanding is to see in vs. 6 not adul- tery, but fraud and exploitation in business transactions.41 This position has been defended by e.g. R. Beauvery42 and Holtz.43 It is based on (a) the idea that the infinitives here fit only a commercial situation, (b) the article preceding the infinitives, suggests a different subject, (c) that it is difficult to make sense of the brother in a sexual context, which was concerned with marriage relations, and (d) the likelihood of small busi- nessmen whose transaction ethics needed scrutiny. This interpretation presupposes understanding ἐν τῷ πράγματι as a reference to business E. Best, First and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, 161-62. 37 Similarly Alford, The Greek Testament, Vol. III, 268. 38 Best, First and Second Thessalonians, 166. 39 T. Holtz, An die Thessalonicher, 157f. 40 The Versions: Rheims, (A ?), RSV marg., La Sainte Bible (new ed. 1979)?, La Sacra V 41 Bibbia, Santa Biblia marg., Luther (rev. 1984). R. Beauvery, “Πλεονεκτεῖν in 1 Thess 4.6a”, Verbum Domini, 33 (1955), 78-85. 42 T. Holtz, An die Thessalonicher, 161f. 43