This research was started with the desire to ascertain whether in the papyri of Didymus1, which were discovered at Toura in 1941, and whose regular publication began in 1962 and is still continuing2, it was possible to discover some fresh evidence for the existence of a later Alexandrian text of the Gospels.

The existence of this text is taken for granted by manuals of textual criticism today. B. M. Metzger, for instance, states that Alexandrian witnesses are to be divided into Proto-Alexandrian [466675 B Sahidic (in part), Clement of Alexandria, Origen (in part)] and Later Alexandrian [(C) L T W (in Luke I. 1–8, 12 and John) (X) Z Δ (in Mark) Ξ ψ (in Mark; partially in Luke and John) 33 579 892 1241 Bohairic]3.

Eines der schwierigsten Probleme der Überlieferung der Schriftzitate in der patristischen Literatur stellt sich durch die Beobachtung, daß Justin (J) und Pseudoklemens (PsKl) in nicht wenigen ‘Textmischungen’, d. h. Verbindungen von Zitattexten insbesondere aus den synoptischen Evangelien, zumindest teilweise miteinander übereinstimmen. Zwar handelt es sich nur um sechzehn vergleichbare Zitate, so daß angesichts der großen Zahl von alttestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schriftbelegen bei J und PsKl man fragen könnte, ob dieses Phänomen in der Forschung nicht überschätzt worden ist. Jedoch erhält es ein besonderes Gewicht, wenn man den nach W. Sanday, W. Bousset, M. v. Engelhardt und E. Lippelt durch A. J. Bellinzoni geführten Nachweis für gelungen ansieht, wonach Justin neben den synoptischen Evangelien und anderen frühchristlichen Überlieferungen in seinen Zitaten eine schriftliche nachsynoptische Evangelienharmonie benutzte. Von hier aus ist dann der Schluß nahegelegt, daß die Justin-Zitate zusammen mit den Paralleltexten bei späteren Kirchenvätern eine Vorstufe oder gar die Grundlage für Tatians Diatessaron darstellen. Allerdings hängt für die Bildung eines begründeten Urteils viel davon ab, daß nicht nur Justins Belege, sondern auch die Parallelen in der patristischen Überlieferung eingehend beachtet werden. Dies ist in Bellinzonis breit angelegter Arbeit in Hinsicht auf PsKl nur eingeschränkt der Fall. Daher füllt die bei der Harvard University in Cambridge/Mass. eingereichte, kürzlich veröffentlichte Dissertation von L. L. Kline eine Lücke, indem sie die These Bellinzonis durch Untersuchung der Schriftzitate in den Pseudoklementinen zu bestätigensucht. Darf man sagen, daß die Evangelienharmonie-Hypothese nunmehr über ein solides Fundament verfügt, von dem die künftige Forschung ausgehen kann? Diese Frage soll im folgenden kritisch untersucht und beantwortet werden.

Within the story of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple there are un-mistakable tensions. Two themes compete for the attention of the reader: on the one hand, the surprising intelligence of the young Jesus (47); on the other hand, his awareness that God, as his real Father, has claims upon him, to which his parents have to take second place (49). Luke could have given Jesus' statement on his obligations to his Father without describing the way in which he astonished the learned men in the temple. Alternatively, he could have brought out the intelligence of the child Jesus without quoting the words of 49, which seem to disparage his parents. One can see a relation-ship between the two themes, though it is not given in the narrative itself. The interpretation of the pericope stands or falls on the elucidation of the relationship between the two elements of the episode.

William R. Farmer's history of the debate on the Synoptic Problem contains the following footnote:

Baur answered Hilgenfeld in his Das Markuseaangeliwn, Tübingen, 1851, and the two carried on the debate for years in the Theologische Jahrbücher. This debate is worthy of thorough analysisand evaluation.

When I was invited to read a paper at this year's meeting at Tübingen with the understanding that the paper should deal if possible with some aspect of the work of the Tübingen school of the mid-nineteenth century, this seemed to be an appropriate occasion to take up Professor Farmer's challenge.

Some recent redaction-critical work on Mark's passion narrative has questioned the existence of a pre-Markan passion account. This in turn has suggested another look at the relation between the gospels of Mark and John. Norman Perrin has put it plainly:

For a long time the general opinion of New Testament scholars was that the passion narrative existed as a connected unit before the gospel of Mark was written, and it was easy and natural to think that John had known and used a version of that pre-Markan narrative rather than the gospel of Mark. But today the tendency is to ascribe more and more of the composition of the passion narrative to the evangelist Mark himself and to doubt the very existence of a pre-Markan and non-Markan passion narrative extensive enough to have been the basis for the gospel of John. A particular consideration is the fact that the trial before the High Priest (John 18: 19–24) is set in the context of the denial by Peter (18: 15–18, 25–7), as it is also in the gospel of Mark. But there is a strong case that Mark himself originally composed this account of the trial at night before the Jewish authorities and then set it in the context of the story of Peter's denial. If this is so, the evangelist John must necessarily have known the gospel of Mark.