Early Christian literature leaves us with apparently conflicting traditions about the first appearance of the risen Lord, although these traditions can be reduced to at least two main classes. On the one hand, some writers give Peter pride of place; he heads the list in Paul's ‘official’ παράδοσις of I Corinthians xv, and takes priority in both Luke (xxiv. 34) and the late second-century Gospel of Peter (xiii. 57 – xiv. 60). On the other hand, some connect women with the first appearance; Matthew presents an albeit brief account of Jesus meeting the three women who had visited the tomb (xxviii. 9–10), whilst John (xx. 11–18) and the longer ending of Mark (xvi. 9) single out Mary Magdalene as the special recipient of the first appearance. As appearances of the resurrected kúpios came to acquire importance for the early Church in establishing apostolic authenticity and leadership, it is surprising that this second line of tradition persisted along with the contradictory ‘pro-Petrine’ material. Was it a source of embarrassment for those wishing to give pre-eminence to Peter? The question has usually been evaded because of the common supposition that Matthew was the first to ‘invent’ the tradition of such an appearance to women, so as to overcome ‘the impasse presented by Mark's (empty tomb) story’ before passing on towards the great summation of his Gospel; but it is also possible to affirm that Matthew (who is pro-Petrine enough, cf. xvi. 17–19) made astonishingly little out of this appearance, sparing as his comments are.

This article has three main purposes: (i) to discuss the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 25–37) in some detail to decide what form of discourse the historical Jesus, as distinct from the later tradition or the final redaction, intended it to be when originally given; (ii) to extrapolate from this one parable and investigate, but in lesser detail, the other major ‘exemplary stories’ in the parabolic teaching of Jesus and to ask whether there are any such authentically stemming from Jesus himself; (iii) on the basis of this analysis to raise certain problems and questions with regard to method in parable exegesis and to meaning in parable interpretation.

It may in the end be true that the Son of man problem is insoluble. The ultimate question, why Jesus spoke about himself as the Son of man, is inextricably intertwined with the problem of his self-consciousness. We can never know for sure what he meant by this self-designation till we are also able to tell how he looked upon himself, how he interpreted his own fate and destiny. On the other hand it is impossible to answer the latter question as long as we do not know the implications of the name he gave himself.

The purpose of this article is to examine the various suggested criteria to distinguish the authentic teaching of Jesus in the synoptic gospels. The present situation is reviewed; the negative and positive criteria are examined; and in conclusion an improvement of method is suggested. The study of this problem has to some extent been prompted by Perrin's ‘The Teaching of Jesus’, thought this article is in no way an examination of the book.

Les exégètes considèrent en général Philippiens ii. 6 comme un passage très difficile. Ils sont tellement hypnotisés par le terme άρπαγμόν et par ses trois significations possibles (‘acte de voler, dérober, ravir’, ou bien ‘chose volée, dérobée, ravie’, ou bien ‘chose à voler, à dérober, à ravir’) qu'ils oublient de considérer attentivement la négation ούΧ et de se demander sur quoi elle porte exactement: sur άρπαγγύν, devant lequel elle est placée, ou sur ήγήΣαΚο dont elle est séparée.

In recent years a number of tests of authorship have been developed. Such tests are based on the examination of some habit, generally one which embodies the result of a choice frequently confronting any author in his composition. The test described in this paper is based upon the habit of placing, as the last word in a sentence, different classes of words.

1970 erschien von Klaus Koch, Professor für Altes Testament und Altorientalische Religionsgeschichte an der Universität Hamburg, eine Monographie mit dem Titel: ‘Ratlos vor der Apokalyptik’. Im Untertitel bestimmt der Autor näher der Zweck und das Ziel seiner Darlegungen: ‘Eine Streitschrift über ein vernachlässigtes Gebiet der Bibelwissenschaft und die schädlichen Auswirkungen auf Theologie und Philosophie’. Klaus Koch ist der Überzeugung, daß bei den Exegeten ‘ein tieferes geschichtliches Bewußtsein‘ nur ‘selten vorhanden sei, wenn sie über die Apokalyptik positiv oder negativ handeln‘. Dieser Zustand sie unhaltbar und um ihn zu ändern, lege er nicht einen ‘neutralen Forschungsbericht’ vor, sondern – wie er ausdrücklich betont – eine ‘Streitschrift’ die zu Änderungen reizen will, und sei es durch Widerspruch.