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.

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.

Of the three kinds of evidence which are used in ascertaining the text of the New Testament – namely, evidence supplied by Greek manuscripts, by early versions, and by scriptural quotations preserved in the writings of the Church Fathers - it is the last which involves the greatest diffculties and the most problems. There are difficulties, first of all, in obtaining the evidence, not only because of the labour of combing through the very extensive literary remains of the Fathers in search of quotations from the New Testament, but also because satisfactory editions of the works of many of the Fathers have not yet been produced. More than once in earlier centuries an otherwise well-meaning editor accommodated the biblical quotations contained in a given patristic document to the current text of the New Testament against the authority of the manuscripts of the document.1 Part of the problem, more-over, is that exactly the same thing took place prior to the invention of printing. As Hort pointed out, ‘Whenever a transcriber of a patristic treatise was copying a quotation differing from the text to which he was accustomed, he had virtually two originals before him, one present to his eyes, the other to his mind; and if the difference struck him, he was not unlikely to treat the written examplar as having blundered.’2.

The use of the Old Testament by the New Testament – including its christological use – has engaged students of the Bible at least since the time of Jerome.1 In view of the immense erudition expended on it, by some of the best minds in their time, it seems remotely unlikely that anything new remains to be said. A fresh impetus has, however, been given to the subject – which has always been a highly specialized one – by the Dead Sea Scrolls, through the discovery of messianic Testimonies in the Cave 4 material and, more importantly, by the recognition that, hermeneutically, the New Testament belongs to the same tradition.

The purpose of this paper is to consider four topics which are raised in or by the book of the Revelation and which have received varying degrees of attention in recent scholarly discussion. They are: (i) those features which are prophetic rather than apocalyptic, and their importance in assessing the character of the book; (ii) the identity of the prophets referred to in the book and (if they are Christian prophets) their place in the order of the church; (iii) the relation of prophets and prophecy to the ‘testimony of Jesus’ (ή μαρτυρία l'ησο⋯); and (iv) the evidence which the Revelation provides concerning the activity and contents of Christian prophecy. It is obvious that these topics are all closely interrelated, but for the sake of clarity we shall attempt to treat them separately and in order.

In dankenswerter Weise hat Egon Brandenburger das religionsgeschichtliche Problem der Herleitung der für Paulus konstitutiven Antithese Fleisch–Geist und des dazugehörigen Motivkomplexes neu aufgegriffen. Durch neue methodische Zielsetzung gelingt es ihm, die Theologie des Paulus von der Apokalyptik, von Qumran und von Philo her so anzuvisieren, daß sich zumindest neue fruchtbare Fragestellungen ergeben haben. Doch soll an dieser Stelle nicht auf Brandenburgers Konzeption als Ganze eingegangen werden. Vielmehr geht es hier lediglich um eine kritische Anfrage an seine Qumran-Interpretation, die m. E. einiger grundsätzlicher Korrekturen bedarf.

Die Anfänge der christlichen Mission standen nach dem Standardwerk Harnacks jahrzehntelang nicht mehr im Mittelpunkt der Forschung. Erst in jüngster Zeit ist ein Umschwung zu bemerken. Seit der Arbeit von Ferdinand Hahn, 1963, folgte jedes Jahr eine neue Monographie. Dieser neuerwachte Eifer deutet zugleich auf ein wachsendes Interesse gegenüber der Geschichte des Urchristentums überhaupt hin. Die unaufhaltsame Ausbreitung des christlichen Glaubens im Mittelmeerraum während der ersten 120 Jahre ist der rote Faden für jede Geschichte des Urchristentums. Wenn heute immer Wieder danach gefragt wird, worin die ‘Kontinuität’ der Botschaft des NT bestehe, so könnte man antworten, daß sich deren ‘faktische Kontinuität’ —ganz gleich, wie sie dargestellt wird—auf jeden Fall in dem für die Antike einzigartigen Erfolg der urchristlichen Mission erweist.

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.

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.

The central section of the Gospel according to St Luke (ix. 51—xix. 28) contains some of the most precious portions of Jesus' teaching. But it also occasions a perplexing problem, which may be briefly stated as follows. From its opening words the reader gathers that in what is to follow Luke purposes to give a chronologically ordered running account of Jesus' last journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. But on examination what follows does not appear to be an account of that kind. In ch. x Jesus is in the home of Martha and Mary and therefore, it is to be assumed, has reached Bethany on the outskirts of Jerusalem, but in ch. xvii he is no further south than the border line between Galilee and Samaria. Again in ch. xiii there are words of Jesus which, according to a possibly correct interpretation of them, indicate that he has not yet set out on his journey.

Les difficultés de ce texte sont connues. La principale portant sur le verset central: exousia à cause des anges (xi, 10). Ce verset ne peut être éclairé q'en étant replacé dans son contexte littéraire immédiat et dans son contexte culturel. Notre ambition serait, par l'analyse de ces contextes, de mettre en question certaines interprétations courantes, et de proposer au moins quelques orientations. La tâche est malaisée devant le caractère conjectural de beaucoup de données.

The parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke xviii. 1–8) is invariably explained in one way, namely that the tale of the unscrupulous judge, who gives way out of weariness to the poor widow's plea, shows, by contrast, how much more readily God will hear the prayers of his elect! There are some minor differences of opinion as to the exact point of the parable, what it has to do with prayer in general, and to what degree it was originally bound up with any eschatological expectations. Assuming that eschatology was, from the first, an ingredient, and not an embellishment by the early church, there is a difference of opinion as to what was really meant by έν τάΧει. If it was the church's gloss upon a simile of Jesus, it is still of great interest to try to recover exactly what was meant. There is some doubt what is meant by πíστιν, and even (though it is difficult to see why) whether it could go back to Jesus. It was remarked long ago that the words ύπωπιάzcy;ημε have as many translations as there are versions. But on the whole it is felt that the kernal of the story is so clear and obvious that a lack of sharpness in the details is not a serious loss.

The Hebrew text printed below is published for the first time. It is an extract from the Samaritan chronicle no. II, sometimes know erroneously as Sepher ha-ramim ( = chronicle). The basic text is printed unaltered here and it is from the John Rylands Library MS 1142 in the Moses Gaster Collection. The extract is unrelated in terms of content to the preceding and succeeding material, so that nothing is lost by publishing this extract.

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.

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.

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.