My first word must be one of grateful appreciation of the honour which the Society has conferred on me – the highest honour in its gift – in inviting me to preside over this year's meeting and to follow such a distinguished succession of predecessors, including not least my immediate predecessor, Professor Béda Rigaux. As in private duty bound, I cannot but recall that among other predecessors were two eminent scholars whom I am proud to remember also as predecessors in my Manchester chair – Professors T. W. Manson and C. H. Dodd, who presided over the Society in 1949 and 1951 respectively. For any student of the New Testament there could be no more warmly cherished honour than to be called to follow such men in this presidential office.

A première vue, l'étude présente, donnée dans un Séminaire consacré au Diatessaron, peut sembler hors de circonstance; elle ne s'attachera, en effet, qu'à titre conclusif au texte même du Diatessaron. Primordialement, elle est centrée sur tout ce qui a trait aux aspects principaux des Actes apocryphes des Apôtres dans la tradition arménienne; ce qui concerne proprement le texte même du Diatessaron n'est traité qu'à la condition de pouvoir s'intégrer dans cet ensemble.

There seems to exist a relatively common opinion about the apocalyptic circles in Judaism, which Dr Russell in his book on Jewish apocalyptic expresses in these words: ‘In answer to the prophets’ cry ‘How long, O Lord, how long?’, the apocalyptists gave the year, the day and the hour'. And in his classical study, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde, P. Volz stated: ‘Die zahlenmässige Berechnung des Weltendes ist vor allem das characteristische Geschäft des Apokalyptikers.’

3. Neue Fragmente zu75

Im letzten Bericht (N.T.S. xx (1974), 357–81) wurden ‘Neue Fragmente zu 66’ veröffentlicht (S. 376–81). Es handelte sich dabei um sechs der ‘Fragments non placés’ der Ausgabe. Sie waren von den Herausgebern trotz aller aufgewandten Mühe als unidentifizierbar aufgegeben worden, mit Hilfe des Münsteraner ‘Fragment-Identifizierungsprogramms’ gelang es, den Textzusammenhang einwandfrei festzustellen, in den sie gehören. Wie dieses Identifizierungsprogramm arbeitet, das auf der Einschaltung des Computers basiert, ist im vorigen Bericht kurz dargestellt und wird in einem Aufsatz: ‘Über die Möglichkeit der Identifikation kleiner Fragmente neutestamentlicher Handschriften mit Hilfe des Computers’, der demnächst erscheint, ausführlich dargelegt werden. Damals war bereits auf die Existenz von bisher unidentifizierten Fragmenten zu 75 hingewiesen worden. Ihre Zahl hat sich inzwischen dank der Anwendung des ‘Fragment-Identifizierungsprogramms’ in Münster von früher vier auf elf erhöht, so scheint es an der Zeit, sie der Öffentlichkeit bekannt zu machen.

L'Evangile de Vérité est sans doute un des textes les plus étudiés de tous les manuscrits coptes découverts près de Nag Hammadi. La somme des travaux publicés depuis près de trente ans ne saurait laisser indifférent. Peu après la découverte parurent une série de présentations visant à faire connaître le texte, puis des traductions, quelques-unes accompagnées d'un commentaire suivi, tentant – jusqu'à un certain point – de rendre compte des difficultés de la version copte. Mais l'intérêt philologique restait toujours au second plan. Ce qui motivait la recherche, c'était les résonances historiques du texte. On procéda selon deux directions: d'une part on rassembla systématiquement tous les parallèles des grands hérésiologues comme Irénée, Tertullien ou Epiphane, ou des textes déjà publicés appartenant au même ensemble copte. D'autre part, on scruta l'histoire antérieure du texte pour aboutir à la conclusion que certaines expressions ou idées appartenaient soit au Nouveau Testament soit à l'un ou l'autre courant philosophique bien connu. Tout ce matériel rassemblé fait apparaître le texte de l' Evangile de Vérité, par delà la difficulté du copte, comme quelque chose de connu, de déjà vu ou entendu. Et pourtant, si l'on entreprend la lecture de l' Evangile, tout versé que l'on soit dans les commentaires, comment n'être pas surpris de se trouver malgré tout dépaysé, avec une impression d'étrangeté que rien, dans l'état actuel de la recherche, ne permet de surmonter?

Vor fast 100 Jahren setzten B. F. Westcott und F. J. A. Hort in ihrer kritischen Ausgabe des griechischen Neuen Testaments den Text von Luk. xxii. 19b, 20 (τò ὑπ⋯ρ ὑμ⋯ν…⋯κχυννóμενον) in doppelte Klammern, und Hort erklärte im Appendix unmißverständlich und mit guten Gründen, vv. 19b, 20 sei eine Interpolation. Seitdem gibt es die Problematik von Kurztext (vv. 17–19 a) und Langtext (vv. 17–20). Denn diese textkritische Entscheidung für den nur schlecht bezeugten Kurztext und gegen den aus-gezeichnet belegten Langtext war nicht nur die kühne Lösung eines komplizierten Textproblems, sondern zugleich ein tiefer Eingriff in die Überlieferung vom letzten Mahl Jesu..

Ces temps derniers, sans parler des commentaires généraux des Évangiles, de nombreuses recherches ont été consacrées aux récits synoptiques de l'agonie de Gethsémani. Mentionnons notamment celles de G. Kuhn, Th. Lescow, E. Linnemann, R. S. Barbour, W. H. Kelber, W. Mohn.

Deux ouvrages considérables dûs respectivement á M. Galizzi et á J. Warren Holleran ont été rédigés sur ce même sujet. Tous les deux étudient séparément les trois récits de Marc, Matthieu et Luc et s'efforcent de mettre en évidence ce qui caractérise chacun d'entre eux. L'un et l'autre sont admirablement informés. Celui de J. Warren Holleran est plus analytique, celui de M. Galizzi plus synthétique et, semble-t-il, plus personnel.

The current profusion of form critical studies of the Pauline letter received its impetus from the work of Paul Schubert on the thanksgiving section.1 Suggestions were made earlier, especially by Martin Dibelius,2 but they remained largely unheeded. Also Schubert's work did not receive an immediate response, but now work is fully under way.3

In spite of its popularity, the contention that the Christian conception of Jesus as a descending-ascending saviour figure was derived from the gnostic redeemer myth faces serious problems. Three are widely noted; another needs attention. (I) The sources from which our knowledge of the gnostic myth comes are late: e.g. the Naassene hymn, the hymn of the Pearl, the Mandean materials, the Manichean evidence, the accounts in the church fathers, and the Nag Hammadi documents. Sources from Chenoboskion like the Paraphrase of Shem, the Apocalypse of Adam, and the Second Logos of the Great Seth do contain a myth of a redeemer that is only superficially christianized. Hence the gnostics may not have derived their myth from Christians. It does not follow, however, either that Christians got it from gnostics or that it is pre-Christian. (2) A redeemer myth is not essential to gnosticism. Though gnosticism may contain a redeemer myth (e.g. the Naassene hymn), it may exist without one. In Carpocrates' system, for example, Jesus' soul remembered what it had seen in its circuit with the unbegotten God. The Ophites in Origen's Against Celsus know of no descending-ascending redeemer. They look to an earthly being who fetches gnosis from heaven. In Poimandres, the writer is the recipient of a vision in rapture. He then teaches the way of salvation. Indeed, the proto-gnosticism of Paul's opponents in I Corinthians apparently did not contain a redeemer myth. Such evidence demands that a distinction be drawn between two issues: (a) whether or not there was a pre-Christian gnosticism, and (b) whether or not there was a pre-Christian gnostic redeemer myth. Since a redeemer myth is not constitutive for gnosticism, the existence of a pre-Christian gnosis is no guarantee for the presence of a gnostic redeemer myth. (3) In the Christian sources where the gnostic myth has been assumed to be influential (e.g. the Fourth Gospel), there is no ontological identity between Christ and the believers as in gnosticism. There is, in the Christian writings, no pre-existence of the soul or redeemed redeemer. Given these difficulties, why the attractiveness of the gnostic hypothesis?

The parable of the children's game belongs to those so-called ‘Q’-texts where there is a considerable agreement between the version of Matthew and that of Luke. Such texts often appear together as is also the case here.1 In three passages which follow immediately or almost immediately after each other, the conformity between Matthew and Luke both as to structure and vocabulary is very striking:

Although the sequence of parallel material in the Synoptic Gospels has been regarded as an important factor in the solution to the Synoptic problem, there exists no neutral statement of the phenomenon. In general, descriptions of the phenomenon of sequential parallelism are drafted after one has reached a solution to the problem. B. H. Streeter, for example, assumed the priority of Mark in a statement which was apparently intended to support it: ‘ The order of incidents in Mark is clearly the more original; for wherever Matthew departs from Mark's order Luke supports Mark, and whenever Luke departs from Mark, Matthew agrees with Mark.’1 Streeter observes that only Mark 3:31–5 appears in a different context in each gospel and that Matthew adheres more strictly to Mark's order in the latter part of his gospel than he does in the earlier part. He also says that Luke rearranges Mark's sequence only in ‘trifling ways’. These observations may, indeed, support the hypothesis of Markan priority, if one has reason to accept the hypothesis on other grounds. They do not serve as descriptions of the phenomenon, and they demonstrate the need for a description which makes no presuppositions about the literary relationships among the Synoptic Gospels.

Because the term θεóς is used so infrequently of Jesus in the New Testament, it is not surprising to find that there are relatively few discussions of it as a christological title. However, it may be of value to investigate the way in which the Fourth Gospel speaks of Jesus as ‘God’ since its usage differs somewhat from that of the rest of the New Testament. First, the extent to which the New Testament describes Jesus as God will be surveyed, and this will be contrasted in general terms with the approach of the Fourth Evangelist. Then the passages in the Fourth Gospel which may call Jesus ‘God’ will be examined in more detail, and an attempt will be made to establish the way in which this designation is used by the evangelist. Next it will be asked how the distinctive usage of the Fourth Gospel came to be adopted. Finally the view that the word θεóς expresses a functional christology will be considered.

Trotz einer jahrhundertelangen ausgiebigen Diskussion ist offensichtlich bis heute noch keine Einigung darüber erzielt worden, ob der historische Jesus selbst Wunder vollbracht hat oder ob es sich bei den Wundertraditionen des Neuen Testamentes um eine nachträgliche Titulierung Jesu als eines Wundertäters durch die Gemeinde handelt.2

In 1972 Ragnar Leivestad published an article under the title ‘Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man’. Since then we must assume that the Son of Man has been off stage for a while. Leivestad himself evidently hoped that he had been banished from the boards altogether. He has indeed received encouragement in this hope from the work of Geza Vermes, who has reached rather similar conclusions. There has been a growing feeling among scholars that the perennial debate about the Son of Man can never be brought to a convincing conclusion, because it has been conducted all along on false pre-suppositions. It was assumed that ‘the Son of Man’ was current in the Judaism of New Testament times as the title of a distinct figure of apocalyptic expectation, who should be the victor in the coming eschatological struggle and glorified as the head of the messianic kingdom.