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.

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.

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.

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.