It is always somewhat precarious to speak about a Gnostic book and to assess its importance. Experience shows that some people, attracted by the very fact that a completely unknown book has been discovered, are more or less disappointed when they make their first acquaintance with one of these ‘Gospels from the Nile-sand’. Now this is a fairly general reaction; places marked in travel-guides with three stars very seldom meet with general approval except for snobs. I for one must always suppress a feeling of disappointment on entering a site of archaeological excavation of which I read glowing descriptions. But in the case of these Gnostic writings there is more that can explain the feeling I have mentioned.

It is my great privilege and pleasure to direct your attention to and to discuss with you in these lectures anew, hitherto completely unknown Christian text, probably dating from the second century, Gnostic in origin and contents, dealing with the great and important doctrine of the Resurrection.

In the opening section of the recently discovered (and now published) Gnostic ‘Apocryphon of John’, the Revealer says to John: ‘Now I have come to reveal to you that which is, that which has been, and that which will be, so that you may know the things which are seen and the things not seen and to reveal to you about the perfect Man.’

On a warm, sunny afternoon— one which we so much missed this year in our part of the globe— I stood on the beach of our Dutch seacoast. There was a crowd so tightly packed that one could hardly discover the sand or the sea. The only thing one sees is the highly variegated species of man; the only thing one hears is the cacophony of sound produced by this crowd.

Is it unfair to say that the ethical teaching of the N.T. is a step-child of scholarship? Over against ten books on N.T. theology one can hardly find one work on N.T. ethics. This holds good both for genera; surveys and for monographs. It goes without waying that the moral implications and consequences of the new faith are not absolutely neglected, but on the whole the doctrinal aspect has been stressed far more than th4e ethical. It is not my task at the present moment to explain this fact, but it did not seem out of place to call special attention to this ‘under-developed country’. Work in this part of the field is not at all superfluous. Therefore the discussion of a particular point in a paper for this general meeting will be fully justified.