L'Apocalypse met en scène un nombre assez considérable de personnages. Quelques-uns semblent avoir une véritable histoire: on les retrouve à plusieurs reprises dans des circonstances diverses. Ainsi Dieu, l'agneau, leurs serviteurs, le voyant…D'autres personnages n'apparaissent que pour une figuration limitée (le dragon, les deux bêtes, la prostituée). D'autres enfin ne font qu'une apparition-éclair et ne sont plus jamais mentionnés par la suite: ainsi la femme, le fils et l'ange Michel au chap. 12, les deux témoins au chap. 11, le cavalier (Ap. 19), l'épouse (Ap. 21) etc….

“Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind (adam) in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion….’ And God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen 1:26–27 clarifies that the Hebrew term adam stands for the generic species of humanity which is composed of men and women. If there is any doubt on this interpretation, Gen 5:2–3 declares and defines again: “When God created humankind, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them humankind when they were created.”The “image of God in man and woman” opens us to transcend both the masculine and feminine metaphors for God which abound in the Bible and to transcend our historical selves and social institutions in recognition of the Holy One. It would appear that whatever one's interpretation of the “image” and “likeness” of God, one would have to recognize that the biblical text makes explicit that in our resemblance to the Divinity and in our dominion over the earth and animals, men and women share a common human dignity.

In light of our present knowledge it seems clear that the Essenes, despite all their intentions to be “true Israel,” in fact constituted a digression from the Judaism of their times, both in their mode of life and in certain of their basic concepts. As to their concepts, one can think of dualism, determinism, astrology, manticism, and perhaps also their highly developed hierarchical angelology; as to their modes of life, illustrations include their extreme segregation, their living in communes, common property, common meals, solar calendar, and baptism as a principal part of their ritual. Many attempts have been made to trace these traits within the Stoa, Cynicism, and Neopythagoreanism, as well as in the Persian religon. Some have been content with comparing the Essenes to other sects of the Hellenistic era. In the following pages I assume the well-established theory of the identity of the Essenes depicted in Philo and Josephus with the community of the Qumran scrolls and propose to show that the accounts of Philo and Josephus did not contain commonplace topoi of classical Utopias.

As a youth of nineteen, Jonathan Edwards was full of questions and anxiety about his conversion. Like many another Puritan seeker, Edwards was eager to obtain the reward of faith but found it impossible not to doubt the genuineness of his religious pretensions. Doubt and self-distrust were hardly unusual in the religious life of a New England Puritan. Indeed, as Edmund Morgan has observed, they were an expected, even prescribed, part of the Christian pilgrim's journey toward God. “This was the constant message of the Puritan preachers: in order to be sure [of one's standing before God] one must be unsure. … [T]he surest earthly sign of a saint was his uncertainty….” Edwards' reflections upon his experience, however, brought to light another, more interesting reason for hesitation—and one that was anything but conventional. He observed a marked discrepancy between what he had experienced and what the theorists of conversion—among them his esteemed grandfather Solomon Stoddard—said he ought to experience. Furthermore, far from glossing over this discrepancy between theory and experience, Edwards brought it to the very center of his attention. He did not seek to evade his difficulty but determined instead to make this aporia the basis for an inquiry that eventually led him to reject the step-by-step model of conversion that had provided the framework for New England's discussion of the knotty problem, never satisfactorily resolved, of how to formulate a reliable procedure for determining who were the visible saints. Even those skeptical about the possibility of arriving at such a procedure, like Solomon Stoddard, phrased their objections within that framework. Stoddard never doubted the truth of the preparationist, step-by-step description of conversion; he did doubt that any reliable procedure for distinguishing true faith from its imitations could be constructed on the basis of that description. Edwards' eventual rejection of his grandfather's open communion practice was a consequence of a critical reevaluation of the step-by-step model upon which New England thought and practice had been based.

One of the celebrated moments of the Reformation age occurred in Leipzig in the summer of 1519. The young Wittenberg theologian Luther, with his colleague Carlstadt, engaged in debate with the even younger scholar from Ingolstadt, John Eck. The present article is an assessment of a well-known conclusion reached about that debate. I mean Luther's judgment that Eck “imitated Proteus” and contradicted himself, rejecting against one debater a position he had affirmed against the other. The charge, which Luther published, did nothing to enhance Eck's reputation at a time when he had already cultivated an assortment of enemies on other grounds.

Twenty years ago we could assume that the Two-Source theory, as the decisive solution to the synoptic problem, had won the day. An unassailable dogma in Germany, on the front lines in Louvain, well positioned in England and the United States, it had little to fear from the last spasms of its opponents, and could view them as the final stand of the rearguard. But times have changed. Aged Griesbach turns in his grave, refusing to stay defeated. After two centuries he has returned to the field in the persons of Dom Butler of England and, especially, of W. R. Farmer of the United States, who has succeeded in mustering a force of young and dynamic researchers. Even in Germany the enemy has gained a foothold. Already in 1971 A. Fuchs saw that a large number of the Matthew/Luke agreements against Mark could not be explained in terms of the Two-Source theory. More recently, H. H. Stoldt has affirmed his preference for the Griesbach theory.

Zur Erhellung der Situation, in der sich die Briefempfänger befinden, wird oft von i. Petr. 5. 9 ausgegangen: ‘Dem widersteht fest im Glauben in dem Wissen, daß dieselbe Art von Leiden wie in aller Welt sich an eurer Bruderschaft vollzieht’. Was bedeutet παθήματα? 1st an eine weltweite Verfolgung zu denken, und müssen also die Leiden von 5. 9 im Blick auf die Johannes offenbarung oder das bekannte Reskript Trajans an Plinius gedeutet werden, wenn auch aus diesen Zeugnissen wohl Verfolgung, aber nicht ohne weiteres im Maßstab des Mittelmeerraumes hervorgeht? Gegen eine rasche Kontexter weiterung ist einzuwenden, daß der erhellendste Kontext von i. Petr.5.9 der i. Petrusbrief selbst ist. Nun kann παθήματα sehr vieles bedeuten, und es ist daher zu fragen, weiche Konkretionen de Brief selbst anbietet und auf diese Weise jenen Ausdruck inhaitlich näher bestimmt. Wir stoßen auf folgende Angaben:

λυπηθέντες έν πειρασμοĩς,

betrübt in mannigfachen Anfechtungen, i. 6 (vgl. 4. 12);

καταλαλισθαι ς κακοποιοί,

schlecht gemacht werden als Übeltäter, 2. 12;

πα043Eσχολαόμενοι (72)

nach dem Zusammenhang Bestrafung des Sklaven, 2. 20;

πτόησις, die Einschüchterung, 3. 6;

ϕόβος ατν,

der von den Gegnern ausgehende Schrecken bzw. Terror, 3. 14;

βλασϕημεĩσθαι, verlästert werden, 4. 5;

πύρωσις Drangsalshitze, 4. 12;

Le verset 3. 18 de la Seconde Épître aux Corinthiens a été et est encore l'objet de beaucoup de controverses. Rappelons-en le libellé en grec, constant dans toutes les éditions critiques modernes du Nouveau Testament, Tischendorf, Westcott–Hort, Nestle, Merk, Aland: ‘Ημειδς δ πντες νακεκαλυμμνᾠ προσώπᾠ τν δóξαν Κυρíου κατοπτριℑóμεοι τν αὐτήν εἰκóνα μεταμορ-φοὑμεθα πò δóξης εἰς δóξαν καθπερ πò Κυρíου πνεὑματος. Dans ce verset, l'interprétation de deux détails en particulier a opposé, depuis le début de ce siècle, les exégètes qui, comme l'a mis récemment en évidence la savante synthèse de J. F. Collange, se sont posé une double question: (i) Le participe κατοπτριℑóμενοι signifie-t-il ‘reflétant (comme un miroir) la gloire du Seigneur’ ou ‘contemplant (comme) dans un miroir la gloire du Seigneur’? (2) La locution τήν αὐτν εἰκóνα vise-t-elle notre assimilation à la gloire de Dieu ou à celle de son image (le Christ d'après II Cor. 4. 4 et 6)?

One of the most inclusive of the Armenian Canon lists is that compiled by Gregory of Tatʿew (1346–1410 C.E.). He was a man of great and comprehensive learning, head of the monastery of Tatʿew, in the province of Siunikʿ. This was a most important center of Armenian learning, which flourished in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

Was meint Paulus mit den Ausdrücken ‘Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Röm. 3. 27) und ‘das Gesetz des Geistes des Lebens’ (Röm. 8. 2)? Lange Zeit waren die Interpreten fast einmütig: Paulus spielt mit Worten und gebraucht den Terminus νόμος in einem allgemeinen, übertragenen bzw. uneigentlichen Sinne. Das Wort bezeichnet an beiden Stellen nicht die alttestamentliche Torah, sondern es ist etwa mit ‘Regel’, ‘Ordnung’, ‘Norm’, ‘System’ oder ‘ ‘Prinzip’ wiederzugeben. Das sind die hauptsächlichen Übersetzungsvor-schläge zu 3. 27. Zu 8. 2 wird ein noch weiteres Spektrum geboten. Außer den schon genannten werden u. a. ‘Herrschaft’, ‘Religion’, ‘Kraft’, ‘Autorität’, ‘Äone’, ‘Sphäre’, ‘régime’ und ‘pattern’ vorgeschlagen. An 3. 27 geben auch einige moderne englische Bibelausgaben νόμος mit ‘principle’ wieder (RSV, NEB); an 8. 2 sind die Übersetzungen mehr reserviert.

A systematic investigation is called for into Luke xv. 3–10. No study in depth has been given to it, and this is sad since it has some relationship to Matt. xii. 11–12, and to the Johannine account of the so-called Cleansing of the Temple, which last, though it is based on a narrative resembling Mark's, contains many unexplained elements. It may be granted that Luke keeps before his mind the general pattern of Deuteronomy, and that we have here Jesus' proclamation of material transcending Moses'. But a true placing of the whole against the background of scripture and the practice of the times has not been attempted, and when this is done some astonishing things emerge, for which readers of the present author's contributions will not be entirely unprepared.

John Hick has recently observed that within the “spectrum of disarray” in recent Christian theology regarding life after death, some “moderately traditional theologians,” while retaining the idea of an afterlife, have moved to an avowal of universal salvation. In part the importance of this trend lies in the fact that theologians of a universalist persuasion—Hick himself being a notable example—may now increasingly be accounted significant rather than peripheral figures. While universalism has always been an available option for a few, constituting since the early Christian centuries “a small underground stream of belief,” it has usually been strongly opposed by orthodox thinkers.

The parable of the scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven Most commentators who have attempted to analyse the structure of Matthew xiii have argued that in this chapter the evangelist has deliberately brought together seven parables,1 seven being one of his favourite numbers. This view, however, deserves to be questioned, since, although it has often not been recognized as such, the saying about the scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven in υ. 52 was probably intended by Matthew to be regarded as a parable. He thus has eight parables, not seven.2

Zu den Reliquien der altkirchlichen Literatur, die bis heute der Forschung Rätsel aufgeben, gehört das knappe Papyrusstück P.Oxy. 1. 5, dessen erste Edition B. P. Grenfell und A. S. Hunt zu verdanken ist:

τιν..[

λoς τo πν(ε⋯ματo)ς τo⋯ πρoφητ;[ι

κo ⋯ κε⋯μνoς ⋯π' αὐτ

π[..]. […………]. ν, κα⋯

5 πλησθε⋯ς ⋯ ἄνθρωπoς ⋯κε-

νoς τῳπν(ε⋯ματ)ι τ ⋯γ⋯ῳ λα

λεκαθὼς ⋯ (κ;⋯ριo)ς βo;⋯λετε,

oὕτως φανερ`ν ἔστε τò

πν(εμ)α τς θειóτητoς. τó γ⋯ρ

10 πρoφητικóν πν(εμ)α τó σω

ματεóν ⋯στιν τς πρo

φητικς τ⋯ξεως, ὃ ἔστιν

τò σμα τς σαρκòς 'ἰ(ησo) χρισ(τo)

τò μιγ⋯ν τ ⋯νθρωπóτη

15 τι δι⋯ Mαρ⋯ας. ὅτι δ⋯

δoχ δεκτικóν ⋯στιν

Das im vergangenen Jahr verstorbene Mitglied unserer Gesellschaft, der verehrte holländische Kollege Willem Cornelis van Unnik – mit meinem Lehrer Gerhard Delling in Halle verbunden durch das gemeinsame Projekt des Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti – hat es bei einer Gastvorlesung in Halle am 17. 11. 1966 als eine wichtige Aufgabe der Exegese beschrieben, ‘daß wir die Botschaft mit den Ohren eines Menschen des I. Jahrhunderts hören’ und dabei ‘dem Widerstand, den die christliche Predigt erregte, auf die Spur… kommen’. Man kann auch sagen, es gehe darum, das von Paulus gegebene Stichwort von der μωρία der Kreuzesbotschaft in den Ohren der ‘Heiden’ (I. Kor. 1. 23) mit dem seiner Zeit entsprechenden, also ‘synchronen’ Inhalt zu füllen. Wir dürfen den Prozeß der Ausbreitung des Evangeliums nicht ausschließlich von der Seite der Verkündigung und der Verkündigenden und ihrer Voraussetzungen her sehen, sondern müssen auch die andere Seite, die der Empfänger, in Betracht ziehen, etwa im Sinne der Fragestellung, die Wayne A. Meeks seinen soziologischen Erwägungen über die paulinischen Gemeinden zugrundelegt: ‘What was it like to become and to be an ordinary Christian in the first century?’ – wobei wir uns sofort dessen bewußt sein müssen, daß ‘this simplest of questions receives only vague and stammering replies’.