In the continuing discussion of the possible role of Christian prophets in the formation of the tradition of the words of Jesus, reference continues to be made to the relevance or irrelevance of the words of the exalted Christ transmitted by the prophet John in the Apocalypse. They remain the only un-disputed example from the first century of prophetic utterances made in the name of Christ in the first person, and for advocates of the creative activity of the Christian prophets they are therefore invaluable evidence that such utterances could be made. Their use as evidence for the role of prophecy in the formation of the Synoptic tradition involves, admittedly, additional assumptions not easily demonstrable. We must suppose that John's prophecy is typical of the content of early Christian prophecy in general, and also that this late first-century work is faithfully representative of the earlier prophets whom alone we can suppose to have been responsible for originating logia which actually entered the Synoptic tradition. The uniqueness of John's prophetic status vis-à-vis that of the church prophets has been cogently argued by D. Hill, and it seems that at least we cannot infer otherwise un-attested characteristics of early Christian prophecy in general from the contents of the Apocalypse alone. In any case the Apocalypse is surely untypical in being a lengthy and closely integrated literary composition, with its own distinctive stylistic traits. Partly for this reason the words of Christ reported in it are for the most part quite unsuitable for transference to the lips of the Jesus of the Synoptic tradition, at least without substantial adaptation.

Le brusque changement de ton que l'on observe, dans l'épître aux Hébreux, entre les dernières phrases du ch. xii et les premières du ch. xiii a porté certains exégètes à contester l'authenticité du ch. xiii et à considérer celui-ci, en tout ou en partie, comme un morceau hétérogène, ajouté maladroitement au beau discours de Héb. i–xii. D'autres auteurs se sont mis en peine de défendre l'authenticité du chapitre, mais, comme il arrive dans les controverses, ils sont restés tributaires de la façon dont le problème avait été posé: le ch. xiii continue pour eux à constituer un morceau à part, que l'on peut étudier séparément. C'est ainsi que deux monographies récentes, dont les auteurs prennent position en faveur de l'authenticité d'Héb xiii, considèrent cependant ce chapitre comme une unité littéraire distincte et le prennent comme sujet d'étude.

The problems surrounding the integrity of II Corinthians vi. 14–vii. I are well known. In the first place, verses vi. 11–13 and vii. 2–4 flow together rather easily as a single piece of personal appeal. ‘My heart is opened wide toward you…In a like reciprocation, I speak as to children, you also open wide (your hearts toward me)…Make room for me.’ The parenesis of vi. 14–vii. I abruptly breaks this flow of thought. Moreover, vi. 14–vii. I is a self-contained unit, which begins with a concrete prohibition supported by five balanced rhetorical questions, which in turn is supported by a catena of Old Testament passages, and concludes with a general parenesis. Nothing within this passage seems even remotely related, either in language or concept, to the personal appeal within which it is embedded.

Much scholarly research has been devoted to the question: What issues divide gnostic Christians from the “ecclesiastical” Christians who are their contemporaries? Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. 160 A.D.), whose writings constitute a major source for the investigation of gnosticism, defines the issues in terms of differences in doctrine. Irenaeus admits that the question is a difficult one, since the gnostic doctrines he intends to “expose and refute” are so similar to orthodox teaching that, he says, most Christians cannot differentiate between the two. Irenaeus insists, nevertheless, that the differences are crucial, since gnostic doctrines are false, spurious forms of genuine Christian teaching. Therefore he writes five volumes—The Exposure and Overthrow of Falsely-So-Called Gnosis—to help his fellow churchmen make this discrimination.

The “eclectic method” in NT textual criticism is one of several disguises for the broad and basic problem of the “canons of criticism” or of the “criteria for originality” as applied to the various readings in the NT textual tradition, and in a real sense eclectic methodology—in its several forms as currently practised—is as much a symptom of basic problems in the discipline as it is a proposed and widely applied solution to those problems. By the same token, perhaps every methodological approach and even every discussion of methodology in NT textual criticism could be described as symptomatic of the problems; yet the eclectic method seems in a particularly pointed way to veil the problems of the discipline, for by its very nature it tries in one way or another to utilize all available approaches to textual problems, and in a single given case of seeking the original text it often wishes to apply to the problem several established text-critical criteria, even if these criteria have the appearance of being mutually exclusive or contradictory.

The various questions which are raised by the opening chapters of I Corinthians have been extensively examined in recent years. Among the problems is that of Paul's reference to ‘the rulers of this age’ in relation to wisdom. It is with this phrase in its context that the present paper is concerned. Why did Paul insert it here? To whom does he refer? What does the mention of the archons contribute to the argument of these opening chapters of the letter?

Ever since the Boston Church cast out Anne Hutchinson in 1638, the fact of her having “made a Lye” has stood without question. But why she told “soe horrible an Untruth and falshood,” or what it meant to her to do so, has not always been so clear. Part of the problem is an irony so deeply imbedded in the lie itself that it almost escapes notice: when Mrs. Hutchinson denied that she had held the erroneous opinions which countless people had heard her openly proclaim, she was inadvertently saying something about the relationship between thinking and speaking—something about language itself. That “something,” though neither she nor her adversaries could fully grasp or articulate it, was felt to be so subversive that the mere presence of its perpetrator in the community was deemed utterly intolerable: a dishonor to Jesus Christ and a “sine agaynst God” (385).

o. Der Abschnitt Matth. xvi. 17–19 ist in der Exegese des NT überdurchschnittlich häufig behandelt worden. Selbst die zusammenfassenden Arbeiten gehen über das gute Dutzend weit hinaus. Auch innerhalb der neueren Untersuchungen zum Petruswort divergieren die sprachliche, die historische und die formgeschichtliche Einordnung so sehr, daß eine erneute Untersuchung lohnt.