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.

Preliminary Remarks. There are in the Synoptic Gospels many examples of Sayings joined in pairs or larger groups. Separately and in other connections such texts have certainly been discussed again and again. But the phenomenon as such has hardly been dealt with in a coherent study. Therefore I have chosen to gather a number of these instances and discuss them together, especially those cases where two parts of a double saying are built up in an analogous way. But the present study has – as the sub-title ‘Analysis versus Theories’ indicates – also a synoptic intention. This is not, as in the case of most synoptic studies, to corroborate some already existing synoptic theory or to present a new one. The analysis has to be carried through radically. But why, then, especially take up those texts where we meet with ‘Coordinated sayings and parables’? Because here we have an opportunity not only to make a comparison between the versions of the evangelists, but also to complete this with a comparison between the coordinated sayings.

Jewish-Christians readily interpreted the life, ministry and sacrificial death of Jesus in agreement with accepted Jewish concepts: the trinity, the apostolic christology of the Messiah, meritorious suffering in behalf of all Israel, reconciliation of Israel to God through the death of the Messiah, refusal to participate in active rebellion against Rome, and willingness to dispute with other religious sects about many points. The fall of Jerusalem taught them to adjust their worship practices according to Jewish traditions which deemed the temple unnecessary, but they continued to mourn for it and hope for its restoration. Daily and weekly private and congregational worship attempted to fulfil needs formerly met by the function of priests in the temple. Baptism became still more important than before, assuming more responsibility for cleansing from sins, but it did not make circumcision unnecessary. There continued to be scripture reading and exhortation in congregational worship services. Some of them observed the same calendar of feasts as the majority of Jews and also the Jewish Sabbath, but they adhered to the Lord's Day and perhaps some of them even concurred with Gentile-Christians in their Christian adjustments to the old agricultural calendar. Jewish-Christians of the second century were in closer agreement with the theology of the NT and Jews of their day than they would have been with Catholic Christians who lived a few centuries later.

The relationship of John to the synoptic gospels has been a recurring problem, not only for two centuries of modern critical scholarship, but for Christian theology and exegesis over a much longer period. To my knowledge a full history of this problem is yet to be written,1 although it might well be helpful in arriving at a solution, as well as illuminating the present situation. The purpose of this paper is not to treat the history or to resolve the problem, but to sketch out and assess its dimensions.

It is fitting that the first major attention given by the SNTS to sociological concerns should occur in Paris, the home of Auguste Comte (often called the father of sociology) and his circle. Actually there seem to have been many fathers and many more offspring, such that the present genealogy of the discipline presents an almost bewildering profusion of perspectives, goals, models and methodologies. This is a productive situation and a sign of health, but it suggests right away that I cannot analyse in this paper a single or simple sociology of the New Testament. Those of us who are experimenting – and that cautious phrase must be taken literally – with sociological approaches have come from different backgrounds and perspectives, borrowing from sociology where it seems useful and tentatively trying out various methods and models. The exploration has really just begun.

The point of departure for this study is the hypothesis that the Johannine discourses are composed from oral (and written) traditions. Accordingly, they do not presuppose one or more comprehensive written sources which run throughout the Gospel. The general problem to be analysed can be formulated in this way: How was a unit of tradition used? There is a wide range of possibilities, from a verbatim and complete quotation to the use of small fragments, even just one word. In this paper we shall attempt to distinguish between a ‘quote’, where a self-contained unit of tradition is repeated, and a paraphrastic use, where small fragments, a phrase or a word, are paraphrased into new sentences.

Eines dürfte wohl mit Sicherheit an der Geschichte der Kirche abzulesen sein: Eine intensive Beschäftigung mit dem, was der Apostel Paulus zu sagen hat, ist keine Arbeit im sog. Elfenbeinturm, keine esoterische und letztlich frustrierende Selbstbeschäftigungstheorie. Wo Paulus wirklich die Gelegenheit gegeben wurde, das Seine zu sagen, da kamen nicht nur die Wellen einer sogenannten akademischen Theologie in Bewegung, sondern auch immer wieder die der Kirche; und die Bewegung der Kirchengeschichte übertrug sich zuweilen sogar auf die Weltgeschichte. Und wenn ich als lutherischer Theologe auf Martin Luther verweisen darf, der ja schließlich als Professor der Exegese zu seiner reformatorischen Entdeckung kam und dies gerade dadurch, daß er sich auf den Römerbrief einließ,1 so ist es doch nur gerecht, wenn ich zugleich darauf aufmerksam mache, daß damals auch Männer der katholischen Reform ihre religiöse Kraft aus Paulus schöpften. Ich nenne hier nur den venezianischen Botschafter beim Wormser Reichstag 1521 und späteren päpstlichen Legaten beim Reichstag zu Regensburg 1541, Kardinal Contarini. Von ihm schreibt Hubert Jedin, daß sein Rechtfertigungserlebnis 1511 (!) mit Luthers Turmerlebnis vergleichbar war und daß er nach 1521 ‘aufgrund der Affinität seiner eigenen Innenentwicklung zu der Überzeugung’ gelangte, ‘daß der religiöse Quellpunkt der Heilslehre Luthers … urkatholisch war’.2 Auf dem Reichstag zu Regensburg einigten sich Katholiken und Protestanten über die Rechtfertigungslehre. Leider kam diese Einigung zu spät. Inzwischen waren andere Kontroverspunkte so dominant geworden, daß Differenzen darin eine Einigung im ‘articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae’ illusorisch machten.

Das Markus-Evangehum unterscheidet sich von den anderen synoptischen Evangelien in auffälliger Weise dadurch, daß am Anfang und am Schluß Berichte fehlen, die Lukas und Matthäus offensichtlich als für den Inhalt ihrer Schriften wesentlich angesehen haben: Der zweite Evangelist berichtet nicht von Geburt und Kindheit Jesu; und sein Buch enthält - ausweislich der ältesten erhaltenen Handschriften - keine Erzählungen von Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen. Das Fehlen einer Geburtsgeschichte wird ver-mutlich damit zu erklären sein, daß Markus1 entsprechende Traditionen nicht gekannt hat. Das Fehlen der Erscheinungsgeschichten dagegen läßt sich nicht so ohne weiteres mit dieser Annahme begründen; denn Mark 14. 28 und 16. 7 scheinen jedenfalls anzudeuten, daß es im Umkreis des Evangelisten bzw. seiner Tradition entsprechende Erzählungen gegeben hat. Dann aber stellt sich die Frage, warum Markus in seinem Evangelium auf die Erscheinungen zwar ankündigend hinweist, gleichzeitig aber darauf verzichtet, von ihnen als von einem tatsächlich geschehenen Ereignis zu berichten.

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.

Pour examiner les renseignements fournis par 2 Corinthiens sur le ministère de toute la communauté et les ministères de Paul, de ses collaborateurs, du groupe apostolique, les 742 emplois du Je, du Nous et du vous constituent une source de premier ordre. En choisissant cette approche, nous sortons du cadre trop étroit de l'étude de quelques-uns des vocables utilisés pour définir la diversité des ministères.1 Le problème de l'apostolicité se joue au cœur même d'une série de situations relationnelles: Je/vous, nous/vous et enfin Je/nous.

Unter Jesu Worten haben zwei Gleichnispaare, das von den Talenten Mt 25. 14–30 mit der Parallele von den Minen Lk 19. 11–27 und das von der Hochzeit Mt 22. 2–10 mit der Parallele von großen Abendmahl Lk 14. 16–24, die bisher nie beachtete Eigenart, sich mit der Parallele zu einer einheitlich vollständigen Fassung zu ergänzen, aus der kein Bestandteil als entbehrlich hätte entfernt werden dürfen. Das geschah jedoch in Verkennung der Sachlage durch die Redaktoren; so ergab sich die Vieldeutigkeit der überlieferten Fassungen, die Siegfried Schulz in seiner Untersuchung über die Redenquelle an den bisherigen Auslegungen bis ins Einzelne aufgewiesen hat. Einverständnis besteht jedoch darüber, daß die Verse Lk 19.11–12 und 14–15a sowie 27 zusammengehören und herauszulösen sind. Und es fügt sich eigentümlich, da–7 gleichfalls ein Einschub ist. Dabei wurde bisher übersehen, daß er den Lk-Einschub abschließend ergänzt. Darum geht es im Folgenden um die Rekonstruktion der Urgestalt von drei Gleichnissen Jesu, die aus seinem letzten Aufenthalt in Jerusalem überliefert wurden.

Es wird heute in der neutestamentlichen Forschung beider Konfessionen zwar nicht mehr einhellig angenommen, daΒ der urchristliche Glaube seinen Ansatz im Glauben an den auferstandenen Christus hat, die Rückführung des urchristlichen Glaubens auf den ‘historischen Jesus’ wird zunehmend vertreten, dennoch dürfen wir mit der Annahme, daΒ der urchristliche Glaube Ostern entstand, einsetzen, da unsere Untersuchung über die in I. Kor 15, 3–7 von Paulus zitierte Tradition eben diese Annahme bestätigen wird. Die ersten Christen glaubten an den Κúριος ησοũς χριστóς pios ‘li-aous Xpicrros, weil er ihnen als solcher erschienen war und nicht wegen einer Autorität, die der vorösterliche Jesus von Nazareth erworben hatte und die sich über seinen Tod hinüberrettete. Wenn wir diese von der formgeschichtlichen Forschung erarbeitete Position einnehmen, muΒ sich aber die Frage stellen, was dieser Glaube inhaltlich besagte. Wir können uns nicht damit zufrieden geben, daΒ er die Realität der Auferstehung bezeugt; denn welchen sachlichen Inhalt sollte der Glaube an einen Auferstandenen haben? Inwiefern ist mit Jesu Auferstehung der Tod besiegt, wie Paulus es I. Kor 15, 54 schreibt? Diese Frage hat die neutestamentliche Forschung bisher kaum berührt. Sie ist aber gerade darum in jüngster Zeit wesentlich geworden, da die Aussage von Jesu Auferstehung als urchristliches Glaubensbekenntnis mehr und mehr jeden Inhaltes entleert wurde. Wozu brauchten die ersten Christen die Aussage über Jesu Auferstehen, wenn sie nur‘die Sache Jesu’ weitergehen lassen wollten? Warum gaben sie ihm die Titel Kyrios und Christus, wenn nur seine Sache, die Verkündigung des kommenden Gottesreiches, weitergehen sollte? Es hatte genügt, ihn als Prophet wie es spater Rabbi Aqiba gegeniiber geschah. Wir haben darum alien Grund zu fragen, welcher spezifische Inhalt sich mit der Aussage I.

The encounter between Jesus and the woman of Samaria is unique to the fourth gospel. Water symbolism and the true nature of worship constitute two major motifs that are woven into its narration. The meeting at the well touches off a discussion about water, and this discussion leads into one on worship. The connection between the two topics has not received hitherto a satisfactory solution, A. Guilding's work has the merit of recognizing the problem but her structural solution is unsatisfactory because it fails to make any connection in sense between the two.1 A matter that arouses curiosity concerns the subject of water common to the discussion Jesus and the woman have and the preceding section of material about purification and baptism by water as discussed by a Jew,2 the disciples of John the Baptist, and the Baptist himself. The fact that the incidents in question are set down in proximity invites scrutiny. Attention to the above two problems results in an interesting interpretation of the encounter.

In a number of episodes in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus appears to act inconsistently. That is, he proceeds to act positively after giving a negative response to a suggestion that has been presented to him in view of something considered to be an urgent human need. Four episodes that contain this repeated pattern prove to be the beginning of his signs (John 2. 1 ff.), the second, encore sign at Cana (4. 46 ff.), the discussion about going up to the feast of Tabernacles (7. 2 ff.), and the sign of the raising of Lazarus (11. 1 ff.). Some, like Bultmann, have noted elements of the pattern in one or other passage only to misconstrue the issue. Others, notably R. H. Lightfoot, R. E. Brown and C. K. Barrett, have singled out two or three instances of the pattern and have shed some helpful light on its function, albeit in a restricted literary context. Together, all four commentators prompt one's attention to these four related passages. Neither their inquiries nor those of others suggest that additional Johannine passages need directly be considered. Curiously, however, no one scholar has indicated that all four passages exemplify the same pattern. Not surprisingly, the various analyses of the pattern that scholars have offered prove to be inadequate. For they have not attempted to cover all the relevant instances. Nor, as will appear, have they explained in a way that does justice to the data in the text the instances that they have noted.

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;

In a remote region in the Appalachian mountains a young college graduate applied for a teaching job. The school board's first question was, ‘Do you believe the earth is round or flat?’ The applicant knew that in the area opinion was sharply divided, but he was uncertain of the view of the school board. Desperate for a job, he replied, ‘I'll be frank with you, gentlemen, I can teach it either way.’

Paul's own behaviour is not as open to scrutiny as that of some of his congregations. Comparisons are possible, with limited success, between the reports of his actions in Acts and what he himself says in his letters. Certain kinds of behaviour can be guessed at through a careful analysis of his letters. Rarely, however, do we have in his letters a passage that is as pregnant with implications – particularly for an understanding of his behaviour – as I Corinthians 9. 19–23. The purpose of what follows is to explore an inconsistency between what Paul says about his own behaviour in that passage and what he says with regard to Peter's behaviour in Galatians 2. 11–14. Attention will be focused on ethics, apostolic accommodation, and the relation between Paul and Peter as primitive Christian missionaries.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that the author of the Epistle to the Colossians took his great Christological statements in i. 9–23 and ii. 6–15 direct from Jewish sources. I am denying on the one hand the thesis that he was writing as a creative theologian who drew from time to time on a store of theological ideas which he made his own, and on the other hand the thesis that he was citing ‘hymns’ that were already complete entities. He neither created a Christology nor cited one or two commonly agreed pieces of liturgy; rather, he put together a great number of distinct but related statements which already existed in his sacred traditional sources.

In the fifth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I it was enacted by Parliament ‘that the Bishops of Hereford, Saint Davids, Asaph, Bangor and Llandaff… shall take such Order amongst themselves…, That the whole Bible…, with the Book of the Common Prayer…, as is now used within this Realm in English, to be truly and exactly translated into the British or WELSH tongue’. This authorization of a version of the Holy Scriptures by the English Parliament is unique, but that does not make the Welsh version the authorized version of the realm. What was endorsed by the 1563 Act was not the validity of the Welsh version as Scripture, but its legality despite being in Welsh. A generation earlier, the Act of Union of England and Wales had proscribed the use of Welsh in ‘any manner office or fees within this realm of England, Wales or other the Kings Dominion’. It so happened, however, that the 1563 Parliament had amongst its members a sufficient number who could be persuaded to put religious need before political expediency, having themselves but recently suffered for their religious convictions. Moreover, it was the good fortune of the Welsh people, in contrast with other Celtic groups, that they had in their midst, at this critical point in their history, men whose competence and scholarly equipment were equal to the task of producing a vernacular version. They were all alumni of the English Universities; and there they had come into contact with those movements which were radically transforming the intellectual, the religious and the political life of Western Europe. These were, of course, the rebirth of learning, the reformation of religion, the growth of national feeling with the accompanying emergence of vernacular literatures – movements whose irresistible onward surge was greatly accelerated by the printing press, an invention of the previous century. It was the dream of these Welshmen that this flood could be channelled to fructify the arid spiritual desert which they saw in their native land; and this they sought to achieve first and foremost by giving the Welsh people the Bible in printed form and in their own tongue.