Chers collègues, mon distingué prédécesseur dans cette chaire, le Professeur W. C. Van Unnik, vous invitait l'année dernière, dans son adresse présidentielle, à quelque meditation sur une plage hollandaise. Permettez-moi de rester fidèle à ce genre littéraire maritime en vous contant une anecdote qui recèle aussi sa leçon.

Vor fünf Jahren erschien in den N.T.S. ein Bericht,1 der zusammen mit der Publikation einiger bis dahin unbekannter neutestamentlicher Papyri die Papyri 65–68 besprach, welche damals neu bekannt geworden waren. In diesem Bericht hieß es (S. 201), die Zahl der Papyri werde ‘ohne Zweifel in den nächsten Jahren noch weiter ansteigen’. Diese Vorhersage hat sich in einem Maß erfüllt, das auch die kühnsten Erwartungen übertrifft. Die Liste der neutestamentlichen Papyri in der Gestalt, wie sie die in diesen Wochen erscheinende ‘Kurzgefaßte Liste’ bieten wird, geht bis 76. (Zwei darüber hinaus bekannte Papyri konnten nicht aufgenommen werden, vgl. dazu S. 310.) Unter den seit dem letzten Bericht bekannt gewordenen Papyri befinden sich 72 und 75, denen zusammen mit 66 eine ähnliche Bedeutung zukommt wie seinerzeit den Chester Beatty-Papyri. Von ihnen liegen 75 und 66 in Faksimile-Editionen vor, die sichere Resultate erlauben. Zusammen mit dem Faksimile von 66 erschien eine neue Edition des zweiten Teiles von 66 mit Job. xiv–xxi, die allen Ansprüchen gerecht wird und umso höher zu schätzen ist, als die Rekonstruktion der Fragmente tatsächiich manche schwierigen Probleme bietet. Kurz, eine Fortsetzung des Berichtes von 1957 schien dringend geboten, des Umfanges wegen geschieht das in Fortsetzungen.

Die johanneische Forschung steht vor vielen Problemen. Dieser Vortrag ist nur einem einzigen gewidmet. Er versucht zu klären, was die johanneische Lieblingsforrnel ‘der Vater, der mich gesandt hat’ für die johanneische Lehre von der Offenbarung ergibt. Da aber die Probleme des Johannesevangeliums eng miteinander zusammenhängen, wird auch die Quellenfrage und indirekt auch die Verfasserfrage mitberührt.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss some aspects of the—to me—perennially fascinating problem of the Johannine literature: in particular of the relationship of the Gospel, the Epistle and the Apocalypse; and to put forward some rather speculative views of my own—though they are not wholly original—which owe their origin to some ideas I have had about the John who on the island of Patmos saw the Apocalypse. Who was he, and why was he there? What, if anything, had he to do with the Gospel and the Epistle? In the course of some twenty-five years' study of the Johannine literature, desultory though it has inevitably been, I have gradually become convinced that the problem cannot be solved piecemeal, and that any theory designed to account for the Gospel must be applicable also to the Epistle and the Apocalypse, and vice versa. And I may as well lay my cards on the table, and state the view which I have been led to hold.

There are many ways in which the Fourth Gospel can be compared with the Synoptics. One may, for example, set John over against the others as a group. One notes the resemblances, but more especially the contrasts, between John and the others in respect to chronology, geography, miracle, Jesus' discourses, Christology, and so on. Most of these differences are obvious even to the casual reader, and they will be found tabulated in almost any good introduction to the Fourth Gospel.

Substitute fides qua for fides quae on

page 347, second line of (a)

second line of (c)

second line of (f), and on

page 349, last line of the page

The purpose of this paper1 is to survey most of the lines along which, in recent years, attempts have been made to establish a relationship between the addressees of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Essene movement in general or the Qumran community in particular, and to suggest what, in fact, these attempts amount to.

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.’

Anyone who has studied Rom. xii. 20 is aware that it is a notorious crux interpretum. The strategy of dealing with one's enemy is clear: . Difficult as it is for the Christian to adapt his life to this admonition anticipations of such a noble approach are not lacking in ancient literature. The wise man according to early Egyptian religion conquers by mastering his emotions. The prudent way is to avoid a conflict, for the situation may imply complications which one cannot foresee. It is the silent man who conquers and who is pre-eminently the successful man according to Egyptian religion. In the strict sense this is not a parallel to Paul's words in Romans, but it is clear evidence that religion early moved beyond the talion principle in discussing the question of dealing with one's enemy.

über das System des Basilides, seines Sohnes und Schülers Isidor und der Basilidianer ist unter den Forschern bis heute keine Einigkeit erzielt worden, auch ist die einzig neuere Schrift, die sich ausführlich und umfassend mit Basilides befaβt, die von Hendrix,2 zu wenig in die Tiefe gegangen und läβt manche Fragen offen. Die Uneinigkeit der Forscher hangt mit der besonders disparaten Quellenlage zusammen. Die Berichte der Kirchenväter teilen sich in zwei Gruppen. Die eine wird vertreten durch Irenaeus, Adv. haer I.

Exegetical study in the days of liberal theology assumed that Paul spoke on impulse, according to the mood of the moment, deeply moved, and with often changing emotions. Scholars read between the lines, searching for crises in the life of the apostle that might explain his changes of attitude. If we consider Adolf Deissmann's research on Paul it is not difficult to see that an interpretation assuming a far too detailed knowledge of the apostle's spiritual life is an exaggeration. The actual material of our study is the texts, not the man behind them. And Paul is not as spontaneous as was believed by the older generation of exegetes. The letters are those of an experienced missionary, used to preaching and instructing. And it is possible that in the letters he is dealing with subjects he has discussed before, so that the expressions he uses have not necessarily been new minted for this particular occasion.

Soon after the death of Dr Erwin Preuschen in 1920, the publishers of his Vollständiges Griechisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch zu den Schrzften des N. T.s und der übrigen Urchthtlichen Literatur (Töpelmann; Giessen, 1910) approached Professor Walter Bauer of Göttingen with the proposal that he adopt the orphaned lexicon, which by this time was out of print, and produce a much-needed new revised edition of it.

In the Old Testament, ‘son of man’ means (1) man in general, (2) the prophet, (3) the eschatological Israel. (1) appears, for example in Ps. viii. 5, is referred to in Heb. ii. 6 and is still present in the background of I Cor. xv. 27 and Eph. i. 2. (2) reflects the usage of Ezechiel. One should never forget that the term occurs here about eighty-seven times: the prophet is addressed as the son of man, filled with God's Spirit (ii. i ff.; iii. 24 f.; xi. 4 f.), watchman of Israel (iii. I7 xxxiii. 7), sent to a rebellious nation (ii. 3). The word of God is his food (ii. 8), but he lives among those who have eyes to see and yet do not see, ears to hear and yet do not hear (xii. 2), who talk about him and run after him, and yet do not do what he says (xxxiii. 30–2), because they think that God's judgement is still far off (xii. 27), so that his message remains riddles and parables for them (xvii. 2, cf. xxi. ). He must not only announce disaster (vi. i ff. etc.), but pronounce God's judgement over Israel (xx. xxii. xxiii. 36), even to kill them (xi. 4, 13; xxi. 19 ff.).

It is surprising that the Fourth Evangelist, with his marked interest in the symbolical, should have omitted from his account of the Last Supper all reference to the Eucharist. Yet the instinct of the Church has rightly seen in ‘John’ (whoever be the person behind the name) the supreme New Testament teacher on the sacraments. Time and again, sometimes with hints that are not always obvious save to those who have insight into his mind and methods, he points his readers to the two great sacraments of the Church. It is with good reason that medieval artists are wont to portray Peter carrying the keys, Paul the sword, but John the sacramental cup.

Die gro²e lexikographische Leistung Walter Bauers hat es mit sich gebracht, da² er als Verfasser des Wörterbuches zum Neuen Testament weithin bekannt ist, da² aber leicht übersehen wird, welche eminente Bedeutung das Lebenswerk Walter Bauers für die kirchengeschichtliche Forschung hat. Dabei ist ja schon das Wörterbuch keineswegs nur ein unentbehrliches Hilfsmittel für das Verständnis des Neuen Testamentes, sonderri erschlie²t uber das N.T. hinaus die Sprache der gesamten urchristlichen Literatur und ist damit em höchst wichtiger Beitrag zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche. Neben dem Wörterbuch und neben den mancherlei exegetischen Arbeiten Bauers, die ja ebenfalls uber die reine Textauslegung hinausfuhren und die Geschichte des Urchristentums erhellen wollen, steht nun noch eine Reihe anderer Werke, die sich speziell mit der Geschichte der Alten Kirche befassen und, deren Bedeutung für die Forschung erheblich ist.