The history of the interpretation of Lk. 23. 27–31 indicates that the address of Jesus to the Daughters of Jerusalem has been understood in ways which are totally contradictory and that the methodological approaches to its interpretation have not adequately indicated the direction of a surer exegesis. In lieu of a chronological survey of the interpretation of Lk. 23. 27–31, let me cite some of the major exegetical interpretations of this passage.

Die Verse Apg. 6.1–7 ‘gehören zu den wichtigsten Texten für die Geschichte des Urchristenturns, sind … aber auch von erheblichen Schwierigkeiten belastet’. So urteilte jüngst W. Schneemelcher in seinem Buch über ‘Das Urchristentum’ – mit gutem Grund, wie wir sehen werden.

The thesis I wish to propound in this article is that neither kerygma nor history is a distinctive characteristic of the genre of the gospels. For the literary critic this remark may seem superfluous while a New Testament scholar may find it ridiculous. In view of the history of the interpretation of the genre, however, and also in view of current discussion on the problem in New Testament scholarship the thesis is understandable. The article falls into two parts. In the first a short survey is given of the problem and its development. In the second kerygma and history are discussed with reference to the gospels as narratives.

One conclusion concerning Joseph and Aseneth on which recent scholarly studies are in agreement is that the literary model for this fascinating work is the hellenistic romance. In both European and American analyses that assumption is evident. But since the intention of a romance has not been agreed upon - either by literary historians in general or by biblical scholars assessing the aims of the writer of Joseph and Aseneth – the import of this judgment about the literary paradigm for our work varies widely. Burchard assumes ‘that Joseph and Aseneth was composed for Jews, both born and naturalized, including perhaps those “god-fearing” sympathizers who thought and lived Jewish, but never crossed the line formally and were seldom pressed to do so. The document reminds not only the Jews of the privileges they always enjoyed, but the converts of what they, or their forefathers, gained by crossing over to Judaism.’ This position is adopted in opposition to the notion that the work was a missionary tract, aimed at enticing non-Jews to convert.

One of the more neglected pericopes in the Fourth Gospel is the so-called ‘Walking on the Water’(John 6. 16–21). Scholars have discussed the passage largely in the context of the debate concerning John's sign source or his dependence on the Synoptics, notably Mark, and have done so with an eye not so much to the substance of John's account as to its importance in the sequence of events in John 6.1 Treatment of the passage in itself has occurred almost exclusively in commentaries.2 The miraculous crossing of the lake has regularly been judged to be merely ‘a miracle within a miracle’, so that the main point of the passage remains Jesus' walking on the water3 or his epiphanic self-manifestation (έγώ είμι).4

This essay does not attempt to give evidence for a particular answer to a question, but discusses the question itself. I would like first to present a sketch of the history of how the question has been handled, and then make some suggestions for its reformulation. The question is: ‘Are sayings of Christian prophets included in the canonical Gospels as sayings of Jesus?’

Spicq's impressive list of theological features shared by St John's Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and peculiar to them among the writings of the New Testament, has been neglected in the continuing attempt to solve the ‘riddle’ of the religious background of the latter document. The conclusions Spicq drew from this list read strangely today: few would share the confidence with which he deduced the dependence of Hebrews on a ‘catechesis’ lying behind the Johannine writings, and in turn the influence of the Author to the Hebrews on St John when he came to write his gospel. Nevertheless, the cumulative weight of so many affinities between works apparently so different is remarkable. They occur with striking frequency in Hebrews 2. 10–18, where, indeed, Spicq's list can be extended. Since these verses are of considerable christological and soteriological importance, it may be useful to review the resemblances to Johannine thought and expressions which occur here, and to offer an alternative explanation.

Prof. Dr HANS HÜBNER, Nikolausberger Weg 5b, D-3400 Göttingen, Germany/BRD.