Modern translations of the New Testament are united in understanding the phrase πίστις Χριστοû to mean ‘faith in Christ’. In recent years, however, an increasing number of scholars have been advocating the interpretation of πίστις Χριστοû which takes it as a subjective rather than an objective genitive, and understands the phrase as a reference to Christ's own faith or faithfulness. Indeed, there has been so much support for this view in North America that one recent exponent wrote: ‘The correctness of the translation of πίστις Iησοû Χριστοû as the “ faith or faithfulness of Jesus Christ” has by now been too well established to need any further support.’ If he is right, then there is little need for this paper. But I suspect that there is still a large body of opinion, especially on this side of the Atlantic, which holds to the more traditional interpretation. Indeed, those commentators who mention the suggestion tend to dismiss it in a footnote. Thus it would be fairer to say that if any kind of conclusion has been reached, it is that the question is one which cannot be settled on the basis of appeals to grammatical construction alone. This issue can be settled only by exegesis, and because New Testament scholars approach the texts with widely differing presuppositions, they are likely to interpret the phrase in very different ways.

Hatte die Jesusbewegung revolutionäre Züge? Eine Antwort auf diese Frage hängt davon ab, was wir unter ‘Revolution’ verstehen. Der im folgenden verwandte übertragene Begriff von ‘Revolution’ setzt zwei allgemeine (etwas triviale) Annahmen über die Geschichte voraus:

This paper wants to address the question, why and how the term εỦαγγέλιον, originally a term for the early Christian proclamation, became the designation of a certain type of literature. Closely related problems have been discussed repeatedly in New Testament scholarship for several generations: (1) The origin of the term εỦαγγέλιον. (2) The consistency and uniformity of its meaning in its Christian usage. (3) The question of the literary genre of the writings which later became known as ‘gospels’. I shall comment on the second and third of these problems insofar as they concern the question addressed in this paper, but I shall leave aside the question of the background and origin of the term.

Hebrews is the most accomplished writing in the New Testament. The unknown author's command of the art of rhetoric is universally recognized. He was evidently well educated by the standards of Hellenistic education of the time. His use of Greek is more cultivated than that of Paul, and he makes greater use of rhetorical devices than Luke. Spicq gives an impressive list of the stylistic features and rhetorical devices that are to be found in Hebrews. But every reader can appreciate the fine style and persuasive power of the author's writing.

Spécialistes du Nouveau Testament, nous ne pouvons nous désintéresser des efforts qui, dans nos diverses confessions, sont réalisés en vue de l'Unité chrétienne. Parmi les questions qui ont le plus long-temps opposé les chrétiens de la Réforme à leurs frères catholiques et orthodoxes il faut ranger le problème de la Tradition. Depuis quelques décennies un grand rapprochement se dessine, comme l'ont montré l'opuscule d' O. Cullmann sur la Tradition (1953) et de façon officielle l'Assemblée de Foi et Constitution à Montréal en 1963 puis la constitution Dei Verbum de Vatican II.

That John 6 was intended as a self-contained unit is clearly signalled by the evangelist, who has commenced chapters 5, 6 and 7 with μετά ταûτα, a formula that marks a new beginning. Yet there has long been controversy regarding the unity and integrity of the chapter and its present place in the Gospel. In this paper it is argued that, though independent of the Synoptics, John has made use of Synoptic-like tradition and that chapter 6 provides evidence of a developing and yet unified interpretation of that tradition. The tradition was the basis of two editions of the chapter. Recognition and characterization of the tradition is an important beginning in the attempt to understand John 6. A second step is to note the signals indicating changes of time, place and audience which coincide with changes of literary genre. Changes are signalled from the crowd at Capernaum (6. 22–36) to the Jews in the synagogue at Capernaum (6. 41–59) to the disciples and ‘the twelve’ at some unspecified location (6. 60–71). There are two references to each audience in the narrative of these sections (6. 22, 24, 41, 52, 60, 66, 67, 71) and a Son of Man saying in each of Jesus' responses, to the crowd (6. 27), the Jews (6. 53), and the disciples (6. 62). Changes of genre from quest (6. 1–36) to rejection (6. 41–59 and 6. 60–66) to commendation (6. 67–71) stories confirm these divisions. There is also a transition from the emphasis on the emissary christology in the quest story to the soteriology of the rejection stories.

Eher am Rande des Blickfeldes exegetischer Forschung steht das vierte Makkabäerbuch. Keine Disziplin fühlt sich, wie schon Freudenthal anmerkte, dafür so recht zuständig. Dabei wurde es nach Ausweis der alten Codices und einiger Kanonsverzeichnisse zumindest für eine kurze Zeitspanne zum christlichen Kanon der Septuaginta gezählt.

Die Texte, die etwas näher betrachtet werden sollen, umfassen nicht das gesamte Sondergut des ersten Evangelisten. Ausgeklammert werden von vornherein die Kindheitsgeschichten sowie die Ausschmückungen in dem Passions- und Auferstehungsbericht. Die vielen übrigen, zum Teil ausgeführten, zum Teil sehr kurzen Texte sind sehr verschieden geartet. Es sind darin Kurzgleichnisse wie jenes vom Schatz im Acker oder von der Perle (Mt 13. 44–46), ausgeführte Gleichnisse wie jenes von den Arbeitern im Weinberg (20. 1–15) oder den zehn Jungfrauen (25. 1–13), Gesetzesauslegungen wie die Antithesen (5. 21–22, 27–28, 33–37), Weisungen für die persönliche Frömmigkeit (5. 23–24; 6. 2–4, 16–18), eine Gemeinderegel (18. 15–18), ein Gerichtsgemälde (25. 31–46) und viele Einzellogien enthalten. Sowohl von der Form als auch vom Inhalt her handelt es sich um unterschiedliche Überlieferungen, und es ist kaum zufällig, daß auch die Frage, woher Mt diese Traditionen hat, auf verschiedene Weise beantwortet wurde. Rechnen einige Forscher mindestens partiell mit Sonderüberlieferungen aus mündlicher oder schriftlicher Tradition, so halten andere die Aufnahme eines Teiles derselben in eine erweiterte Q-Fassung für möglich.2 Damit ist das Problem freilich nur etwas verschoben, denn die Frage bleibt, woher sie dann in Q einflossen.