It may in the end be true that the Son of man problem is insoluble. The ultimate question, why Jesus spoke about himself as the Son of man, is inextricably intertwined with the problem of his self-consciousness. We can never know for sure what he meant by this self-designation till we are also able to tell how he looked upon himself, how he interpreted his own fate and destiny. On the other hand it is impossible to answer the latter question as long as we do not know the implications of the name he gave himself.

In dankenswerter Weise hat Egon Brandenburger das religionsgeschichtliche Problem der Herleitung der für Paulus konstitutiven Antithese Fleisch–Geist und des dazugehörigen Motivkomplexes neu aufgegriffen. Durch neue methodische Zielsetzung gelingt es ihm, die Theologie des Paulus von der Apokalyptik, von Qumran und von Philo her so anzuvisieren, daß sich zumindest neue fruchtbare Fragestellungen ergeben haben. Doch soll an dieser Stelle nicht auf Brandenburgers Konzeption als Ganze eingegangen werden. Vielmehr geht es hier lediglich um eine kritische Anfrage an seine Qumran-Interpretation, die m. E. einiger grundsätzlicher Korrekturen bedarf.

This article has three main purposes: (i) to discuss the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 25–37) in some detail to decide what form of discourse the historical Jesus, as distinct from the later tradition or the final redaction, intended it to be when originally given; (ii) to extrapolate from this one parable and investigate, but in lesser detail, the other major ‘exemplary stories’ in the parabolic teaching of Jesus and to ask whether there are any such authentically stemming from Jesus himself; (iii) on the basis of this analysis to raise certain problems and questions with regard to method in parable exegesis and to meaning in parable interpretation.

Early Christian literature leaves us with apparently conflicting traditions about the first appearance of the risen Lord, although these traditions can be reduced to at least two main classes. On the one hand, some writers give Peter pride of place; he heads the list in Paul's ‘official’ παράδοσις of I Corinthians xv, and takes priority in both Luke (xxiv. 34) and the late second-century Gospel of Peter (xiii. 57 – xiv. 60). On the other hand, some connect women with the first appearance; Matthew presents an albeit brief account of Jesus meeting the three women who had visited the tomb (xxviii. 9–10), whilst John (xx. 11–18) and the longer ending of Mark (xvi. 9) single out Mary Magdalene as the special recipient of the first appearance. As appearances of the resurrected kúpios came to acquire importance for the early Church in establishing apostolic authenticity and leadership, it is surprising that this second line of tradition persisted along with the contradictory ‘pro-Petrine’ material. Was it a source of embarrassment for those wishing to give pre-eminence to Peter? The question has usually been evaded because of the common supposition that Matthew was the first to ‘invent’ the tradition of such an appearance to women, so as to overcome ‘the impasse presented by Mark's (empty tomb) story’ before passing on towards the great summation of his Gospel; but it is also possible to affirm that Matthew (who is pro-Petrine enough, cf. xvi. 17–19) made astonishingly little out of this appearance, sparing as his comments are.