In a recent article Helmut Koester argues against the current practice of distinguishing between canonical Gospels, on the one hand, and apocryphal gospels, on the other, and treating the apocryphal gospels as ‘step children’ of New Testament research. Koester maintains that there are a number of the ‘apocryphal’ gospels which ‘belong to a very early stage in the development of gospel literature — a stage that is comparable to the sources which were used by the gospels of the New Testament.’ One of those texts to which he points is the Nag Hammadi tractate the Apocryphon of James. This paper is an attempt to legitimize one ‘step child’ of New Testament scholarship as a valid source for investigating the earliest levels of the Jesus traditions.

In an earlier paper, one of the co-authors pointed out that the extant Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Thomas employed a common source which contained a certain series of parables and sayings of Jesus concerning John the Baptist. The basic structure of this ‘Baptist-sequence’ is best preserved by far in Matthew's Gospel, although various details of the original wording are better preserved in Luke and Thomas. It was suggested that one way of explaining these phenomena was to suppose the existence of a Proto-Matthew, of which the extant Matthew's Gospel contains revisions made in part under the influence of Mark's Gospel.

Der geographische und chronologische Rahmen des vierten Evangeliums weicht bekanntlich stark von demjenigen der synoptischen Evangelien ab, und ein Blick auf die Auslegungsgeschichte zeigt, wie schwierig es ist, den Bauplan des Buchesnachzuzeichnen. Natürlich ist die Frage eng verwoben mit dem Problem der Einheitlichkeit des vierten Evangeliums, auf das hier nicht weiter eingegangen werden kann.

Soll im Rahmen einer ‘Politischen Theologie’ nach deren neutestamentlichen Grundlagen gefragt werden, dann ist implizit immer auch nach dem Stellenwert der paulinischen Mahnung zur Unterordnung unter die übergeordneten Gewalten in Röm 13. 1–7 gefragt. Die Relevanz gerade dieses Textes ist vornehmlich auch durch seine ausgeprägte Wirkungsgeschichte mitverursacht. Die Definition der Relation von Gott und weltlicher Obrigkeit mit Hilfe einer Verbindung profaner und theologischer Topoi läßt den Text in der Kirchengeschichte zu einem ‘locus classicus’ der Auseinandersetzung von Staat und Kirche werden. Die differente Rezeption der Textaussagen umreißt den Problemhorizont jeder heutigen Auslegung: Im Sinne der klassischen katholischen Exegese kann der Text als ein Stück natürlicher Theologie interpretiert werden. Aus den die Mahnung zur Unterordnung begriindenden Versen lb–3a kann demzufolge eine Staatslehre mit metaphysischem Gehalt deduziert werden. Diese Auslegungstradition setzt sich als Nebenlinie in dem Interesse konservativ-lutherischer Theologie an einer biblischen Legitimation für die Rekonstituierung der augustinischen Trennung des ‘regnum civile’ von dem ‘regnum Christi’ fort. Beide Interpretationsmodelle werden auch in der heutigen exegetischen Forschung vertreten.

In a learned and thoughtful article with the same title in this journal, Professor Johannes Beutler1 makes the points concerning John's use of Psalm 42/43 which are outlined below. Let me express my appreciation for Professor Beutler's work by presenting several alternatives.

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.

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 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.

Perhaps it is foolhardy at present to attempt to understand what the first evangelist means when he uses the term Ό υίòς το άνωρώπου. Scholars are divided about the significance of the term both in Jewish eschatological speculation and as an Aramaic idiom. They are divided over the contribution of Jesus and of the early church to the Son of man sayings in the synoptics. Did Jesus preach about a future Son of man who would play a role in the eschatological drama and the church identify Jesus with that figure? Did Jesus use an Aramaic idiom which was misunderstood by a church interpreting their experience of the resurrection in the light of Daniel 7? Is ‘the Son of man’ a title, and is it a Christological title or a symbol for the saints? It is not surprising that articles are appearing with titles like: Can the Son of man problem be solved?

In a previous article, ‘Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse’, I discussed certain features of the tradition-history of three parousia parables: the Thief (Matt. 24. 43 f. par. Luke 12. 39 f.; Gosp. Thomas 21 b, 103), the Watching Servants (Luke 12. 35–38; cf. Matt. 24. 42; Mark 13. 33–37;Gosp. Thomas 21 b, 103), and the Servant in Authority (Matt. 24. 45–51 par. Luke 12. 42–48). In the cases of the Thief and the Watching Servants, there is remarkably good evidence outside the Gospels for the popularity of these parables in the early church (1 Thess. 5. 2; 2 Pet. 3. 10; Rev. 3. 3, 20; 16. 15; Did. 16. 1), and on the basis of this evidence, as well as the Gospels, I suggested that the forms in which these parables and allusions to them occur can best be explained by a process of ‘deparabolization’, in which the narrative form of a parable is partly or wholly replaced by more direct application of the imagery of the parable to the hearers or readers, as metaphor or simile. Both because of their extensive use in early Christian paraenesis and because of their amenable subject-matter, the parables of 130 the Thief and, especially, the Watching Servants were subject to considerable deparabolization.

The problem of whether the meal conducted by Jesus (Mt. 26. 17–30: Mk. 14. 12–26; Lk. 22. 7–22; Jn. 13), was a Passover Seder is a matter of long-standing discussion and need not be entered into or documented here.1 What deserves further attention, however, is the light shed on this question by 1 Cor. 10. 16, which was recently considered in the pages of this journal.2 In this discussion the author cites the view of others that the cup of Mt. 26. 27 refers to the cup of blessing accompanying the Grace After Meals, birkhat hamazon, or in terms of the cup-sequence of the Passover Seder, the third cup.3 The author further indicates that the same scholars generally view ‘the cup of blessing’ at 1 Cor. 10. 16, to be the kosshel berakhah, and take this term to be a technical one that refers to the cup of thanksgiving for food, birkhat hamazon, or again, the third cup of the Passover Seder. Cohn-Sherbok argues, however, that Mt. 26. 27 refers to the fourth cup of the Seder, which accompanies the birkhat hashir, the blessing of song, which comes at the end of Hallel (M. Pes. 10. 7; B. Pes. 118 a).4 Finally, in discussing Paul's phrase, to poterion tes eulogias (1 Cor. 10. 16), Cohn-Sherbok argues that it need not refer to any particular cup of the Seder, and might mean generally a cup consecrated by Jesus.5 16, to be the kosshel berakhah, and take this term to be a technical one that refers to the cup of thanksgiving for food, birkhat hamazon, or again, the third cup of the Passover Seder. Cohn-Sherbok argues, however, that Mt. 26. 27 refers to the fourth cup of the Seder, which accompanies the birkhat hashir, the blessing of song, which comes at the end of Hallel (M. Pes. 10. 7; B. Pes. 118 a).4 Finally, in discussing Paul's phrase, to poterion tes eulogias (1 Cor. 10. 16), Cohn-Sherbok argues that it need not refer to any particular cup of the Seder, and might mean generally a cup consecrated by Jesus.5

The short study by G. J. Cuming in the January, 1981, issue of New Testament Studies, pp. 283–5, has raised again the question of the interpretation of the verb iiroriadrjuev in 1 Cor. 12. 13. Along with most modern commentators Cuming rejects a reference to the Lord's Supper and finds instead a reference to the rite of baptism administered by affusion

In NTS 25/4 (1979), pp. 523–525 John W. Wenham attempts to unravel the formerly obscure variants in Mark 14. 30, 68 and 72. With the use of common sense, and a detective skill with the traces of alternative readings, he finds that the shorter readings are right. At verse 30 one should understand ‘before the cock crows, thou shalt deny me thrice’; at verse 68 no reference to the cock should appear; and at verse 72 we read ‘and the cock crew’ and ‘before the cock crows, thou shalt deny me thrice’. This is, after all, what St John says.