Fifteen years ago, at the meeting in Gwatt, Switzerland (1967), when I read my first paper before the Society, I gave it the title: ‘Les femmes au tombeau. Etude de la rédaction matthéenne’. It was a redactional study of Mt. 28. 1–10, with a special concentration on the verses 9–10, the appearance of Jesus to the women, and its parallel in Jn. 20. 17. My paper today could be entitled: Fifteen years later. Many things have changed in the course of these years. An important exegetical contribution has been devoted to the empty tomb stories in the gospels and, more significantly, the scholarly discussion on ‘John and the Synoptics’ has been brought to the foreground. To mention only the Journal of our Society: July 1980, ‘John and the Synoptics: Some Dimensions of the Problem’, by D. M. Smith; April 1981, ‘John and the Synoptic Gospels: A Test Case’, by B. Lindars.

In the early 1950s a cartoon appeared in Punch depicting a British motorist able at last to resume touring the continent after World War II. The first scene shows a straight, tree-lined chaussée, with the driver saying to his passenger, ‘Now for these lovely straight French roads’. In the next scene they quickly come to a barrier with the warning, ‘Déviation 19 kilomètres’.

With this issue of New Testament Studies Professor Robin Wilson relinquishes the Editorship which he has held with great distinction since October 1977. He has been associated closely with the journal for a much longer period - in fact since the very first volume. From 1967 to 1977 he worked alongside Professor Matthew Black as Associate Editor. Almost immediately after taking up a teaching appointment at the University of St Andrews in 1954, the very year New Testament Studies first appeared, he began to help Professor Black with the journal. In the first volume he contributed a detailed review of the first full account in English of the Nag Hammadi documents. (NTS I, pp. 309–13). This is one of the many scholarly interests which, we hope, will continue to engage his attention in a long and happy retirement.

In Luke 24. 13–32, we read of two disciples (Cleopas – who may or may not be the Clopas of John 19. 25 – and an unnamed disciple) being joined on the evening of the day of Jesus' Resurrection as they walk to Emmaus (a village of uncertain location, but said by Luke to be about seven miles from Jerusalem) by the Risen Lord, whom they recognise only after they recline at table with him and he breaks bread and distributes it to them (24. 30–31). Their visitor then abruptly disappears (24. 31) and they return to Jerusalem to tell the Eleven (24. 35).

Where does the gospel of John fit into the picture of early Christianity? The present paper is an attempt to make a contribution towards the solution of this puzzle by focussing on the author's christology. It attempts a delineation of the central structure, then goes on to investigate its relationship with major clusters of Johannine christological tradition.

One of the dominant motifs of the Fourth Gospel is the centrality of Christ for any kind of relationship between man and God. This theme at least stands out as a main purpose of the author, for he sets out to persuade his readers ‘that Jesus is the Christ’, and that believing they ‘may have life in his name’ (20. 31). What is more, he points out the superiority of the revelation in and through Jesus Christ (1. 17;3. 13) as compared with all other claims to offer revelation about God. Whether the author was seeking to persuade non-believers of the truth of the Christian message or Christians to remain faithful to the faith which they already had is much disputed. As far as the present discussion is concerned, however, it will be assumed that the gospel is directed primarily to those who were believers already, rather than being evangelistic in outlook, and is intended to dissuade Jewish-Christians from abandoning their new allegiance to Christ.

In den fünfziger Jahren gab es im Blick auf die Aussagen über Jesu Tod und Auferstehung in der Apostelgeschichte einen erstaunlich weit verbreiteten Konsens: Diese Aussagen galten als Bestandteil des alten urchrist-lichen Kerygmas. Umfang und Inhalt dieses Konsenses möchte ich an der Position von Haenchen verdeutlichen. Seine Neubearbeitung der Apostelgeschichte im Meyerschen Kommentarwerk erschien zum erstenmal im Jahre 1956. Was an diesem Kommentar neu war, hat Haenchen selbst spater so gesehen: ‘Hier kam endlich die Bedeutung der schriftstellerischen Komposition des Lukas zur verdienten Geltung, der bisweilen fast ex nihilo zu schaffen scheint.’ Zu den Reden der Apostelgeschichte meinte Haenchen, wie schon mancher vor ihm, Lukas habe ‘von dem Vorrecht des antiken Historikers kräftig Gebrauch gemacht, seinen ‘Helden’ Reden in den Mund zu legen’; freilich verwende Lukas ‘das Kunstmittel der Reden fast immer völllig anders’ als jene Historiker, trage er doch in den Missions-reden ‘die Grundzüge der christlichen Verkündigung’ vor, während jene mit ihren Reden ‘den Charakter des Redners durchsichtig’ machten oder ‘die übergeschichtliche Bedeutung des Augenblicks’ herausstellten.

Ephesians is a most rewarding, pehaps inexhaustible hunting ground for everyone eager to detect traditions whose forms and contents were used in the composition of a New Testament book. While a quotation formula (‘he, or, it says’) is used only twice in Ephesians, in 4. 8 for a biblical Psalm and in 5. 14 for an awakening call of debatable origin, unmarked quotations and allusions abound. They stem from oral and written, hymnic and pose, liturgical and ethical, and perhaps mystical and proverbial traditions.

L'an dernier ce séminaire a été consacré à l'étude du récit johannique de la Passion. Les deux travaux principaux qui ont été présentés suivaient la méthode historico-critique, qui consiste essentiellement à rechercher la provenance des matériaux, leurs sources; concrètement il s'agissait surtout de préciser le rapport entre Jean et les synoptiques. Cette méthode s'identifie pratiquement à l'étude de l'histoire de la tradition et de la rédaction; elle est fondamentalement de type diachronique. Dans le séminaire de cette année, nous avons à examiner Jn. 20 et 21. Pour l'analyse du chapitre 20, qui nous a été confiée, la méthode suivie, comme nous l'annoncions déjà l'année dernière, sera nettement différente: nous voulons considérer ce chapitre comme une unité littéraire, et en faire une lecture synchronique. La conviction qui est à la base de cette approche, c'est que le texte est bien plus que l'agencement de matériaux préexistants: le tout est plus que la somme des parties. L'œuvre d'un grand auteur est une création nouvelle. Elle ‘réinvente ce qu'elle assimile, elle transfigure ce qu'elle accueille; sur le fond de la tradition qui la porte et la féconde, elle ouvre un avenir inédit’. En proposant une lecture synchronique du texte de Jean, nous voulons done chercher ‘le principe d'unité dynamique qui en constitue la cohérence interne’, autrement dit, sa finalité propre. C'est dans ce principe interne d'unité, et non dans la multiplicité des matériaux assemblés, que nous réussirons à trouver la vérité du texte.

Le prologue est le passage du IVe évangile qui a été le plus discuté, le plus souvent commenté. Dans les monographies des trente dernières années, deux grandes questions dominent la recherche: celle de la formation de cet hymne au Logos et celle de sa structure. Le premier problème, qui est celui de la critique littéraire, est au cœur des débats dans l'exégèse de langue allemande. Par centre, c'est en français qu'ont été écrites la plupart des études sur la structure; quelques-unes cependant ont aussi paru en anglais: les deux dernières en date sont celles de R. Alan Culpepper et de Ch. Homer Giblin. Nous voudrions, à notre tour, présenter une analyse de la structure du prologue, mais d'un point de vue à la fois littéraire et théologique.

In seiner Studie ‘Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17’ hat Ernst Käsemann ein Bild des Johannesevangeliums als das eines Dokuments einer Christo-logie des auf Erden schreitenden göttlichen Logos entworfen. Worte, die auf die Inkarnation hinweisen, wie 1. 14, deutet ernicht als Ausdruck der Selbsterniedrigung des Erlösers, sondern als ein Zeugnis seiner triumphie-renden Herrlichkeit, die die Barriere der Weltlichkeit überwindet und auch den sündigen Menschen erreicht.

Der See Kinnereth (Gennesaret) nimmt in der öffentlichen Wirksamkeit Jesu eine hervorragende Stellung ein. War doch das an seinem Nordufer gelegene Dorf Kefar-Nahum, nicht seine Heimatstadt Nazareth, der eigentliche Wohnort Jesu während seiner Tätigkeit in Galiläa (‘Er nahm seinen Wohnsitz in Kefar-Nahum’, Mt. 4. 13). Dies war ‘seine Stadt’ (‘Er fuhr über den See und kam in seine Stadt’, Mt. 9. 1). Von dort aus unternahm er verschiedene Verkündigungsreisen, aber immer wieder zog es ihn nach Kefar-Nahum zurück. Das ist auch nicht zu verwundern, denn wohl die Mehrzahl seiner zwölf Apostel stammte aus diesem oder benachbarten Orten, oder war zum mindesten dort wohnhaft: Simon bar Jona, Andrea bar Jona, Jakob bar Zebedai, Johanan bar Zebedai, Philippos, Mattai bar Alpai, vielleicht auch Thomas (vgl. Joh. 21. 2); von den übrigen, bis auf Nathanael bar Tolmai, der aus Kana stammte, wird nichts überliefert. Von Andreas und Petrus wird ausdrücklich berichtet, dass sie aus Bethsaida stammten; sie wohnten jedoch in Kefar-Nahum, und Jesus wohnte wahr-scheinlich in ihrem Hause.

Das Thema ‘Gesetz und Freiheit’ ist zweifellos einschlägig für die paulinische Theologie. Besonders die Beschäftigung mit den Briefen des Paulus an die Galater und an die Römer stellt den Exegeten vor die Frage, wie Paulus als gebürtiger Jude zu einer solchen Einschätzung des Gesetzes kommen konnte, so daß er es eindeutig in ein Gegenüber zur befreienden Kraft des Evangeliums von der Rechtfertigung des Sünders stellt. Gesetz und Evan-gelium, Gesetz und Glaube an Christus, Gesetz und Freiheit, das ist in der Tat das Problem, das den Apostel in seinen theologischen Bemühungen um die Erhellung des Kreuzesgeschehens und um die Erschließung des λόγος του˜ στανρόυ˜ (1 Kor. 1. 18) am meisten beschäftigt hat und das dem Exegeten zu erforschen aufgegeben ist, wenn er die Konstituenten der pauli-nischen Theologie zu ermitteln und zu systematisieren sucht. In neuerer Zeit sind zahlreiche Artikel, Monographien und Kommentar-Exkurse erschienen, die sich um das Problem des Gesetzes bemühen und die bei der Vielfalt ihrer Ansätze zugleich auch zeigen, daß die Interpretation des Gesetzes bei Paulus zu immer neuen Fragen führt. Dennoch erweist sich die Beschäftigung mit ihnen als sehr fruchtbar - sowohl für eine neutestamentlich-christliche als auch für eine gesamtbiblische, jüdisch-christliche Theologie.

Marie-Madeleine joua un rôle important à l'aube du christianisme, particu-lièrement le jour de Pâques puis dans les premiers temps de l'Eglise. En s'organisant, toutefois, la première communauté, marquée par son passé et son milieu, tendit à minimiser le rôle de cette femme et à reléguer à l'arrière-plan l'expérience faite et l'autorité qui en avait découlé. Tel sera le contenu de la première partie de cet article. Les deux autres discerneront la circulation et le développement de ces traditions sur Marie-Madeleine, qui furent recueillies, complétées et déformées non par les tenants de la grande Eglise, mais par divers milieux marginaux du christianisme, gnos-tiques, encratites puis monastiques.

In a meeting of the Fourth Gospel Task Force at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1972 I made an incidental remark to the effect that everyone agreed that Peter was depreciated in the Fourth Gospel. Immediately I was taken to task by other members of the Task Force! Since I had for years assumed that this was one of the few agreed upon conclusions of Fourth Gospel Research, I decided that it was time to research this area again and see what, in fact, the role of Peter actually is in this Gospel. In the intervening months the significant book coming out of the National Dialogue between Lutheran and Roman Catholic theologians entitled Peter in the New Testament, edited by Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann has appeared, with a chapter on ‘Peter in the Gospel of John’, which is especially relevant to this study.

The letter-spirit antithesis occurs in only three verses in the Pauline corpus: in Rom. 2. 29 (but note also v. 27), 7. 6, and 2 Cor. 3. 6. Nonetheless, it has traditionally been assigned a significance out of all proportion to its meagre textual base. Nor is this tendency difficult to account for: in terms so concise and memorable that they have passed into common speech, the antithesis captures a principle of manifest importance. Furthermore, those terms are sufficiently ambiguous (especially when separated from their original context) to allow thinkers of widely different views1 to see in them an expression of favourite themes of their own, and thus to lend to the latter the sanction of St Paul. Naturally, this leaves the exegete with the thankless task of remarking, ‘Very interesting – but not exactly what the apostle had in mind!’

The problem of continuity between Jesus and Paul is an old one, not least with regard to their respective attitudes towards the law. For example, in a private conversation some years ago Ernst Käsemann maintained a typically provocative position: (1) that Jesus' attitude to the law lies very much at the heart of Jesus' distinctiveness; (2) that Paul's attitude to the law was in fact the same; and (3) that Paul was independent of Jesus at this point. The conversation unfortunately had to end before we could pursue such further questions as whether in that case Paul was as religiously significant (distinctive? unique?) as Jesus. But it highlights an important problem: if Paul's attitude to the law, with its coordinate teaching about grace and justification, is central to the Christianity of the Gentile mission, then in what sense or degree is his teaching continuous with or dependent upon the traditions which stemmed from Jesus - if at all?

The hypothesis of Jude's Alexandrian origin, which was set forth by Ernst Th. Mayerhoff in 1835 and has been supported by D. Schenkel, W. J. Mangold, H. Holtzmann, O. Pfleiderer and James Moffatt, deserves to be revived.

Its associations with Syria and Palestine are superficial. Although the Apostolic Constitutions (Apost. Canon 85) canonizes all of the Catholic Epistles, it was not until the early sixth century that Philoxenus brought Jude into the Syriac canon. Eusebius (hist.eccl. ii,23.25; iii,25.3) placed it among the disputed writings. J. N. D. Kelly deems it unlikely that the readers ‘were converts from Palestinian Judaism, for the Gnostic libertinism attacked cannot have had much attraction for people brought up to reverence the Law’. There is no evidence that libertine Gnostics ever were a problem anywhere in Syria either. There is no point of contact between Jude and either the Judas Thomas apocrypha or Ignatius or the Docetic and Judaizing errors he opposed at home or on the road. Hans Windisch remarked that the suppression of the blood relationship of Judas with Jesus bespeaks the non-Palestinian origin of the letter. The readers of the epistle did respect both Judas and James, who represented Palestinian dynastic Christianity. But such esteem did not prevail at Antioch (Acts 15.1; Gal. 2. 12) or where Matthew (12. 46–50) and Mark (3. 31–35), with their bias against the Lord's brothers, were written. The Synoptic Gospels did not influence Jude. The remoteness of Rome and the West from Judaean Christianity argues against any association with our epistle. Neither 1 Clement nor the Shepherd of Hermas reveals an awareness of the problems with which Jude deals. The epistle has nothing in common with Revelation or Asian millenarianism; Papias did not even include Judas in his list of disciples. Justin's ignorance of Jude tends to forbid its connection with Ephesus or Rome.

It is my contention, discussed in a general way elsewhere, that the entire collection of material gathered in the New Testament, including the Gospel of Luke, was written by Judaic authors. Researches into targumic and Aramaic foundations of New Testament material will increasingly have significant influence upon our understanding of this factor in early Christianity. It will also play an important role in ascertaining the background to liturgical development and interrelationships. New Testament material was designed for congregations including both persons of Judaic faith, who accepted a form of Christology but remained observant of more or less Judaism, and of persons who came into the new movement called ‘The Way’ from the pagan world. In the latter instance, those who joined the new movement were already sebomenoi, and therefore in many ways were like the former group. But many others, perhaps the vast majority in both the eastern and European diaspora were coming into contact with Judaism, albeit a Christianized Judaism, for the first time.