The question whether John used one or more of the Synoptic Gospels continues to be hotly debated. It is obvious that John is indebted to other sources for much of his information. But where his material overlaps the Synoptic Gospels, it is more difficult to decide whether he is using independent traditions or not. In one case, however, it can be shown that he had a saying of Jesus which he received in a Greek form transmitted independently of the forms in Mark and Q. All go back to a common Aramaic original. The saying in question is Jn. 3. 3, 5.

It seemed appropriate that a lecture given to honour a scholar whose concerns have been centred on the Old Testament, by someone whose field is the New Testament, should link together these two topics. I have therefore chosen to consider one aspect of the problem of the way in which the Old Testament is interpreted by New Testament authors: more specifically, the authority ascribed by one of them – St Paul – to the Old Testament in relation to the revelation of God in Christ.

Nur dem unbefangenen Leser kann unser Thema als Tautologie erscheinen; die historisch-kritisch arbeitende Exegese weiß seit Johann Salomo Semier (1725–1791), daß der Autor der Johannesapokalypse nicht mit demjenigen des Johannesevangeliums identisch sein kann. Zwei Jahrhunderte lang haben protestantische Ausleger die sprachlichen und theologischen Unterschiede zwischen Evangelium und Briefen des Johannes einerseits und der Offenbarung des Johannes andererseits zusammengestelit und ausgewertet; die scharfsinnigen Beobachtungen wichtiger Gemeinsamkeiten und Berührungspunkte durch katholische Kommentatoren schienen entwertet durch das apologetische Bemöhen, den Apostel und Zebedaiden Johannes als den Autor des Evangeliums, der Briefe und der Apokalypse des Johannes zu erweisen.

In the development of Christology in the primitive church, the emergence of the worship of Jesus is a significant phenomenon. In the exclusive monotheism of the Jewish religious tradition, as distinct from some other kinds of monotheism, it was worship which was the real test of monotheistic faith in religious practice. In the world-views of the early centuries A.D. the gap between God and man might be peopled by all kinds of intermediary beings – angels, divine men, hypostatized divine attributes, the Logos – and the early church's attempt to understand the mediatorial role of Jesus naturally made use of these possibilities. In the last resort, however, Jewish monotheism could not tolerate a mere spectrum between God and man; somewhere a firm line had to be drawn between God and creatures, and in religious practice it was worship which signalled the distinction between God and every creature, however exalted. God must be worshipped; no creature may be worshipped. For Jewish monotheism, this insistence on the one God's exclusive right to religious worship was far more important than metaphysical notions of the unity of the divine nature. Since the early church remained – or at least professed to remain – faithful to Jewish monotheism, the acknowledgement of Jesus as worthy of worship is a remarkable development. Either it should have been rejected as idolatry – and a halt called to the upward trend of christological development – or else its acceptance may be seen with hindsight to have set the church already on the road to Nicene theology.

The Apocalypse is not a random jumble of ‘prophecies’: it shows clear evidence of ordering. The problem, however, is to know on what principles the ordering has been done, and which principle has been dominant or primary, and which less influential. For example, the Seven Letters, Seals, Trumpets and Bowls seem at first sight to dominate the book; but then every commentator has some embarrassment in explaining the intrusions of chs 7 and 10–11, let alone the second half of the book. Even then, we need an explanation of the symbolism of the seals, trumpets and bowls, which is in no obvious sense given: so, on their own, the four Sevens are only a partial answer to the question.

(1) Dans le domaine des recherches concernant le Nouveau Testament au cours des deux dernières décennies, un grand rôle a été joué par la thèse de la diversification de la christologie primitive. Contrairement à l'affirmation plus ancienne de Wilhelm Bousset sur l'origine pagano-chrétienne du titre Kyrios-Seigneur et aux théories plus anciennes sur l'évolution dialectique du jeune christianisme soutenues par l'ecole de Töbingen, il est symptomatique pour la situation actuelle qu'on suppose une origine indépendante des divers motifs, titres et idées qui ont influencé la façon de penser de l'eglise primitive. En résumant les résultats de ce travail, il faut compter au moins avec les types suivants de la réfléxion christologique: Dans un domaine, Jésus a été attendu comme un personnage apocalyptique (le plus souvent comme le Fils de l'homme) qui viendra pour juger a la fin du monde prévue pour bientôt (Lc. 12, 8s, Mc. 14, 62, 1 Th. 4, 16, cf. 1 Co. 16, 22, etc.); dans un autre milieu rassemblant les sentences de Jésus, il a été conçu comme la sagesse incorporée qui survit dans ses paroles (Mt. 11, 19; 12, 42;Jn. 8, 51; Ev. de Thom. log. 19), ailleurs il a été fâte comme thaumaturge et l'on collectionnait les histoires de ses actions puissantes (strate littéraire dont le sommaire est représenté par Jean 20, 30s) et enfin il y avait une christologie qui exprimait l'importance de Jésus principalement par les paroles concernant sa resurrection;ses images et termes ont été pris de l'apocalyptique juive. Des sentences courtes originelles concernant la résurrection (p. ex. Rm. 10, 9) on a vu naître dans le milieu nonjuif des formules dans lesquelles la résurrection est expliquée comme une élévation lors de laquelle Jésus assume la fonction du Fils de Dieu (Rm. 1, 3s; 2 Tm. 2, 8). Un autre développement du message fondamental ont été des for- mules de la foi telles que 1 Co. 15, 3b–5.

Four of those tractates from Nag Hammadi for which as a group the convenient but nebulous label ‘Sethian’ has been adopted use a strange and previously unknown designation for the primal Man that has so far defied satisfactory decipherment. The scholar last to venture a solution to the riddle prefaces his attempt, and a bibliographical litany of earlier attempts (including one of his own), with the discomforting admission that ‘eine voll befriedigende Deutung dieser Bezeichnung steht m. E. noch aus. Jede der bisher vorgeschlagenen Deutungen hat ihre offenkundigen Schwächen’.1 In this paper I propose to review and evaluate the interpretations that have so far been suggested and, at the risk of adding only another discordant note to the chorus, to offer what I believe is the correct solution, together with some suggestions as to the setting in which the name was formed, and why. It is of some significance for the history of early speculation about the prototypical Adam.

One of the dilemmas of the Fourth Gospel is that of the form and background of the first 18 verses designated as the Prologue. There has been much discussion with respect to the original form and literary unity of the underlying hymn which is thought to be the foundation of the Prologue.1 Of no less importance has been the debate concerning the Hintergrund of this hymn. Indeed, over the years there has been a variety of suggestions made as to its religious background.2

Pour autant que nous le sachions, c'est une lecture insolite que nous proposons des témoignages de Papias produits par Eusèbe de Césarée dans son ‘Histoire ecclésiastique’: lecture toute personnelle des textes, qui se veut de simple bon sens, indépendamment de l'immense littérature qui s'est accumulée au cours des siècles autour de l'evêque de Hiérapolis. En raison de l'antiquité et de l'autorité de ce témoin exceptionnel, les très rares fragments qui nous ont été conservés des ‘Exégèses’ de Papias constituent une pièce capitale du dossier relatif à la formation des évangiles notamment du deuxième; d'autant que la lecture des écrivains ecclésiastiques des premiers siècles laisse apparaître une certaine hésitation quant à la date à laquelle Marc aurait composé le sien. Aussi bien rien ne doit être négligà éclairer une question depuis si longtemps débattue.

Part of the Syriac textual tradition of Matthew 16. 18c attests the reading mukleē, ‘bars’, instead of πúλαι.1 The word mukleē is transparently loaned from Greek (μοχλóς). What is the exact significance of this interesting textual variant, which surely represents the wording of Tatian's Diatessaron and which may well be even older? One interpretation is that the mukleē are the bars which are part of, or stand for the sluice gates restraining the waters of the deep2.

The Thirty-fifth General Meeting of the Society was held at the University of Toronto, Canada, from 25–29 August 1980, under the Presidency of Professor X. Léon-Dufour. About two hundred and forty members, spouses and guests were present.