It was in 1945 or 1946 that a group of Egyptian peasants, digging on the site of an early Christian cemetery near the village of Nag-Hammadi, unearthed an urn containing thirteen manuscripts. The contents of this urn have subsequently proved to be of epoch-making importance for the study of the New Testament and of early Church history.

In those early stages a few leaves of the papyrus were unfortunately burned. But the collection as we have it today comprises between eight hundred and one thousand papyrus leaves, most of them in remarkably good condition. On examination these have proved to constitute a library of forty-nine treatises written in Coptic about the fourth century a.d., and in several different dialects. It is clear that so fine a library must be attributed to the work of many different copyists, whose work extends over a period of more than a century. This in turn suggests that a religious community flourished at Nag-Hammadi some time in the course of the fourth century, and from the contents of the manuscripts it is obvious that its members must have been adherents of the dangerous and widespread heresy which extends, in manifold terms, from the second to the eighth centuries a.d., and which is nowadays known as Gnosticism.

The manuscripts found their way to Cairo in three separate lots. One of them, now entitled the ‘Jung Codex’, was illegally smuggled out of Egypt by a Belgian antiquarian, bought in America, and given to Dr Jung as an eightieth birthday present.

In January 1957 Professor Oscar Cullmann was invited to lecture in Zurich on the subject, ‘Primitive Christendom and The Ecumenical Problem’. Referring to the collection made by the early Gentile Christians for the Jewish Christians, he proposed that the separated Christians of today make a reciprocal collection at least once a year, as an expression of brotherhood. In a later article, Professor Cullmann defined the significance and the form of this collection more narrowly, and answered objections. We would like to reproduce his thoughts here and to assess their value.

For over fifty years Catholics and non-Catholics have been praying during the same octave every year for unity in faith. This is a promising sign, and we would not be far wrong if we saw here the basic fact and the supreme form of the movement towards re-union. Further, we note as novelty that theological work, which formerly accentuated differences, is now in many respects leading scholars back together along various directions. Thus, for example, for some twenty or thirty years there has been a lively and fruitful exchange in Biblical studies between Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes. Even in the sphere of systematic theology there have been many changes. Without applauding every attempt to seek a rapprochement in content and method, we must not underestimate the value of this tendency, first to reach agreement on several points, and then to make possible a non-polemical, even friendly conversation on the points which still divide. Cullmann is not content with this.