In any religion unique authority is assigned by its adherents to the words of its founder, whether written by the founder himself or narrated of him by others; and Christianity is no exception to the rule. The circulation in the Primitive Church of Sayings of Christ is an indication that this was so from very early days. Dr Dibelius has given reasons for believing that the words of Jesus were collected at an early date explicitly as words of the Lord, and therefore inspired; that these collections were definite as regards both their authority and their limits; and that they were almost certainly in Greek; for no trace has been found of any written Aramaic tradition, unless we suppose that Papias had such a collection in mind in what he wrote (about A.D. 140) about St Matthew's Gospel. If the document known as Q existed, then it was such a collection, perhaps the most authoritative of several.

Die folgenden Ausführungen wollen keine systematisch-theologische Würdigung der in dem Thema liegenden Problematik liefern. Sie sind vielmehr die einfache Interpretation einiger Denkmäler aus vorchristlicher und frühchristlicher Zeit, mag es sich um literarische oder auch um Denkmäler im eigentlichen Sinne handeln. Diese Interpretation knüpft an das an, was ich vor zwei Jahren in den Neutestamentlichen Studien für R. Bultmann ausgeführt habe. Mir liegt daran, das fast unlösliche Ineinander von biblischem Glauben an die Offenbarung Gottes in der Schöpfung and von griechischphilosophischer Theologie, die ich mit einem Ausdruck E. Sprangers Weltfrömmigkeit genannt habe, an diesen Denkmälern zu zeigen.

In this paper I wish to maintain that behind the two passages, Eph. i. 3–14 and I Pet. i. 3–12, lie forms of liturgical prayer, similar in structure, though not identical in content. I shall argue that the relation between each passage and the form which lies behind it is the same, namely that what we have is homily based on a form of prayer, and to some extent reproducing its words. Taken by itself, the evidence for the Ephesians passage is, I think, much stronger. It is possible there, with some show of plausibility, to restore, in its main outline, and some of its details, the original form. When taken together, the two passages add strength to each other.