hatte, überschätzt zu sein. Indessen läßt sich darüber streiten. Sodann scheint mir auch die Nachwirkung platonischer und stoischer Gedanken, die zweifellos wahrzunehmen ist, überschätzt zu sein. Das liegt z.T. daran, daß der Verf. das Corpus Hermeticum zu sehr als eine Einheit nimmt und die Analyse, die W. Bousset 1914 bei der Besprechung von Jos. Krolls ‘Lehren des Hermes Trism.’ in den Gött. Get. Anz. gegeben hat, nicht berücksichtigt, sowenig wie das genannte Buch von H. Jonas. So sind m.E. diejenigen Partien des C. Herm., die für das Verstandnis der joh.

Is it unfair to say that the ethical teaching of the N.T. is a step-child of scholarship? Over against ten books on N.T. theology one can hardly find one work on N.T. ethics. This holds good both for genera; surveys and for monographs. It goes without waying that the moral implications and consequences of the new faith are not absolutely neglected, but on the whole the doctrinal aspect has been stressed far more than th4e ethical. It is not my task at the present moment to explain this fact, but it did not seem out of place to call special attention to this ‘under-developed country’. Work in this part of the field is not at all superfluous. Therefore the discussion of a particular point in a paper for this general meeting will be fully justified.

The close affinity in diction and style, and also in the association of ideas, between the first two chapters of the Gospel according to Luke and the great mass of ancient Hebrew literature—even occasionally actual verbal agreements with passages from the thirteenth chapter of Judges or from the story of Samuel's birth—might indicate, yet does not incontrovertibly prove, that the Greek record of Luke i, ii is ultimately derived from a Hebrew literary source. There is nothing inherently impossible in the idea that a Greek writer, thoroughly familiar with the literary character of the O.T. translation and desirous of proceeding with his own narration of the Birth and Boyhood of Jesus, could have intentionally and successfully imitated the style of the Greek Old Testament. He might have adopted Septuagintal mannerisms of phraseology in the belief that a Hebraizing style would be the appropriate means to evoke a congenial atmosphere for the setting of his story. We know from literary competitions in our own time that Englishmen of the twentieth century are capable of imitating convincingly the styles of Ronsard or Rabelais. What is possible for them today would not have been impossible, in his day, for the editor of Luke, who was a man of great literary accomplishment.

Our earliest undisputed authority for the authorship of each of the four Gospels is Irenaeus (III, I, I). ‘Matthew (cf. Matthaeus enim apostolus, Iren. III, 9, I) published a gospel in writing also among the Hebrews in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel and founding the church in Rome. But after their departure (death?) Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter (cf. Marcus interpres et sectator Petri, Iren. III, 10, 6) — he also transmitted to us in writing the things which Peter used to preach.

Papias is primarily of interest to us as the last link in a chain of oral tradition going back to the Apostles, and for the information—difficult as it sometimes is to interpret—which he preserved about Peter and Mark, Matthew, Philip, and the Elder John. We are profoundly thankful for his curiosity and for his belief ‘that things out of the books did not profit me so much as the utterances of a voice which liveth and abideth’, even if some of the oral traditions which he wrote down appear to us legendary, e.g. the report attributed to John, the disciple of the Lord, of the Lord's teaching on the material delights of Paradise, and the account which Papias gives of the death of Judas.

No discussion of the relationship between the Fourth and Second Gospels can ignore the striking verbal agreement περιπάτει (John v. 8 and 11; Mark ii. 9 and 11), particularly in view of the inclusion of the late κράβαττος, so frowned upon by the purists and avoided by Matthew and Luke in the parallel passages.

The Hebrew scrolls newly discovered near Qumran at the north-western shore of the Dead Sea, which are attracting more and more the attention of New Testament students, are also very important for the evolution of Jewish Gnosticism. One may think especially of the fact that in some of these manuscripts the Hebrew word for ‘knowledge’ and related terms occur with a striking frequency, and that the dualistic cosmology of the new texts seems to be rather like certain fundamental ideas of Gnosticism. Since the archaeological evidence now proves that the Qumran manuscripts are pre-Christian, or were at least written in the first Christian century, one may very well state that new light can now be thrown upon the much debated question of a pre-Christian, Jewish Gnosticism.

The interpretation of the closing words of Matt. v. 18 has been bedevilled by doctrinal preconceptions and the misapprehension of a characteristically Semitic mode of expression. The attitude towards the Law expressed by Jesus in Matt. v. 17–20 is one of unqualified acceptance and approval. The Law is to be observed in every detail and there is no suggestion that there is any limit in time to its observance. The Law is eternal, and its most minute prescription retains its validity (v. 18), i.e. so long as the created world endures, to the end of time. The difficulty that confronts the exegete is to reconcile the closing, clause γένται with this unambiguous statement regarding the duration of the Law. If the sense of were similar in the two instances it would be natural to treat as a variant term for , in which case γενέθαι would be the antithesis of , and the two clauses would have opposite meanings. Again, to suggest, as is commonly done, that the last clause of v. 18 is to be understood—like the similar expressions in Matt. xxiv. 34 // Mark xiii. 30 // Luke xxi. 32—as referring to the parousia or to those works of Jesus which are unconnected with the observance of the Law is to rob the categorical assertion of its absolute character and to involve the speaker in self-contradiction. The two clauses introduced by cannot be treated as co-ordinate or synonymous.

It was the merit of the Tübingen school that it recognized that controversy was no late arrival in the history of the Christian Church, but that the earliest stages of its development were marked, perhaps marred, by it. Where that school erred was in supposing that the books of the New Testament can be placed out at the various stages of the conflict, so that between them they yield a picture of the course it took. Where today an attempt is made to learn from their work, it is admitted that the New Testament is much less a record of the clash between Jerusalem and Paul than a selection from the literature of the Gentile Church, Pauline or non-Pauline, with Jerusalem not directly represented. Hence, when Hans Joachim Schoeps wishes to do justice to the defeated party, he has to have recourse very largely to extra-canonical sources.1 S. G. F. Brandon, with the same end in view,2 has to resort again and again to conjecture to fill out the scanty evidence available. All our reconstructions of Christian origins are vitiated by the fact that we have so little material from the Mother Church.

By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant, by circumcision, and baptism and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt, as it was written, ‘No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof’ (Exod. xii. 48). Baptism was in the wilderness just before the giving of the Law: as it is written, ‘Sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes’ (Exod. xix. 10). And sacrifice, as it is said, ‘And he sent young men of the children of Israel which offered burnt offerings’ (Exod. xxiv. 5). And so in all ages when a Gentile is willing to enter into the Covenant, and gather himself under the wings of the Shekinah of God, and take upon him the yoke of the Law, he must be circumcised and be baptized and bring a sacrifice. As it is written, ‘As you are, so shall the strangerbe’ (Num. xv. 55). How are you? So likewise the stranger (or proselyte) through all generations: by circumcision and baptism, and bringing of a sacrifice. And what is the stranger' sacrifice? A burnt offering of a beast, or two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, both of them for a burnt-offering. And at this time when there is no sacrificing, they must be circumcised and be baptized; and when the Temple shall be built, they are to bring the sacrifice. A stranger that is circumcised and not baptized, or baptized and not circumcised, is not a proselyte till he be both circumcised and baptized: and he must be baptized in the presence of three…. Even as they circumcise and baptize strangers, so do they circumcise and baptize servants that are received from the heathen into the name of servitude…. The Gentile that is made proselyte and the slave that is made free, behold he is like a child new born.