Les rouleaux de la Mer Morte ont ramené l'attention sur la connaissance des secrets apocalyptiques. D'aprés W. D. Davies, ces documents fourniraient le milieu littéraire dans lequel il faudrait situer Matt. xi. 25–30; on se contente plus souvent de faire le rapprochement avec la sagesse en mystére de saint Paul. Pourquoi ne pas songer ègalement au logion de Matt. xiii. II ‘A vous il est donné de connaître les secrets du Royaume des cieux’ avec ses parallèles Luc viii. 10 et Marc iv. II? On pourrait tenter l'interprétation de cette parole du Christ dans l'atmosphère des révélations apocalyptiques.

It is not always remembered that the important and influential work of Albert Schweitzer on the historical Jesus – both as historian of ‘the quest’ and as proponent of an apocalyptic Jesus who was messiah yet who proved amenable to Schweitzer's own emphasis on ethics – rests within the matrix of another, perhaps even broader topic, that of the origin and development of the Lord's Supper. For Schweitzer's first published work in biblical studies, his dissertation for the licentiate in theology degree in 1900, was a ‘Critical Presentation of Various Recent Historical Concepts of the Lord's Supper’, and his initial ‘Sketch of the Life of Jesus’, published 1901 and destined to be reiterated and expanded in his books on Jesus of 1906 and 1913, was Part II of a wider study on ‘The Lord's Supper in connection with the Life of Jesus and the History of Primitive Christianity’.

This essay does not attempt to give evidence for a particular answer to a question, but discusses the question itself. I would like first to present a sketch of the history of how the question has been handled, and then make some suggestions for its reformulation. The question is: ‘Are sayings of Christian prophets included in the canonical Gospels as sayings of Jesus?’

Unter Jesu Worten haben zwei Gleichnispaare, das von den Talenten Mt 25. 14–30 mit der Parallele von den Minen Lk 19. 11–27 und das von der Hochzeit Mt 22. 2–10 mit der Parallele von großen Abendmahl Lk 14. 16–24, die bisher nie beachtete Eigenart, sich mit der Parallele zu einer einheitlich vollständigen Fassung zu ergänzen, aus der kein Bestandteil als entbehrlich hätte entfernt werden dürfen. Das geschah jedoch in Verkennung der Sachlage durch die Redaktoren; so ergab sich die Vieldeutigkeit der überlieferten Fassungen, die Siegfried Schulz in seiner Untersuchung über die Redenquelle an den bisherigen Auslegungen bis ins Einzelne aufgewiesen hat. Einverständnis besteht jedoch darüber, daß die Verse Lk 19.11–12 und 14–15a sowie 27 zusammengehören und herauszulösen sind. Und es fügt sich eigentümlich, da–7 gleichfalls ein Einschub ist. Dabei wurde bisher übersehen, daß er den Lk-Einschub abschließend ergänzt. Darum geht es im Folgenden um die Rekonstruktion der Urgestalt von drei Gleichnissen Jesu, die aus seinem letzten Aufenthalt in Jerusalem überliefert wurden.

The letter addressed to the Christian Chruch in Colossae speaks to a definite situation of Christianity in Asia Minor. This situation is not known to us from direct reports, but has to be inferred from hints and allusions within the letter. Though an absolutely certain result cannot be attained in every respect, nevertheless a sufficiently clear picture emerges. From the polemical argument carried on in the second chapter of the letter one can gather a whole series of catch-words and themes which were used by a group that worked their way into the congregation and offered it a new teaching. What sort of a teaching was it, and why does it present such a dangerous threat to a congregation which wants to remain true to the apostolic Gospel?

In the second volume of their ICC commentary on Matthew, as they comment on the parable of the sower, W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison state that yields of thirty-fold, sixty-fold, or one hundred-fold ‘do not seem obviously out of the ordinary. We therefore register our disagreement with Jeremias. The yield in our parable is not spectacularly overdone.’ Davies and Allison are not alone in saying this of the yield of the seed that fell on the good soil in the parable, although most commentators do interpret the passage in terms of the miraculous yield of the seed sown on the good soil. This matter is of some importance in the interpretation of the parable, though, because if Davies and Allison are correct, then the parable has quite a different focus than that generally understood. The parable would then only highlight the variation in fruitage, not the miraculous yield.

Of all the New Testament writings, it is the Fourth Gospel which raises in their most acute form the problems which were to vex the Church in the Trinitarian controversies of the third and fourth centuries. Many of the arguments set forth both by the heterodox and by their orthodox opponents consisted of exegesis of Johannine texts, and at the centre of the Monarchian controversies of the third century and the Arian controversy of the fourth was the question of the correct exegesis of John x. 30, I and the Father are one (ὡ ἕ ).

The words ⋯ βδελνσσóμενος τ⋯ εἴδωλα ἱεροσνλεῖς; have given constant trouble, as translations show. They appear in a subordinate passage but they deserve attention. The immediate context is clear. It appears that God will punish sinners of every race and culture, but those subject to the Law of Moses will be judged by that Law (Rom 2.12). It is not a nullity. Nevertheless the Judgment will apply a law of conscience to all, including them (Rom 2.15–16).