Le titre donné à la présente étude s'explique ainsi: les trois textes que nous avons l'intention d'examiner (He ii. 3–4; Mc i.1 et Ac i. 1–2) ont ceci de commun qu'il y est question de ‘commencement’ sans qu'on perçoive avec netteté au premier abord ce qu'est ce commencement. La brève enquête que nous entreprenons permettra, croyons-nous, de le préciser. Nous préférons cependant adopter comme titre cette formule vague susceptible d'un sens très large: le commencement de l'économie chrétienne.

Vor reichlich 50 Jahren erschien M. Dibelius' ‘Formgeschichte des Evangeliums’ und R. Bultmanns ‘Geschichte der synopt. Tradition’. Das Gedenken an diese beiden großen Gelehrten wäre gewiß der gegebene Anlaß, in dem Eröffnungsvortrag unserer diesjährigen Konferenz ihr für unsere Wissenschaft bahnbrechendes Werk angemessen zu würdigen. Doch habe ich es vorgezogen, nicht einen Gedenk-und schon gar nicht einen Jubiläumsvortrag zu halten, sondern möchte versuchen, auf dem von den Altmeistern der Formgeschichte (FG) offen gelassenen und nur ansatzweise bestellten Feld der sogenannten Redaktionsgeschichte einige Schritte weiterzugehen.

This research was started with the desire to ascertain whether in the papyri of Didymus1, which were discovered at Toura in 1941, and whose regular publication began in 1962 and is still continuing2, it was possible to discover some fresh evidence for the existence of a later Alexandrian text of the Gospels.

The existence of this text is taken for granted by manuals of textual criticism today. B. M. Metzger, for instance, states that Alexandrian witnesses are to be divided into Proto-Alexandrian [466675 B Sahidic (in part), Clement of Alexandria, Origen (in part)] and Later Alexandrian [(C) L T W (in Luke I. 1–8, 12 and John) (X) Z Δ (in Mark) Ξ ψ (in Mark; partially in Luke and John) 33 579 892 1241 Bohairic]3.

The Church drew no distinction between such utterances by Christian prophets (ascribed to the ascended Christ) and the sayings of Jesus in the tradition, for the reason that even the dominical sayings in the tradition were not the pronouncements of a past authority, but sayings of the risen Lord, who is always a contemporary for the Church.

Four years ago Paul Ricoeur gave a lecture here in Tübingen on ‘Philosophische und theologische Hermeneutik’,and advised us theologians in particular to give thought to our current practice and teaching in regard to the understanding of the biblical text. A real understanding of texts means, according to Ricoeur ‘to understand oneself in the light of the text. It does not mean imposing upon the text one's own limited capacity for comprehension, but exposing oneself to the text…It is not the (understanding) subject who forms…understanding, but … the self is formed by the “subject matter” of the text’ If we follow Ricoeur and attempt to practise such a form of understanding of the biblical text, then in the present-day situation of theology and church we fall all too quickly into a dilemma. The splendid tradition of modern biblical criticism, founded in Tübingen above all by F. C. Baur, seems to conflict with Ricoeur's proposal. How are we, trained and dedicated as we are to the historical and critical investigation and analysis of the biblical texts, to return again to that readiness and capacity for exposing ourselves to the texts and understanding ourselves anew in the light of them, i.e. before the tribunal of the Bible? Would that not mean precisely to abandon the scientific ethos to which we have so long considered ourselves bound? It is a searching question and, as we well know, a source of distress to many. This distress is intensified when today we hear not a few Christians pronounce a decisive ‘No!’ to all scientific biblical criticism. For them ‘understanding oneself in the light of the text’ of the Bible is only possible when all the historical insights we possess in regard to the Bible have first been rejected. A study document of the Lutheran Missouri Synod affirms: ‘We reject the doctrine, which under the name of science has gained wide popularity in the church of our day, that Holy Scripture is not in all its parts the Word of God, but in part the word of man and hence does, or at least might, contain error. We reject this erroneous doctrine as horrible and blasphemous, since it flatly contradicts Christ and His holy apostles, sets up men as judges over the Word of God, and thus overthrows the foundation of the Christian church and its faith.’

To understand the Apostle Paul's attitude to his own people, it is necessary to place it in the perspective of his interpretation of the Gospel as a whole. Two main approaches to this have been taken. There are those who see Paul's point of departure in his conviction that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and in the transformation of the understanding of the messianic condition which this demanded. Others point out that in his epistles Paul seems to be most concerned, not with the messiahship of Jesus, but with the criticism of the Law, that Paul's call (misnamed a ‘conversion’) arose from a new insight into the meaning, function and weakness of the Law (and with this, the insight into the nature of the self), not from a new concept of messiahship. They claim that Judaism, always tolerant of diversity of belief even in messianic claimants, could absorb Paul's paradoxical doctrine of a crucified Messiah but could not overlook Paul's acceptance of Gentiles, sinners who did not observe the Law, as members of the people of God. This passed the limits of Jewish tolerance and brought down upon the Apostle the wrath of his own people. The two positions indicated are too polarized. The immediate cause of the Jewish opposition to Paul centred in the Law. But his understanding of the Law was inextricably bound up with the significance which he had come to ascribe to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and with the challenge that this issued to all the fundamental symbols of Jewish life. To isolate the criticism of the Law from the total messianic situation as Paul conceived it is both to exaggerate and to trivialize it. That criticism was a derivative of the place which Paul ascribed to Jesus as the Messiah.

Eines der schwierigsten Probleme der Überlieferung der Schriftzitate in der patristischen Literatur stellt sich durch die Beobachtung, daß Justin (J) und Pseudoklemens (PsKl) in nicht wenigen ‘Textmischungen’, d. h. Verbindungen von Zitattexten insbesondere aus den synoptischen Evangelien, zumindest teilweise miteinander übereinstimmen. Zwar handelt es sich nur um sechzehn vergleichbare Zitate, so daß angesichts der großen Zahl von alttestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schriftbelegen bei J und PsKl man fragen könnte, ob dieses Phänomen in der Forschung nicht überschätzt worden ist. Jedoch erhält es ein besonderes Gewicht, wenn man den nach W. Sanday, W. Bousset, M. v. Engelhardt und E. Lippelt durch A. J. Bellinzoni geführten Nachweis für gelungen ansieht, wonach Justin neben den synoptischen Evangelien und anderen frühchristlichen Überlieferungen in seinen Zitaten eine schriftliche nachsynoptische Evangelienharmonie benutzte. Von hier aus ist dann der Schluß nahegelegt, daß die Justin-Zitate zusammen mit den Paralleltexten bei späteren Kirchenvätern eine Vorstufe oder gar die Grundlage für Tatians Diatessaron darstellen. Allerdings hängt für die Bildung eines begründeten Urteils viel davon ab, daß nicht nur Justins Belege, sondern auch die Parallelen in der patristischen Überlieferung eingehend beachtet werden. Dies ist in Bellinzonis breit angelegter Arbeit in Hinsicht auf PsKl nur eingeschränkt der Fall. Daher füllt die bei der Harvard University in Cambridge/Mass. eingereichte, kürzlich veröffentlichte Dissertation von L. L. Kline eine Lücke, indem sie die These Bellinzonis durch Untersuchung der Schriftzitate in den Pseudoklementinen zu bestätigensucht. Darf man sagen, daß die Evangelienharmonie-Hypothese nunmehr über ein solides Fundament verfügt, von dem die künftige Forschung ausgehen kann? Diese Frage soll im folgenden kritisch untersucht und beantwortet werden.

Pauvreté des moyens d'expression, richesse des effets: parmi tous les écrits du Nouveau Testament, c'est dans le quatrième évangile que cette réussite est la plus visible. Comment en rendre compte? Par le génie de l'évangéliste qui, ne disposant que d'un instrument linguistique sommaire, s'en est servi habilement. Discernement des temps, emploi du verbe au début de la phrase, casus pendens, répétitions adversatives, chiasmes: ces particularités ont été signalées, en fonction du problème relatif à la langue originaire du livre, grecque ou araméenne, et conséquemment du milieu culturel (Mutterboden) où il vit le jour.

Within the story of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple there are un-mistakable tensions. Two themes compete for the attention of the reader: on the one hand, the surprising intelligence of the young Jesus (47); on the other hand, his awareness that God, as his real Father, has claims upon him, to which his parents have to take second place (49). Luke could have given Jesus' statement on his obligations to his Father without describing the way in which he astonished the learned men in the temple. Alternatively, he could have brought out the intelligence of the child Jesus without quoting the words of 49, which seem to disparage his parents. One can see a relation-ship between the two themes, though it is not given in the narrative itself. The interpretation of the pericope stands or falls on the elucidation of the relationship between the two elements of the episode.

No other passage of scripture recurs so frequently in allusion or quotation in the christological expressions of NT times as Ps. cx. I. In this expression we stand in continuity with christological thought from the very early beginnings of its development. The purpose of the following study is to investigate the use of Ps. cx. 1 in relationship to this development, and to examine the function and significance of its motifs at various points within the complex variety of NT christological traditions.

Engeance pacifique, les spécialistes du Nouveau Testament et des origines chrétiennes sont souvent irrités par le grand retentissement que connaissent des théories tapageuses présentées au public par des personnes plus ou moins qualifiées. Nous avons quelque peine à admettre que des travaux aussi contestables monopolisent l'attention d'un grand nombre de lecteurs et leur dissimulent les recherches scientifiques sérieuses dont les auteurs ne visent ni au scandale ni à un succès facile. Toutefois, il est relativement aisé de traiter ces phénomènes déplaisants par l'indifférence ou, le cas échéant, par l'ironie.

William R. Farmer's history of the debate on the Synoptic Problem contains the following footnote:

Baur answered Hilgenfeld in his Das Markuseaangeliwn, Tübingen, 1851, and the two carried on the debate for years in the Theologische Jahrbücher. This debate is worthy of thorough analysisand evaluation.

When I was invited to read a paper at this year's meeting at Tübingen with the understanding that the paper should deal if possible with some aspect of the work of the Tübingen school of the mid-nineteenth century, this seemed to be an appropriate occasion to take up Professor Farmer's challenge.

Die Gesetzesinterpretation bei Paulus und Jesus soll durch ein erstes Eingehen auf die Beiträge der modernen Toposforschung gefördert werden. Dieses Vorhaben ruht auf der Voraussetzung, daß biblische Exgeten sich nach wie vor den Methoden der literaturwissenschaftlichen Forschung verpflichtet wissen, und daß die moderne Toposforschung für die Exegese von besonderem Interesse ist. Dieses Interesse wird allerdings im negativen Sinn dadurch bestimmt, daß im Fall der Gesetzesinterpretation bei Paulus oder Jesus methodisch immer noch weitgehend einseitig, wenn nicht gar ausschließlich historisch oder theologisch vorgegangen wird. Im positiven Sinn aber wird das Interesse an der modernen Toposforschung dadurch bestimmt, daß man in der literaturwissenschaftlichen Arbeit, zu der ja die biblische Exegese gehört, neuerdings von ‘radikalen Veränderungen’ spricht, die angeblich notwendig sind angesichts der Forderung, daß in dieser Arbeit ‘nach den Regeln eines expliziten Argumentationsschemas argumentiert… und über den Status der verwendeten Daten, Begründungen, Stützungshypothesen etc. entschieden und die empirische Qualität von argumentativen Ergebnissen diskutiert werden soll’.2 Beim Eingehen auf diese Forderung verdient der rhetorische Topos besondere Beachtung.

Es muß in der griechischen Kirche und einigen ihrer Nachbarn vom 15. Jh. an ein lebendiges, paränetisch gerichtetes Interesse an Joseph und Aseneth gegeben haben.l 11 der 16 bekannten altgriechischen Handschriften stammen aus dem 15.–17. Jh., dazu eine von 1802 (die übrigen vier aus dem 10.–12. Jh.). Zwei davon, Bukarest, Bibl. Acad. Rom., Gr. 966, 17. Jh. (Sigel F oder 171) und Sinai, Gr. 1976, 17. Jh. (Woder 174)2 vertreten eine paränetisch interpolierte Form, zu der auch die rumänische Übersetzung gehört. Aus dem 15. Jh. stammen die beiden Handschriften der serbisch-kirchenslawischen Übersetzung, aus dem 15.–18. die Hauptmasse der armenischen Textzeugen. Das genannte Interesse bezeugen nun auch die Spuren von JA im Neugriechischen:3 der sekundäre Schluß der altgriechischen Gruppe c (III), Einschläge in der altgriechischen Handschrift McKell, 16. Jh. (G oder 162) (II) und vor allem eine Übertragung (Ngr) des ganzen Textes (I).

Twenty-five years have now passed since R. Bultmann published his brief but stimulating study ‘Zur Auslegung von Galater 2, 15–18’ in the Ernst Wolf Festschrift. According to Bultmann v. 17ab is neither a rhetorical question nor an objection deriving from Paul's opponents; rather, it is an absurdity formulated by Paul himself and designed to function ‘in seiner gegen den Standpunkt des Petrus gerichteten Argumentation’. This absurdity would then be rejected by means of the μή γένοıτο of v. 17c. In Bultmann's opinion v. 17ab is a conditional period contrary to fact; the illative particle άρα is to be preferred to the interrogative άρα. The expression χρıστς άμαρτιαςδıάκονος may be paraphrased as follows: Christ is a minister ‘derer, die (immer noch, wie bisher) in ihren Sünden stecken; er hat sie nicht von der Sünde befreit’. It is to such an absurd conclusion, affirms Paul, that the opponents' goal of re-establishing the abrogated Law must lead. These and further aspects of Bultmann's article have been dealt with – critically in some instances – by several authors and so there is no need for us to discuss them again here.

The Old Testament citations have offered a fertile field for study and investigation because of their interesting text forms. In particular, the surprising fact that over half of the Old Testament citations attributed to Jesus completely conform to the LXX text has led investigators to seek an explanation for this phenomenon. Some have tried to show that the original citations in Hebrew or Aramaic have been assimilated to the LXX in the course of tradition, while others have attributed this phenomenon to the Gospel writers who used the LXX text familiar to them.

Some recent redaction-critical work on Mark's passion narrative has questioned the existence of a pre-Markan passion account. This in turn has suggested another look at the relation between the gospels of Mark and John. Norman Perrin has put it plainly:

For a long time the general opinion of New Testament scholars was that the passion narrative existed as a connected unit before the gospel of Mark was written, and it was easy and natural to think that John had known and used a version of that pre-Markan narrative rather than the gospel of Mark. But today the tendency is to ascribe more and more of the composition of the passion narrative to the evangelist Mark himself and to doubt the very existence of a pre-Markan and non-Markan passion narrative extensive enough to have been the basis for the gospel of John. A particular consideration is the fact that the trial before the High Priest (John 18: 19–24) is set in the context of the denial by Peter (18: 15–18, 25–7), as it is also in the gospel of Mark. But there is a strong case that Mark himself originally composed this account of the trial at night before the Jewish authorities and then set it in the context of the story of Peter's denial. If this is so, the evangelist John must necessarily have known the gospel of Mark.