There are two fundamental questions concerning the Prologue, one literary, the other historical. The literary question was raised by Bultmann in his seminal article for the Gunkel Festschrift of 1923: ‘Wie weit ist von dem prāexistenten Logos die Rede, von wo ab von dem in der Geschichte auf-tretenden, d.h. von Jesus?’ The commentators, remarks Bultmann, disxsxsagree on the answer to this question, and this disagreement has persisted. For Bultmann the main difficulty arises from the fact that although v. 14 offers the first explicit statement of the Incarnation, the Christian reader cannot but take vv. 10 f. as an allusion to the life of Jesus, and consequently also v. 5 (which is parallel to it) and probably v. 4 also. Bultmann's solution was to see the Prologue as a pre-Christian Gnostic hymn, stemming from Baptist circles and subsequently taken over by the evangelist and adapted to form the opening of the Gospel. There have been many different answers since.

The aim of this essay is to extend a course charted over twenty years ago by the Reverend Professor C. F. D. Moule. My debt to him extends even to the title, derived as it is from his ‘The Intention of the Evangelists’. But more substantially, it was his independent thesis and insightful method which provided the stimulus for this study. Against the developing consensus, especially among continental scholars in the 1950s, that the gospel was a creative theological work designed to support or correct the beliefs of Christians, i.e. for those who were advanced in the faith, Professor Moule argued that Mark's aim was apologetic and evangelistic, focused upon the outsider who needed to know the essentials of the story. Even if Mark intended his gospel for Christians, it was written for believers engaged in evangelism to remind them of the facts on which the superstructure of their faith stood or fell.

F. Chr. Baur sah in dem ‘Mangel an einem selbständigen Inhalt’ ein untrügliches Kennzeichen für den unapostolischen Charakter des 1 Thess. Die Bedeutungslosigkeit des Schreibens und das Fehlen dogmatischer Ideen waren für ihn das Hauptargument für die Annahme, der erste Thessalonicherbrief sei ein in paulinischer Form nachgebildeter Brief mit dem Zweck, die Idee der Parusie ‘dem christlichen Bewußtsein näher zu bringen’. Wird auch heute diese These Baurs nicht mehr vertreten, so macht dennoch sein Verdikt der theologischen Belanglosigkeit des 1 Thess auf ein nach wie vor aktuelles Problem aufmerksam: das Fehlen wichtiger Begriffe und Theologumena anderer Paulusbriefe im 1 Thess. So sind die anthropologischen Termini σάρξ άμαρτία, θάντος, σμα, έλενθερία und ζωή nicht belegt, fehlen der δικ -Stamms und der στανρ -Stamm und erscheint schließlich νόμος im 1 Thess nicht. Die theologischen Konzeptionen der Rechtfertigungslehre, der Kreuzestheologie, der Kirche als Leib Christi und der Taufe als eines Begräbnisses mit Christus sind dem 1 Thess offensichtlich unbekannt. Zudem spielt das AT keine Rolle, sind die eschatologischen Aussagen von denen anderer Briefe erheblich unterschieden und ist die Polemik Pauli gegen die Juden in 1 Thess 2. 14 ff. einzigartig.

Recent scholarly study of the early Christian gatherings (or ‘churches’) has rightly emphasized their indebtedness to the household model of association. One only has to think of the use of the house as a place of meeting, the terminology of paternalism and brotherhood, the conversion of whole households, the praise accorded to the practice of hospitality and the endorsement given to contemporary marital and household ethics in the New Testament writings.

It is widely recognized not only that Luke was a literary artist but that his literary methods involved specifically Hellenistic approaches and techniques. The primary purpose of this article is to indicate that the enigmatic relationship of part of Luke's text (7. 11–17, the raising of the widow's son) to part of the LXX text (1 Kgs 17. 17–24, Elijah's raising of the widow's son) is a literary relationship, a relationship which is the result of a sophisticated and coherent process of dramatization and christianization. The article is also intended to suggest briefly that this literary relationship is to be understood, in considerable part, in light of the Hellenistic literary practice known as imitatio, and that the practice of imitatio may be an important clue in detecting and unravelling other areas of Luke's sources.

Cet écrit prend la relève de deux articles déjà parus dans New Testament Studies. Le premier est celui d'Albert Vanhoye, ‘Structure du Benedictus’. Le second est celui de Pierre Auffret, ‘Note sur la structure littéraire de Lc 1, 68–79’. Le deuxième est une critique systématique du premier et fait sûrement avancer la recherche sur plusieurs points. Le présent article est le résultat à la fois d'une analyse détaillée des deux articles en question et d'une analyse personnelle du texte même du cantique de Zacharie. Notre analyse fournira deux structures nouvelles qui s'ajouteront à celles d'A. Vanhoye et de P. Auffret. Trois de ces quatre structures se présenteront comme complémentaires en ce sens qu'elles orienteront vers un contenu de pensée de première importance.