Professor Joachim Jeremias has raised the question of the logos problem. He calls attention to the change in the Septuagint (LXX) from the vocalisation of to and its translation with λόγος in Hab. 3:5, the personified logos in Wis. 18:14–16, and the unmistakable closeness of Rev. 19:11–16 to the latter passage. He notes that the logos title in the New Testament is limited to the Johannine writings (John 1:1, 14; 1 John1:1; Rev. 19:13). Jeremias says that in dealing with the logos problem in New Testament investigation it has become customary to begin with the prologue of John and that this is an error since the absolute use of ὁ λόγος, ‘the Word’, in John 1:1, 14 (in contrast to , ‘the word of life’, in 1 John 1:1 and , ‘The word of God’, in Rev. 19:13) warrants the assumption that the title was known to the readers and that it already had a Christian prehistory behind it when the Johannine prologue was formed. Jeremias concludes that the unmistakable closeness of Rev. 19:11–16 to Wis. 18:14–16 must be noted; that the logos title might have originated in Hellenistic Judaism and so applied to Jesus Christ as a title of the returning Lord; that, on the other hand, John 1:1, 14 and 1 John 1:1–31, where the title is extended to the pre-existent and earthly Jesus, already represent an advanced stage of the Christian usage of the logos title.

The theme, science and Christian theism, is most likely to evoke today a curious mixture of reactions, mostly negative. While a celebration of warfare between science and Christianity is no longer a fare of the day as it was a century ago, Christianity is often taken for a vanquished enemy or for a successfully tamed beast. Such seems to be the case of the relation between science and religion in the Western World where science sprang into prominence a few centuries ago and where an atmosphere of intellectual and religious freedom is a part of daily life.

Anyone who attempts to assess Max Weber's study of ancient Judaism must adopt two stances, those of the Old Testament specialist and of the sociologist, and I shall use these two view-points to provide the main structure of this article. I hope, nevertheless, to avoid becoming completely schizophrenic by drawing the two interpretations together in a final section. I should also make it clear that the discussion is based mainly upon those essays which were translated by Gerth and Martindale as Ancient Judaism, although these by no means exhaust the studies which Weber made of Hebrew religion.

During his lifetime Kant offered a number of versions of his moral proof of the existence of God, but the classic statement of his argument is normally taken to be that found in the Dialectic of the Critique of Practical Reason. It is to this argument that the phrase ‘Kant's moral proof’ is normally taken to refer.

Of the many difficult formulations in Karl Barth's ‘Special Ethics’, none seems less amenable to acceptable interpretation than his conception of the relation of male and female. I do not refer to Barth's insistence that Man, created as male and female, maintain both the unity and distinction required for true co-humanity. I refer, rather, to his puzzling (even if textually supported) assertion that this co-humanity is ordered by God in such a way that the woman is ‘sub-ordinate’ to the man without inferiority or disadvantage. Putting aside the exegetical issues involved, I will try to show that Barth's redefinition of the concept of sub-ordination gains coherence when understood as an ‘ordering’ of human life by a revealed order of creation, which in turn is an expression of the divine life itself. I will argue that the analogy Barth draws between the order of the Trinity and sexual relationship is authorized by his doctrine of creation, by his view of Christ as the analogia relationis, and by what I believe to be his application of the doctrine of perichoresis to anthropology. And finally, I want to suggest that, while some of Barth's language may have to be set aside, the arguments described here inform the presuppositions and method of an ethic more relevant for moral discrimination than has commonly been supposed.

Indian Christian theology has begun to make a significant contribution to total Christian theology in a number of ways. One of these ways is to look at the doctrine of the Trinity again not merely in terms of the Godhead itself but also in terms of the religious life resulting from the fact that Christians think of God in terms of a Trinity.