^{page 276 note 1} Bauer, W., Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum: Zwete Auflage mit einem Nachtrag, von G. Strecker (Tübingen, 1964)Google Scholar = Rechtgläubigkeit. See also the brief statement of Bauer's thesis in his Aufsätze und Kleine Schriften, ed. Strecker, G. (Tübingen, 1967), pp. 229–33Google Scholar; and further, Strecker, G., ‘A Report on the New Edition of Walter Bauer's Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum’, J.B.R. XXXIII (1965), 53–6.Google Scholar Strecker's own contribution in the supplement to the new edition of Rechtgläubigkeit (‘Zum Problem des Judenchristentums’, pp. 245–87)Google Scholar supports Bauer's thesis by arguing that for a time Jewish-Christian heretics in Greek-speaking Syria represented the orthodox element over against the catholic church; but in the end the views of the Roman community, as the centre of orthodoxy, prevailed.

^{page 276 note 2} See especially Turner, H. E. W., The Pattern of Christian Truth (London, 1954)Google Scholar; Ehrhardt, A., ‘Christianity before the Apostle's Creed’, H.T.R. LV (1962), 73–119Google Scholar, reprinted in a ibid., The Frame work of the New Testament Stories (Manchester, 1964), pp. 151–99Google Scholar; Schneemelcher, W., ‘Walter Bauer als Kirchenhistoriker’, N.T.S, IX (1962–1963), 11–22Google Scholar; Köster, H., ‘ΓΝωΜΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΠΟΙ: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity’, H.T.R. LVII (1965), 279–318 (note the further bibliography on p. 283 n. 8)Google Scholar; ibid.‘One Hesus and Four Primitive Gospels’, H.T.R. LXI (1968), 203–47.Google Scholar See also the survey of literature by Strecker, G. in Rechtgläubigkeit, pp. 288–306Google Scholar, and the bibliography on p. 288 n. 1.

^{page 276 note 3} Ehrhardt, A., loc. cit. p. 92.Google Scholar See also Rechtgläubigkeit, pp. 95–8Google Scholar, al., where Bauer claims that the letters of John suggest the presence of heresy in the church, but not as a (morally depraved) dalling away from orthodoxy. Käsemann, E., ‘Ketzer und Zeuge’, in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, 1 (Göttingen, 1960 ²), 168–87Google Scholar, reprinted from Z.Th.K. XLVIII (1951), 292–311Google Scholar, dealing with the authorship of 3 John, regards the writer of that letter (in reversal of Bauer's thesis) as an excommunicated heretic.

^{page 277 note 1} Cf. Turner, H. E. W., op. cit. pp. 39 f.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 2} Rechtgläubigkeit, pp. 49–64.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 3} ibid. p. 293.

^{page 277 note 4} Turner, H. E. W., op. cit. pp. 79 f., 81 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 5} ibid. pp. 27 f.

^{page 277 note 6} Ehrhardt, A., loc. cit. p. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 7} ibid. pp. 108–19.

^{page 277 note 8} Köster, H., ‘ΓΝωΜΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΠΟΙ’, loc. cit. p. 280.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 1} ibid. pp. 279–81.

^{page 278 note 2} Bornkamm, G., ‘Zur Interpretation des Johannes-Evangeliums: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Ernst Käsemanns Schrift “Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17”’, Ev. Th. XXVIII (1968), 8–25, esp. pp. 24 f.Google Scholar; reprinted in Geschichte und Glaube, I (Gesammelte Aufsätze III, Munich, 1968), 104–21.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 3} Wiles, M. F., The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 101–5, esp. p. 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 278 note 4} Adamantius, Dialogos 2.20. Father Barnabas Lindars has, however, drawn my attention to the fact that in the end John's cosmic dualism probably does not differ vastly from the idea (which also forms the background to the ‘ opposing spirits’ doctrine of Qumran) of the unified heavenly court in 1 Kings xxii (Michaiah’s vision) and the prologue to Job.

^{page 279 note 1} Wiles, M. F., op. cit. p. 101.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 2} Note the proposed exegesis of this verse by Lindars, B., ‘ΔΙΚΑΙΟ∑γΝθ in John xvi. 8 and 10’, in Mélanges Bibliques, en hommoge au R. P. Béda Rigaux (Gembloux, 1970), pp. 275–85.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 3} Cf. Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John I–XII (Garden City, New York, 1970), pp. lxii f.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 4} Irenaeus, , AH 2.2.5Google Scholar, al. See further Sanders, J. N., The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge, 1943), pp. 66–84, esp. p. 78.Google Scholar Irenaeus (AH 3.3_legacy6.5) regarded John's direct purpose as the refutation of a dualist christology. For a study of later patristic interpretation of Johannine christology, in the third and fourth centuries, see Wiles, M. F., op. cit.. pp. 112–28.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 5} But see Schottroff, L., Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium (W.M.A.N.T. 37, Neukirchen, 1970)Google Scholar, which argues that the Fourth Gospel is a thorougly gnostic (dualist) document from start to finish.

^{page 279 note 6} Pollard, T. E., Johannine Christology and the Early Church (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 3–22, esp. pp. 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 280 note 1} Knox, J., The Humanity and Divinity of Christ (Cambridge, 1967)Google Scholar, Passim, esp. p. 14.Google Scholar Knox distinguishes the ‘incarnationism’ of John from the ‘adoptionism’ of Peter (in Acts) and parts of Paul, and the ‘Kenoticism’ of Hebrews and parts of Paul.

^{page 280 note 2} Pollard, T. E., op. cit. pp. 5 f.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 3} For a recent comment on the theological balance between John, x. 30 and xix. 28Google Scholar, see Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John XIII–XXI (1970), pp. 654 f.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 4} The incident of the walking on the water (John, vi. 16–21Google Scholar) may be cited as a good example of the apparently docetic nature of Christ in John. But there is some doubt as to the meaning of έπλ in verse 19, and consequently as to whether this is a sign at all.

^{page 280 note 5} Käsemann, E., Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17 (Tübingen, 1966)Google Scholar; ET The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 (London, 1968)Google Scholar; The references are to the English edition.

^{page 281 note 1} Käsemann does not allow the real presence in John of a ‘christology of humiliation’; so that the notion of the Son's obedience already referred to above (quoting viii. 28) as a mark of subordination, is in Käsemann's view merely a‘concretion’ of the glory of Jesus, (op. cit. pp. 10 f.).Google Scholar Even the idea of ‘glory hidden in lowliness’ will not do, for this paradox is only apparently real (pp. 11–13).

^{page 281 note 2} In Studia Evangelica VIGoogle Scholar, forthcoming. Cf. also the literature cited there. See further Becker, J., ‘Wunder und Christologie’, N.T.S. XVI (1969–1970), 130–48.Google Scholar Becker finds with Bultmann a ‘Signs Source’ behind the Fourth Gospel, containing miracles which belong to the θεῖοζ άνέρ concept of Hellenism. But against Käsemann, Becker claims that this source has been expanded by the Fourth Evangelist in a non-docetic direction (adding the theme of the cross and resurrection) to state a fully catholic christological orthodoxy.

^{page 281 note 3} Bornkamm, G., Ev. Th. XXVIII (1968), 8–25.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 4} However, as Professor Wiles reminds us, the gnostics themselves did not always find it easy to extract their doceticism from the text of the Gospel of John; see Wiles, M. F., op. cit. p. 107.Google Scholar It is possible that the Alogi, in opposition to Montanism, were also the ones who rejected the Gospel of John on account of its teaching about the Holy Spirit. Here is another instance of Johannine diversity.

^{page 281 note 5} Johnston, G., The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 22–6Google Scholar, rightly points out that according to John, vi. 63Google Scholar (cf. i. 13; iii. 1–10), where σάρξ and πν⋯μα form one more Johannine antithesis, the flesh of Jesus (however important) is not enough if it is ‘taken as mere flesh’ (p. 25). Dr Johnston's study argues, oddly, that the author of the Fourth Gospel was concerned to refute heretical claims for an angel-intercessor (Michael) as the guardian of the church (ibid. pp. 119–22), and saw the community of the church instead as the embodiment of the paraclete (pp. 127–48). Nevertheless (Johnston claims), the Fourth Evangelist himself grazed the edge of heresy by his docetic tendencies, while remaining ‘“orthodex catholic” in his central faith’ (pp. 149–51). See also Wiles, M. F., op. cit. pp. 105 f.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 1} Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Individualism of the Fourth Gospel’, N.T. V (1962), 171–90.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 2} ibid. p. 172.

^{page 282 note 3} ibid. p. 183.

^{page 282 note 4} Professor Moule has also pointed out the different usage of έν (in terms of relationship) by John and Paul. For John it refers to a mutual relation, as between individuals; whereas for Paul it has a ‘unidirectional’ reference, in which the individual becomes incorporated into a much larger entity; See Moule, C. F. D., The Phenomemon of the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Implications of Certain Features of the New Testament (London, 1967), pp. 22–32.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 5} Käsemann, E., The Testament of Jesus, pp. 56–73Google Scholar; also ‘Ketzer und Zeuge’, loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 6} Cullmann, O., Early Christian Worship (ET London, 1953), pp. 37–119.Google Scholar On the other side, see Smalley, S.S., ‘Liturgy and Sacrament in the Fourth Gospel’, E.Q. XXIX (1957), 159–70.Google Scholar See also Schweizer, E., ‘The Concept of the Church in the Gospel and Epistles of St John’, in Higgins, A. J. B. (ed.), New Testament Essays (Manchester, 1959), pp. 230–45Google Scholar (ET from T.U. LXXIII, 1959, pp. 363–81Google Scholar). Schweizer stresses the importance of the unity of the church for John. But he also insists that this theological conception gave rise to a problem which eventually broke out in gnosticism; namely, the situation in which spiritual perfection, individually attained, needs no other perfection, so that the church develops merely into ‘a group of complete Gnostics’ (p. 242).

^{page 283 note 1} Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel According to St John, 1 (ET London and New York, 1968), 159 f.Google Scholar Schnackenburg also detects a possible motivation for John's eschatology in the evangelist's desire to encourage Christian opposition to heresy; but he finds it harder to extract this interpretation from the Gospel than from I John, (p. 160).Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 2} Moule, C. F. D., loc. cit.Google Scholar, suggests that the Fourth Evangelist's eschatology is more ‘normal’ than is usually allowed, and that in so far as it is realized, it is such merely because ‘realized eschatology’ can be applied to an individual in a way it cannot be applied to a corpus permixtum, where there are bound to be degrees of commitment. As a result, when John's eschatology is emphatically realized, ‘there the individualistic tendency of this Gospel is also at its most prominent’ (see esp. p. 182). See further Moule, C. F. F., ‘A Neglected Factor in the Interpretation of Johannine Eschatology’, in Studies in John, presented to Sevenster, J. N. (Supplement to N. T. XXIV, Leiden, 1970), pp. 155–60Google Scholar, where the author elaborates his diagnosis of the cause of John's realized eschatology. See also Brown, R. E., op. cit., II 601–3Google Scholar, who points to the various types of ‘indwelling’ promised in the farewell discourses as one further example of John's eschatological diversity.

^{page 284 note 1} Following Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London, 1968), pp. 374 f.Google Scholar, this passage seems to be insisting on the futurity of resurrection against those who said it had taken place already, rather than refuting those who denied the possibilty of resurrection itself.

^{page 284 note 2} See Smalley, S. S., ‘The Delay of the Parousia’, J.B.L. LXXXIII (1964), 41–54.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 3} So Brown, R. E., op. cit. I, cxx.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 4} Pace Moule, C. F. D., loc. cit. pp. 172–4Google Scholar, there is a further diversity in John's eschatology because it is at once corporate and individual in its ultimate implications for man. The individual believers to whom Jesus will manifest himself after the resurrection (John, xiv. 19Google Scholar), and who are to be raised up at the last day (vi. 40), still belong to the community (of which the disciples form the nucleus) which will be with Jesus in the end (xiv. 3) and share in the genera; resurrection (v. 28 f.).

^{page 284 note 5} See Wiles, M. F., op. cit. pp. 107–11.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 1} For a discussion of the history of this testimonium in the apologetic tradition of the New Testament, see Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London, 1961), p. 285.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 2} John, i. 17Google Scholar, with its contrast between law and grace, provides us with yet another Johannine antithesis, also open to misleading conclusions if either member is over-emphasized. Professor C. F. D. Moule has drawn my attention to an unpublished study by Haacker, K., Die Stiftung des Heils: Untersuchungen zur Struktur der Johanneischen Theologie, which regards I. 17Google Scholar as the all-important ‘programmatic’ verse of John, and interprets the Fourth Gospel from the point of view of Jesus as the founder of the new convenant.

^{page 286 note 1} See esp. Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963)Google Scholar; Hunter, A. M., According to John (London, 1968), with the bibliography on pp. 119–22.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 2} Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen, 1952 ¹²), esp. pp. 5–19 (on the Logos)Google Scholar; 437–40 (on the Paraclete), al. See also Smith, D. M., The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel: Bultmann's Literary Theory (New Haven and London, 1965), pp. 23–51Google Scholar, for the Greek text of these reconstructed sources. See further on the whole question of sources in John, , Brown, R. E., op. cit. 1, xxiv–xl.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 3} See Brown, R. E., op. cit. 1, xxx–ii.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 4} Cf. Neill, S. C., The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1961 (London, 1964), pp. 308–10.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 5} See further Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, II (ET London, 1955), 3–14, esp. p. 10.Google Scholar Bultmann concedes, however, a first-century date for John's Gospel.

^{page 286 note 6} MacGregor, G. H. C. and Morton, A. Q., The Structure of the Fourth Gospel (Edinburgh and London, 1961)Google Scholar. See pp. 93–135 for the text of the two sources with their redactions.

^{page 286 note 7} Brown, R. E., op. cit. 1, xxxiv–ix.Google Scholar See also Smalley, S. S., ‘The Gospel of John in Recent Study'’, Orita IV (1970), pp. 37–9.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 1} Fortna, R. T., The Gospel of Sings: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1970). See pp. 235–45Google Scholar for the Greek text of the proposed narrative source behind John. See also Martyn, J. L., ‘Source Criticism and Religionsgeschichte in the Fourth Gospel’, in Jesus and Man's Hope, 1 (Pittsburg, 1970), 247–73.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 2} Fortna, R. T., op. cit. pp. 221–5, esp. p. 224.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 3} Käsemann's, E. position (‘The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John's Gospel’, in New Testament Questions of Today, ET London, 1969, p. 152)Google Scholar is that the Fourth Evangelist provided the ‘hymn’ which he has before him with an epilogue, John, i. 14–18.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 4} See Smalley, S. S., ‘The Testament of Jesus: Another Look’, in Studia Evangelica VI (forthcoming).Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 1} Fortna, R. T., op. cit. Note esp. the ‘methodological introduction’, pp. 1–25Google Scholar, in which the criteria for this source analysis of John are set out.

^{page 288 note 2} G. H. G. MacGregor and A. Q_. Morton, op. cit.

^{page 288 note 3} A further allied question concerns the ‘Jesus of history’ debate in relation to John. For a recent study of this subject see Titus, E. L., ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Historical Jesus’, in Trotter, F. T. (ed.), Jesus and the Historian (Philadelphia, 1968), pp. 98–113Google Scholar, who suggests that the Fourth Evangelist was in fact ‘free with respect ot traditional patterns’ (p. 111).

^{page 288 note 4} Cf. Robinson, J. A. T., ‘The New Look on the Fourth Gospel’, in Aland, K. (ed.), Studia Evangelica 1 (T. U. LXXIII, Berlin, 1959), 338–50Google Scholar; reprinted in Robinson, J. A. T., Twelve New Testament Studies (London, 1962), pp. 94–106.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 1} Fortna, R. T., op. cit. p. 187.Google Scholar For a defence of the primitive origin of the Son of man logia in John's Gospel, see Smalley, S. S., ‘The Johannine Son of Man Sayings’, N.T.S. XV (1968–1960), 278–301.Google Scholar See also Schnackenburg, R., op. cit. pp. 529–42.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 1} See p. 287, n. 2.

^{page 290 note 2} Martyn, J. L., loc. cit. esp. p. 248.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 3} ibid. p. 252.

^{page 290 note 4} If, as Fortna suggests, SQ.was expanded to correct wrong views of miracle, would miracles still have formed the core of the Gospel's structure and content ?

^{page 290 note 5} Cf. Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Intention of the Evangelists’, in Higgins, A. J. B. (ed.), New Testament Essays, pp. 165–79, esp. p. 176.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 1} Ehrhardt, Cf. A., loc. cit. p. 118.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 2} So Martyn, J. L., loc. cit. p. 249Google Scholar: ‘The Fourth Gospel does belong somewhere in the history of early Christian thought, even if we are not able to fix that “somewhere” as easily as in the case, let us say, of Galatians.’ See further on the general point, Stein, R. H., ‘What in Redaktionsgeschichte?’, J.B.L. LXXXVIII (1969), 45–56.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 3} We must leave aside a detailed consideration of the fascinating probelm of the Egyptian or Asian (or other) provenance of John's Gospel. See Sanders, J. N., op. cit. pp. 36–43Google Scholar (Alexandria; but see the modification in his later book, The Foundations of the Christian Faith, London, 1951, p. 162)Google Scholar; Turner, H. E. W., op. cit. pp. 46–59 (not Alexandria)Google Scholar; Brown, R. E., op. cit. I, ciii f.Google Scholar (Ephesus). See also Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St John (London, 1955), pp. 109–11.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 4} Against Sanders, J. N., The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 5} As Sanders himself admits; ibid. p. 65.

^{page 291 note 6} Grant, R. M., ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Church’, H.T.R. XXXV (1942), 95–116Google Scholar, suggests that this was because a doctrine of apostolic succession is missing from John. In her conflicts with Montansim, Grant claims, Rome could not accept until much later a Gospel which did not provide for such a doctrine (p. 112). There is no need, however, to see the ‘orthodoxy’ for which John undoubtedly provided the materials when they were needed, in such narrow terms.

^{page 291 note 7} So Köster, H., ‘ΓΝωΜΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΠΟΙ’, loc. cit. pp. 279–81.Google Scholar ‘Where to draw the line between heretical and orthodox is not a matter of external appearance but of theological evaluation’ (pp. 280 f.).

^{page 291 note 8} See Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1954), p. 97Google Scholar; also Wilson, R. McL., Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford, 1968), pp. 45–8.Google Scholar Wilson makes the important point that John's use of gnostic terminology (if that is what we have in the Fourth Gospel) probabley ‘only becomes “Gnostic” in a strictly Gnostic context’ (p. 48). See also Schnackenburg, R., op. cit. pp. 543–57Google Scholar, who argues that even if the Fourth Evangelist were prepared to listen to the questions put by Gnosticism, he nevertheless gave ‘a completely different and authentically Christain answer’ (p. 557). See further Dahl, N. A., ‘The Johannine Church and History’, in Klassen, W. and Snyder, G. F. (edd.), Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (London, 1962), pp. 141 f.Google Scholar; also C. K. Barrett, ‘The Theological Vocabulary of the Fourth Gospel and of the Gospel of Truth’, ibid. pp. 210–23, esp. pp. 222 f. (John's terminology is gnostic but his content is anti-gnostic); also J. Munck, ‘The New Testament and Gnosticism’, ibid. pp. 224–38. It is obvious, but important, to maintain that use by gnostics does not make a document gnostic.

^{page 292 note 1} Sanders, J. N., The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, pp. 65 f.Google Scholar, denies that John was ‘a propaganda-work’ (p. 66.)

^{page 292 note 2} Schweizer, E., loc cit. p. 241Google Scholar: ‘John wrote a Gospel, not a dogmatic treatise’.

^{page 292 note 3} Cribbs, F. L., ‘A Reassessment of the Date of Origin and the Destination of the Gospel of John’, J.B.L. LXXXIX (1970), 38–55Google Scholar, gives an early date to John (late 50s or early 60s), and makes the interesting counter-suggestion that the Gospel was written both for non-Christian Jews and for Jewish-Christian communities under attack from orthodox Jewry at the start of the Gentile mission. John's additions to the resurrection narrative, such as the Thomas incident (John, xx. 24–9Google Scholar), the breakfast with the disciples (xxi. 9–14; cf. Luke, xxiv. 36–43Google Scholar) and even the noli tangere of Mary Magdalene's encounter with the risen Lord, (xx. 16 f.)Google Scholar, are capable of being understood as antidocetic apologetic. But I find it difficult to take this suggestion seriously for two reasons. (a) John's additions lack the obviously apologetic ring of those in the First and Third Gospels. (b) More importantly, it is not easy to square an apologetic motive here with the fact that the Fourth Gospel is elsewhere open to docetic interpretation. Käsemann's, E. thesis (see pp. 280 f. above) has a point, even if we do not accept its main conclusionsGoogle Scholar.

^{page 292 note 4} See p. 291 n. 3.

^{page 292 note 5} ‘Development’ does not mean, as we have already seen, either evolution to different theologies, or the abandonment of an authentic, kerygmatic starting-point.