Since the publication of E. A. Judge's ‘Paul's Boasting in relation to Contemporary Professional Practice’, and more especially since the appearance of H. D. Betz's Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition, scholarly attention to Paul's ‘boasting’ in 2 Corinthians 10–12 has focussed on the question of literary form.

Im Neuen Testament findet sich eine Reihe von Schriften, die man als die johanneischen zu bezeichnen pflegt. Dabei ist nicht so sehr die ‘Offenbarung des Johannes’ gemeint, die als einzige dieser Werke sich ausdrücklich auf einen Verfasser mit Namen ‘Johannes’ bezieht, vielmehr das Johannesevangelium und die drei Johannesbriefe. Die Bedeutung dieser Literatur für das Verständnis der urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte ist kaum zu überschätzen. Im folgenden soll der Versuch unternommen werden, die Frage nach ihrer Entstehung und Geschichte in der Form eines Überblicks zu beantworten. Der an dieser Stelle zu begründenden Auffassung kommt selbstverständlich nur die größere oder geringere Wahrscheinlichkeit zu, wie sie allgemein für historisch-kritische Urteile festzustellen ist. Doch wird sich zeigen, daß auch der verbreitete Konsens, der heute für die Forschung zur johanneischen Frage charakteristisch ist, sich im Bereich von Hypothesen bewegt.

The question of the ‘opponents’ in 1 John has long been recognized as significant for the study of that ‘letter’. The great commentaries by Theodor Häring, R. Law and Rudolf Schnackenburg make the conflict with the ‘schismatics’ the key to their interpretations. Most recently Raymond E. Brown1 has presented a detailed account of the conflict in the context of the history of Johannine Christianity as the basis for his own commentary. I find myself in general agreement with the approach and position set out there. But I remain unconvinced on a number of important issues where I find that my views remain fundamentally unchanged,2 not through stubbornness I trust. These views will need further elaboration and defence in due course. Before doing this certain preliminary matters need to be dealt with.

Not surprisingly, the thought of the Apostle Paul is being given fresh consideration in our time.1 Old problems, particularly the relation of Paul to Judaism and his view of the law, continue to vex New Testament studies. A subject which deserves more attention in this reconsideration of Paul is his belief that judgment is according to works. Those who take such statements seriously end up with a quite different picture of Paul from those who soft-pedal the issue. For example, Karl Donfried asserts that it is the obedient Christian who remains in Christ who will be saved on the last day, and that Paul expects a final judgment for Christians which can result in salvation or in wrath.2 Even though such language sounds like ‘heresy’ to ears accustomed to the usual explanations of Paul, Donfried's argument must be given serious attention for it attempts to treat seriously statements in Paul that are too frequently neglected.

The path of Paul's argumentation in Gal 3. 1–4. 7 presents vexing problems for any who would attempt to retrace it. The terminal points are clear: he begins with ‘Christ … crucified’ (3. 1; cf. 2. 21) and ends with the inclusion of the uncircumcized Gentile believers among the true ‘seed’ of Abraham (3. 26–29; 4. 7). But the route by which he moves from ‘cross’ to ‘Gentiles’–a maze of laboured exegesis, puzzling illustration, and cryptic theological shorthand–is anything but clear.

A cursory view of the classification of the figures by some prominent grammarians of New Testament Greek reveals a quite confusing picture. In his monumental work A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research (1919), A. T. Robertson deals with certain ‘grammatical’ figures of speech in his discussion of the sentence (chapter 10, 390–445). The ‘remaining’ figures are dealt with in chapter 22 under the heading: Figures of Speech (1194–1208), and they are divided into figures of idea or thought (σχήματα δıανοίας, 1198–1199) and figures of expression (σήματα λήξεως, 1199–1208).

The close relationship between sin and the law, a recurring theme in Romans 1–4 (3. 19; 4. 15; 5. 20), is given clearest expression in 7. 1–6. In language reminiscent of the discussion of sin in chap. 6, the law is pictured as a power from whose lordship believers find release in Christ (w. 4, 6) and as an instrument in the arousing of sinful passions which lead to death (v. 5). No wonder that Paul feels it necessary to defend the law from the charge that it is sin (v. 7; cf. v. 12), offering an explanation of the relationship between sin and the law which exonerates the latter (vv. 8–11).1 This explanation takes the form of a narrative in which sin is cast in the role of the active culprit, while the law is pictured as a passive instrument, used by sin as a ‘bridgehead’ (άϕορμή–vv. 8, 11) to deceive and bring death.