¹ A second edition with appendices was published in 1964 by Georg Strecker; cf. also Strecker, G., “A Report on the New Edition of Walter Bauer's Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum,” Journ. of Bible and Rel. 31 (1965), 53–56Google Scholar. For a positive evaluation of W. Bauer's book in this journal, see Ehrhardt, Arnold, “Christianity before the Apostles’ Creed,” HTR 55(1962), 73–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar [now in idem, The Framework of the New Testament Stories (1964), 151–99].

² This term is again freely employed in the recent History of the Ancient Church by J. Daniélou and H. I. Marrou “The First Six Hundred Years” (1964). Early heretical movements are understood as remnants of, or tendencies towards Jewish sectarianism; heresies of the second century A.D. are seen as developments on the edges of Christianity. See also J. Daniélou, Théologie du Judéo-Christianisme. Histoire des doctrines chrétiennes avant Nicée, Vol. I (Paris, 1958).

³ See the complaint of Ernst Käsemann, “Neutestamentliche Fragen von heute,” in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen II (1964), 11.

⁴ This is the position of H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth. A Study in the Relations between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church (Bampton Lectures, 1954), x; cf. 474f. Thus, in this only systematic treatment of the question of heresy in the Early Church since W. Bauer, Turner maintains that heresies always are specific types of deviation from a still undeveloped core of more original true beliefs, e.g. Gnosticism is their “dilution,” Marcion's doctrines a “truncation,” Montanism a “distortion,” and Arianism an “evacuation”; see 97–148. For further criticism of Turner's very learned and instructive study, see G. Strecker in the appendix to W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei, 2nd ed. (1964), 293–300; Schneemelcher, W., “Walter Bauer als Kirchenhistoriker,” NTStud. 9(1962/1963), 21Google Scholar; A. Ehrhardt, op. cit., 93.

⁵ For this see J. M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (Studies in Bibl. Theol. 25; 1959).

⁶ Ernst Käsemann, “Sackgassen im Streit um den historischen Jesus,’ in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen II (1964), 53.

⁷ For the question of the interrelation of the problem of the historical Jesus and the question of heresy, see also pp. 70–73 of my article “Häretiker im Urchristentum als theologisches Problem,” in Zeit und Geschichte (Dankesgabe an R. Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag; 1964), 61–76.

⁸ For bibliographical references see my article “Häretiker im Urchristentum,” in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart III (3rd ed., 1959), 17–21. Publications since 1958 include: on the Corinthian correspondence: G. Bornkamm, “Herrenmahl und Kirche bei Paulus,” in Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum (1963²), 138–76; U. Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit (1959); D. Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (1964); on other Epistles from the Pauline corpus: Koester, H., “The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment” (Phil. III), NTStud. 8(1961/1962), 317–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmithals, W., “Die Irrlehrer von Rm. 16, 17–20,” Studia Theologica 13(1959), 51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on Polycarp of Smyrna and the Pastoral Epistles: H. von Campenhausen, “Polykarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe,” in Aus der Frühzeit des Christentums (1963), 197–252 [first published in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist.Klasse 1951, 5–51]; on the whole question see: G. Strecker, Appendix to W. Bauer, Rechtgläugibkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, 2nd ed. (1964), 243–306; Schmithals, W., “Zur Abfassung und ältesten Sammlung der paulinischen Hauptbriefe,” ZNW 51(1960), 225–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also my article above, note 7. — Complete collections of all older materials and sources about heretics in Early Christianity will be found in A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums (1884 [reprint 1963]).

⁹ I am, of course, heavily indebted to W. Bauer's work throughout, and the reader will have no difficulty in finding the respective sections in his book.

^9a The structure of the theological question will be explicated only at certain points of the following historical outlines. This article does not claim to present final solutions with complete documentation. It is, as my friend and colleague Krister Stendahl aptly remarked, a blueprint for further work in the history of early Christian theology. The Gospel of Thomas will receive more detailed attention, since solving some of the problems of this newly discovered text will doubtlessly have far-reaching consequences for the study of Early Christianity as a whole.

¹⁰ See also below on the Gospel of Matthew, p. 287f.

¹¹ For further discussion of the Stephen problem, see the two most recent commentaries on Acts by Ernst Haenchen and Hans Conzelmann.

¹² For the understanding of Gal. 2:11ff., I am greatly indebted to my friend, Dr. Dieter Georgi of Heidelberg, Germany (presently at Harvard).

¹³ This is the only possible interpretation of Gal. 2:14; cf. also H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, ad. Ioc.

¹⁴ R. Bultmann, “Ignatius and Paul,” in Existence and Faith (1960), 267–77 [first in Studia Paulina (Festschrift de Zwaan, 1953), 37–51].

¹⁵ G. Bornkamm, “Der Auferstandene und der Irdische,” in Zeit und Geschichte (Dankesgabe an R. Bultmann, 1964), pp. 171–91, gives a thoughtful evaluation of the differences of Matthew's and Paul's theology.

¹⁶ See R. Hummel, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (1963), 27f., and, for the question of Peter's rule, especially 59–64.

¹⁷ For a discussion of the Gospel of Thomas, see below, p. 299ff.

¹⁸ For further detail on the development of these offices, see Hans v. Campenhausen, Kirchliches Amt und geistliche Vollmacht (1953), passim.

¹⁹ For the discussion of this debated subject matter, see G. Strecker in E. Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen II (1964³), 63–69. The origin of the Kerygmata in Coelesyria is widely accepted.

²⁰ Quispel, G. and Grant, R. M., “Note on the Petrine Apocrypha,” Vigiliae Christianae 6(1952), 31–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, give convincing evidence for the use of the Apocalypse of Peter in Theophilus of Antioch ad Autolyc. I. 14; in my own judgment, however, the evidence for Theophilus' use of the Kerygma of Peter (quoted first by Clement of Alexandria) is much less striking, although this does not exclude the possibility of the Syrian origin of the Kerygma of Peter.

²¹ G. Strecker, Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudo-Clementinen (1958) is only a beginning. The presentation of H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (1949) is, in all its erudition, too programmatic to be of much help.

²² We know very little about the rest of Palestine and Western Syria. The existence of Christian churches in Galilee is probably presupposed in Mk 16:7 (cf. Jn 21). Acts 8:5ff. uses a tradition about the beginnings of a church in Samaria that was independent of the Twelve (see also Jn 4 in comparison with the opposite view in Lk. 9:51–56). Perhaps Lk. 6:17 gives evidence of Christian communities in the region of Tyre and Sidon. Acts 10:1ff. presupposes that the church in Caesarea was from the beginning Gentile Christian. There is not much material which permits us to guess the character of the Christian communities in the Jordan valley (baptismal sects? predecessors of the Mandaeans?) and in Damascus (pre-Pauline). Certainly, Paul had once been active as a missionary in “Arabia” (Gal 1:17; i.e. Nabataea, South of Damascus), but no traces of this work of Paul are left.

²³ See W. Bauer, op. cit., 6–48; see also most recently A. F. J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas (1962), 30–33. Turner's critique (op. cit., 40–46) of W. Bauer's arguments is not convincing, as A. Ehrhardt has shown (op. cit., 94–95). That, in the light of new findings, W. Bauer's reconstruction has to be revised, is another question; see below.

²⁴ W. Bauer, op. cit., 27–29; his primary evidence, the mention of Marcion in the Edessene Chronicle and the stereotyped attacks against Marcion (and Mani and Bar Daisan) by Aphraates and Ephrem — whereas other heretics are seldom mentioned — only proves that the Marcionites played a role in Edessa at least in the late third and in the fourth centuries.

²⁵ Arguments for Edessene origin of the Gospel of Thomas were first set forth by H.-Ch. Puech in his studies of this document, see the articles quoted in H.-Ch. Puech, “Gnostic Gospels and Related Documents” in E. Hennecke, N. T. Apocrypha I (Engl. transl. 1963), 282; also W. C. van Unnik, Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings (1960), 49f.

²⁶ Coptic text with English Translation by A. Guillaumont, H.-Ch. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till and Yassah 'Abd Al Masih (1959). A good translation into Latin, German and English is easily accessible in K. Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (1964), 517–30.

²⁷ Still unpublished; see the note of H.-Ch. Puech in E. Hennecke, N. T. Apocrypha I, 307.

²⁸ It would be misleading to speak of “Syria” in general, since Matthew, from Western Syria, knows only the simple name Thomas for this Apostle (Mt. 10:3; following Mk). — Some of these and the following observations regarding the significance of this particular form of the name of the Apostle Thomas were first made by H.-Ch. Puech; see in E. Hennecke, N. T. Apocrypha I, 286f., and the literature quoted p. 282.

²⁹ According to the Greek text. The Syriac reads “Judas Thomas the Apostle,” see also below.

³⁰ It is interesting to note that “Judas Thomas” only appears when Eusebius quotes the text of the Abgar legend verbatim (hist. eccl. I.13.11), whereas in his own summaries he uses the simple “Thomas” (hist. eccl. I.134; II.1.6). According to A. F. J. Klijn, op. cit., 158, the Syriac translation of Eusebius has “Judas Thomas” in all instances referred to above.

³¹ The Syriac translation of this Infancy Gospel has only the title “Infancy of the Lord Jesus,” see O. Cullmann, in E. Hennecke, op. cit. I (1963), 390.

³² The Acts of Thomas understands the designation “the Twin” as referring to Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus. This is usually considered as an interpretation of the word “Twin” which arose from the peculiar interests of the Acts of Thomas. But also this tradition is older, since according to H.-Ch. Puech (in Hennecke, op. cit. I, 308) also in the book of Thomas the Athlete, Jesus addresses Thomas as “his twin brother.”

³³ For further reference to traditions about the Apostle Thomas, see W. Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (1909), 444f.; G. Bornkamm, in E. Hennecke, op. cit. II (1964³), 298f.

³⁴ In Hennecke, op. cit. I (1963), 283, see also 299f.

³⁵ A good survey of the passages in question is found in H.-Ch. Puech, op. cit.,

³⁶ W. C. van Unnik (op. cit., 49f. and 53f.) dates the Gospel of Thomas not earlier than A.D. 170, since he follows Quispel's improbable suggestion that it made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews; on this question, see below.

³⁷ Emil Wendling, Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums (Tübingen, 1908), 53–56.

³⁸ Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 1st ed. 1921; for the discussion of Mk 6:1–6, see pp. 31f. of the English translation (1963).

³⁹ For the discussion of this question up to 1960, see Haenchen, E., “Literatur zum Thomasevangelium,” Theol. Rundschau, N.F. 27(1961), 147–78, 306–38Google Scholar, especially 162–78. It is not my intention here to bring Haenchen's bibliography up to date, nor to present a complete survey of my own. I merely want to indicate some trends and preoccupations in the treatment of the problem.

⁴⁰ Quispel, G., “The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament,” Vig. Christ. II(1957), 189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also his article “Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas,” NTStud. 5(1958/59), 276–90.

⁴¹ Cf. also his articles in Vig. Christ. 12(1958), 181–96; 13(1959), 87–117; 14(1960), 204–15; 18(1964), 226–35.

⁴² Vig. Christ. 11(1957), 189ff.; cf. Haenchen's critique, op. cit., 162ff. To conceive of this Gospel as a very primitive synoptic-type writing is impossible, as Philipp Vielhauer has shown recently in his treatment of the “Jewish-Christian Gospels” in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha I (1963), 117–65. Relations, of course, cannot be denied; but since the Gospel of Thomas migrated from Syria to Egypt, the Egyptian Gospel according to the Hebrews is more likely to depend upon the former, if not free tradition explains the similarities.

⁴³ See, e.g., Quispel's glowing remarks, Vig. Christ. 11(1957), 206f.

⁴⁴ Most strongly this view was propounded in a paper given at the 100th Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New York, December 29, 1964 (to be published by the Society in the near future).

⁴⁵ E.g. R. M. Grant and D. N. Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus (1960); E. Haenchen, op. cit., and Die Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums (1961); B. Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel according to Thomas (1961). H. E. W. Turner, “The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas,” in H. Montefiore and H. E. W. Turner, Thomas and the Evangelist (Studies in Bibl. Theology 35; 1962). See also H. K. McArthur, “The Gospel according to Thomas,” New Testament Sidelights (1960), 43–77. The wisdom of the methodological procedure of the latest publication on this question is beyond my comprehension: W. Schrage, Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen (Beihefte zur ZNW 29, 1964). Schrage tries to prove the secondary character of the tradition contained in the Gospel of Thomas by a comparison with the Sahidic translation of the Synoptic Gospels (and John). His understanding of form critical method is glaringly evidenced in his comments on Saying 31 (= Pap. Oxyrh. 1:6, quoted above): “Thomas has detached the saying from the historical situation to which it was assigned by the Synoptic Gospels, and has again made it a ‘free Logion’” (p. 76).

⁴⁶ G. Quispel did not exactly dream of the possibility of weighty support from these quarters.

⁴⁷ A rare exception is the article of Bartsch, H.-W., “Das Thomas-Evangelium und die synoptischen Evangelien,” NTStud. 6(1959/1960), 249–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Cullmann, O., “Das Thomasevangelium und die Frage nach dem Alter der in ihm enthaltenen Tradition,” Theol.Lit.Ztg. 85(1960), 321–34Google Scholar [Engl. Trans, in Interpretation 16(1962), 418–38]. Both these authors, consequently, ascribe a much higher probability to the existence of independent tradition.

⁴⁸ In addition to authors quoted above who base their judgment largely upon the parables (like Quispel and Cullmann), see C.-H. Hunzinger, “Aussersynoptisches Traditionsgut im Thomas-Evangelium,” Theol.Lit.Ztg. 85(1960), 843–46; idem, “Unbekannte Gleichnisse Jesu aus dem Thomas-Evangelium,” Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (Festschr. f. J. Jeremias), = ZNW, Beih. 26(1960), 209–20. H. Montefiore, “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel According to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels,” in H. Montefiore and H. E. W. Turner, op. cit., 40–78; first published in NTStud. 7(1960/61), 220–48.

⁴⁹ H. Montefiore, op. cit., 78.

⁵⁰ Cf. Wilson, R. McL., “Thomas and the Growth of the Gospels,” HTR 53(1960), 231–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem “Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels,” Exp. Times 72(1960/61), 36–39; idem, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (1960); R. A. Spivey, The Origin and Milieu of the Gospel According to Thomas [Dissertation Yale University, New Haven (1962), unpublished]; see also Saunders, E. W., “A Trio of Thomas Logia,” Biblical Research 8(1963), 43–59Google Scholar; North, R., “Chenoboskion and Q,” Cath.Bibl.Quart. 24(1962), 154–70.Google Scholar

⁵¹ I hope to be able to publish the results of my own studies in a not too distant future in a different context.

⁵² Cf. G. Quispel's remarks in Vig. Christ. 11(1957), 206.

⁵³ I can only add briefly that also the Gospel of John is not very likely to have served as a source for the Gospel of Thomas. However, parallels are remarkable, as Brown, Raymond E. has shown [“The Gospel of Thomas and St. John's Gospel,” NTStud. 9(1962/1963), 155–77]CrossRefGoogle Scholar which, in my opinion, points to some connections in the tradition and environment of both writings.

⁵⁴ תאמא is not recorded as a Jewish name anywhere in the Mishna and Tosephta, nor in the Jewish papyri, and there is only very slight evidence that it might have been in use as a Phoenician name, as my colleague, Dr. Frank M. Cross, Jr., confirms.

⁵⁵ Cf. the warning of H.-W. Bartsch, op. cit., 258, although his extreme scepticism regarding Q is certainly unfounded.

⁵⁶ Possibly more like the collections of Sayings used in Clem. 13 and Did. 1. These two examples, of course, emphasize the difficulty of the problem, since the sayings in 1 Clem. 13:2 are more primitive than Mt. and Lk., whereas the collection inserted into Didache 1:3–5 may have been composed on the basis of Mt. and Lk.; see my study, Synoptische Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vätern [TU 65(1957)], 12–16; 220–37.

⁵⁷ James M. Robinson, “ΛΟΓΟΙ ΣΟΦΩΝ Zur Gattung der Spruchquelle Q,” in Zeit und Geschichte (Dankesgabe an R. Bultmann, 1964), 77–96.

⁵⁸ Cf. J. M. Robinson, op. cit., especially 96; cf. idem, “The Problem of History in Mark, Reconsidered,” Union Sem. Quart. Rev. 20 (1965), 135, where he says about his study of Logoi and Q: “I have tried to trace this Gattung, whose gnosticizing proclivity is blocked by Matthew and Luke by embedding Q in the Markan gospel form.”

⁵⁹ J. M. Robinson, art. cit., note 57, emphasizes this connection rather strongly.

⁶⁰ H.-Ch. Puech, op. cit., 307; cf. J. M. Robinson, art. cit., 82f.

⁶¹ A collection of Pauline epistles was in use in Edessa before the arrival of representatives of the orthodox church. This is shown indirectly through the special introduction of the antignostic third epistle to the Corinthians into Edessa, probably in order to fight against the existing concept of Paul; cf. W. Bauer, op. cit., 45ff. It also is interesting to note that the sectarian heirs of the Thomas tradition in Syria, the Manichaeans, reflect a positive evaluation of Paul; see Kephalaia (ed. Schmidt, Ibscher, Polotsky, Böhlig [1940]), 13, lines 19–26.

⁶² Die Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums (1961). Note that R. M. Grant, The Secret Sayings of Jesus (1960), presents an interpretation of this Gospel based on the employment of later Gnostic writings, — a method which he has criticized vociferously whenever it was employed by students with respect to New Testament writings.

⁶³ J. M. Robinson, see note 58 above.

⁶⁴ Cf. the excellent analysis of J. M. Robinson, art. cit., 91–95. It is known that already Rudolf Bultmann (in The History of the Synoptic Tradition) drew his categories for the analysis of the Logia of Jesus from the Jewish Wisdom Literature, see Robinson, art. cit., 77–79.

⁶⁵ It is not possible here to enter into the controversy with B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (1964²). As I am only too aware of the fact that my disagreements with this book can hardly be exaggerated, a few critical remarks would not do justice to Gerhardsson's work nor to the importance of this controversy.

⁶⁶ Whether any apocalyptic Son of Man sayings were existent at this stage, is very doubtful; cf. P. Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu,” Festschrift für Günther Dehn (1957), 51–79; idem, “Jesus und der Menschensohn,” Zeitschr.f.Theol. u. Kirche 60(1963), 133–77.

⁶⁷ This has parallels in the Gospel of John (cf. Jn 6:63 and passim), but certainly does not imply literary dependence.

⁶⁸ In the classification I follow Bultmann, op. cit., passim.

⁶⁹ G. Thom. 26, 31–35, 39b, 45, 47, 66, 67, 73, 78, 86, 93, 94. Without parallels, but probably primitive traditions are 21 (last part), 24, 33a, 40?, 74, cf. 80 and 111b.

⁷⁰ G. Thom. 8, 9, 20, 57, 63–65, 76, 107; without synoptic parallels 97, 98.

⁷¹ E.g. in the parable of the wise fisherman (8) and of the pearl (76), as has been pointed out frequently.

⁷² Especially 6, 14 in part, 25, 99, 101a, cf. 39, 102, 95.

⁷³ Cf. 54 (“blessed are the poor,” in the “Matthean” form, but without the addition “in spirit”), 58?, 68 (but see 69!); further 16a, 17, 55, 82, the latter without synoptic parallel.

⁷⁴ See further: 5, 6b, 11, 18a, 22, 75, 88, 91, 111, 112.

⁷⁵ See for this especially Haenchen, Die Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums (1961), 39–74.

⁷⁶ The resulting type of Christian morality and behavior may be labelled “encratite,” but it should not be confused with such encratite developments elsewhere, which often have completely different theological roots (e.g. the Marcionites, or Jewish Christian encratites in Asia Minor); see also A. Ehrhardt, op. cit., 95, n. 9, who points out that this term in its early usage can refer to a variety of heresies, and that its later technical use “arose from experiences of the post-Constantinian period.”

⁷⁷ It is certainly wrong to see Bardesanes as a founder of a sectarian type religiosity, or to label him as a representative of Eastern Valentinianism. Both these views stem from the armory of the antignostic Fathers.

⁷⁸ This is the best explanation for the appearance of Gospel of Thomas readings in the Diatessaron which G. Quispel has pointed out in several articles, Vig.Christ. 13(1959), 87–117; NTStud. 5(1958/59), 276–90.

⁷⁹ Whether the original composition was in Syriac or in Greek, is of minor concern for our question. I would tend to believe in a Greek original because of the Roman influences which are present (here Justin is Tatian's predecessor) and because of the Western evidence for it (cf. the Dutch version).

⁸⁰ Cf. G. Bornkamm, Mythos und Legende in den apokryphen Thomasakten (1933).

⁸¹ On the developed Gnosticism of the Acts of Thomas, in which the earthly Jesus has been completely replaced by the figure of the Gnostic redeemer, see G. Bornkamm in E. Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen II (1964), 300–08.

⁸² This tradition only serves the purpose of connecting Palut's succession to Peter in Rome — historically improbable for many reasons; cf. W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei, 22 (see also 25ff.).

⁸³ The conflict between Thomas and Thaddaeus is usually overlooked, but is clearly present in our sources. The claim of orthodoxy to derive from Thaddaeus as the original Edessene Apostle is perhaps already reflected in the fact that the list of Apostles in the heretical Acts of Thomas reflects Mt.'s list (Mt. 10), but drops Thaddaeus. In any case, it is in this area that we have to look for reasons and motives behind the changes in such lists, rather than looking for possible desires to “harmonize” various traditions (against A. F. J. Klijn, op. cit., 158f.; W. Bauer, Das Leben Jesu, 444f., is certainly right).

⁸⁴ To assume that the Abgar legend actually speaks of Abgar IX (A.D. 179–216) is a typical example of saving a “historical” kernel and sacrificing the real intention of a legend, since the orthodox Christians invented the legend for no other purpose than to justify their claim that they had come to Edessa in Apostolic times rather than around 200.

⁸⁵ On “The Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church Aside from Paul,” see R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament I (1951), 63ff.

⁸⁶ On the Galatian controversy, see Schmithals, W., “Die Häretiker in Galatien,” ZNW 47(1956), 25–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on Colossians, see the excellent study of G. Bornkamm, “Die Häresie des Kolosserbriefes,” in Das Ende des Gesetzes (1958²), 139–56.

⁸⁷ W. Schmithals, op. cit., has described this theological dimension of the opponents' teaching in Galatia very persuasively. But he confuses the problems when he denies the central role of the Law in the thought of the Galatian opponents.

⁸⁸ I can only note in passing that for my understanding of the problem of covenant in early Christianity, I am indebted to the book of Klaus Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (1960; 2nd ed. 1964), which — after the preliminary studies of George Mendenhall — for the first time opened up an entirely new perspective also for New Testament studies.

⁸⁹ Cf. also Col. 2:8, 16ff.

⁹⁰ See my article “The Purpose …,” above, note 8.

⁹¹ Their “Judaizing Gnosticism” must be distinguished from later groups of encratite Ebionites.

⁹² W. Bauer, op. cit., 82f.

⁹³ The various and often contradictory reports about Cerinthus are collected in A. Hilgenfeld, op. cit., 411–18.

⁹⁴ For the following description I am indebted to D. Georgi and to his excellent study Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief. He shows convincingly that it is necessary to distinguish between the controversies in 1 and 2 Cor. With respect to 1 Cor. W. Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth (1956) offers many good observations; see, however, D. Georgi's review in Verkündigung und Forschung (1960), 90–96; further U. Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit (1959), and my review of Wilckens in Gnomon 33(1961), 590–95. On 1 Cor. cf. also G. Bornkamm, “Herrenmahl und Kirche bei Paulus,” above, note 8.

⁹⁵ Insofar J. Munck is quite right; see his chapter “The Church without Factions” in Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (1959), 135–67. I disagree with Munck, however, since I am persuaded that influence from Jewish Wisdom theology is actually evident, although it seems that such wisdom theology is closely related to Paul's own teaching and/or to Apollos' activity which in essence is not criticized by Paul.

⁹⁶ Cf. G. Bornkamm, “Die Vorgeschichte des sogenannten Zweiten Korintherbriefes,” Sitzungsberichte d. Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl. 1961,2. A short English abstract of this study was published by G. Bornkamm under the title “The History of the Origin of the so-called Second Letter to the Corinthians,” NTStud. 8 (1961/62), 258–64.

⁹⁷ D. Georgi, op. cit., 83–187.

⁹⁸ See D. Georgi, op. cit., 282–300, on the Christology of Paul's opponents.

⁹⁹ This W. Marxsen has shown convincingly; Der Evangelist Markus (1956), 83–92.

¹⁰⁰ Phlm. 24; cf. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; the John Mark of Acts 12:25; 13:5ff. is probably a later Lukan construction. In any case, the tradition which connects Mark with Paul is much older than that which finds Mark in Peter's company (1 Peter 5:13; Papias apud Eusebius, hist. eccl. III.39.15).

¹⁰¹ This means that Asia Minor and Achaia, perhaps Antioch, would be more likely than Rome; Galilee is, of course, not more than an imaginative error.

¹⁰² As James M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark (1957), has shown. A re-statement of this interpretation and further literature to this question can be found in J. M. Robinson, “The Problem of History in Mark, Reconsidered,” above, note 58.

¹⁰³ The most satisfactory explanation for the location of the writing of Luke-Acts, I believe, is Asia Minor. This, of course, does not exclude the availability of “Antiochian” traditions.

¹⁰⁴ See H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (1960); cf. 201: “.… there is no trace of any Passion mysticism, nor is any direct soteriological significance drawn from Jesus' suffering or death.”

¹⁰⁵ This judgment is based upon the observation that Apocalypticism as a genuine movement is not an issue in the countries around the Aegean Sea in Paul's lifetime.

¹⁰⁶ Käsemann, E. “Zum Thema der urchristlichen Apokalyptik,” Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen 11(1964), 105–31Google Scholar [first published in Zeitschr. f. Theol.u. Kirche 59(1962), 257–84], is to be given full credit for reopening again the question of early Christian apocalyptic. He is certainly right in his emphasis upon the tremendous importance of apocalyptic thought in the early years of Christianity; I would add: upon both Christian heresy and orthodoxy at the same time. I understand my own attempts in this paper as a partial contribution to the task of attending to the legacy of historical inquiry which Käsemann has emphasized with genuine passion.

¹⁰⁷ I assume that the existence of this historical “Johannine” circle attracted the Ephesian tradition of the “Apostle” and disciple of the Lord of this name. Of course, it is not impossible that also the Gospel of John was written in Ephesus. It is known, however, that the geographical location of the origin of the Gospel of John poses the most puzzling problems to the scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Cf. F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (1961²), 216f.

¹⁰⁹ Fitzmyer, J. A., “Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1,” Cath.Bibl.Quart. 23(1961), 271–80.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Cf. P. N. Harrison, Polycarp's Two Epistles to the Philippians (1936). If Harrison is right, we have to date this second letter (= Pol.Phil. 1–12) in the time of Marcion's beginnings.