^{page 56 note 1} ‘The Destination and Purpose of St John's Gospel,’ N. T.S. VI (1960), 117–31.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 1} Law, R., The Tests of Life (Edinburgh, 1909), p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 1} The only other New Testament writer apart from the Author to the Hebrews to refer to Cain.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 2} The Religious Thought of St John (London, 1950), p. 168.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 3} The Johannine Epistles (London, 1932), pp. liii–liv.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} The fourth Gospel never uses in the plural.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 2} On the fundamental affinities between the theological dualism of the Johannine Epistles and Qumran, see Nauck, W., Die Tradition und der Chtsrakter des ersten Fohamesbriefes (Tübingen, 1957), pp. 100–22.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 3} Immediately before listing the doctrinal points which, as we have seen, indicate the more Jewish character of the Epistles, Dodd writes: ‘The Epistle is not only less Hebraic and Jewish; it is also more free in its adoption of Hellenistic modes of thought and expression’ (op. cit. p. liii).Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 4} Pace Bultmann, this looks increasingly to be a late, post-Christian element in Gnosticism, and is absent even from The Gospel of Truth in the middle of the second century.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 1} Adv. Haer. 1, xxvi, I: ‘Post baptismum descendisse in eum ab ea principalitate quae est super omnia Christum figura columbae, et tunc annuntiasse incognitum patrem et virtutes perfecisse; in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de lesu, et lesum passum esse et resurrexisse; Christum autem impassibilem perseverasse existentem spiritalem.’Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 2} Ibid.:‘lesum autem subiecit non cx virgine natum (impossibile enim hoc ei visum est); fuisse autem eum Joseph et Mariae fihium, similiter Ut reliqui omnes homines.’Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 3} It would be a mistake to assume that there was a 1:1 correspondence between the views of Cerinthus and John's opponents. Indeed, he never suggests he is attacking an individual person. But, pace Schnackenburg, R., Die Fohannesbriefe (Freiburg, 1953), pp. 17 f.,Google Scholar I am convinced with Brooke, A. E., The Johannine Epistles (Edinburgh, 1912), pp. xlv–xlix, that the Johannine heresy is better explained by what we know of Cerinthus than by any other known system.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 4} Op. cit., ibid.

^{page 62 note 5} Op. cit. III, iii, 4. It is repeated by Eusebius H.E III, xxviii, 6; IV, xiv, 6.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 1} XXX (1921), 344–73.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 2} Op. cit. p. 349.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 3} Op. cit. III, xi, I.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 4} Iren. op. cit., ibid.

^{page 63 note 5} Pseud. Tert. Adu. omn. haer. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 6} It is presented as a jewish heresy in Justin, Dial. lxii, 3.Google Scholar Cf. the passage in the Treatise on the Three Natures quoted by Quispel, G. in The Fung Codex, ed. Cross, F. L. (London, 1955), p. 62:Google Scholar ‘They [the Jews] have founded numerous heresies which exis down to the present day among the Jews … Some say that he [God] is the creator of what exists; others say that he created through angels.’

^{page 63 note 7} Ed. Sedlacek, L., C.S.E.O., Scriptores syri: versio. Series II, vol. CI (Rome, Paris, Leipzig, 1910), p. 1, II. 30 ff. The text is quoted by Bardy, op. cit. p. 353.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 8} Haeres. XXVIII.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 9} Haeres. XXXVI, 4.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 10} Euseb. H.E. III, xxviii, 1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 11} Op. cit. p. 371.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 12} Op. cit. p. 373.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 1} Op. cit. p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} Cf. e.g. Quispel, G., The Fung Codex (ed. Cross, F. L.), pp. 61–78;Google ScholarWilson, R. McL., The Gnostic Problem (London, 1958), esp. ch. VII.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 3} Reicke, B., N.T.S. I (1954), 141.Google Scholar