^{page 209 note 1} See, e.g., R. Bultmann, art. γινώσκωTh.W.z.N.T. I, 688 ff., and Gaffney, J., ‘Believing and Knowing in the Fourth Gospel’, Th. St. XXVI (1965), 215–41.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 1} Cf Schneider, A., ‘Der Gedanke der Erkenntnis des Gleichen durch Gleiches in antiker und patristischer Zeit’, in Festgabe Clemens Baeumker (Münster, 1923), pp. 65 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 2} Referred to in Sextus, Adv. math. 1. 303.

^{page 210 note 3} Timaeus 45^B–C, cf. Schneider, op. cit. p.68.

^{page 210 note 4} Cf. e.g. Seneca, Ep. LXVI. 11 ff.; Dio Chrysostomus, Or. I. 42; XII. 27; Philostratus, Vita Ap. 8, 7, 7; Porphyry in Nemesius, De nat. hom. 7; Cicero, Leg. I. 24; Rep. VI. 26; Tusc. I. 52; Pohlenz, M., Die Stoa, I (Göttingen, 1948), 234f.;Google ScholarHeinemann, I., Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften, I (Breslau, 1921), p. 63;Google ScholarBonhöffer, A., Epiktet und die Stoa (Stuttgart, 1890), p. 220;Google ScholarReinhardt, K., Kosmos und Sympathic (München, 1926), p. 199.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 5} Cf. Cicero, Off. I. 153 and III. 21; Heinemann, op. cit. II. 48.

^{page 210 note 6} Cf. Cicero, ND I. 43f.; Pohlenz, op. cit. I. 59; Heinemann, op. cit. II. 125f.

^{page 210 note 7} Dio Chrysostomus, Or. XII. 39; Cicero, Leg. I. 59ff.; Pohlenz, , Grundfragen der stoischen Philosophic (Göttingen, 1940), pp. 100ff.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 1} Reinhardt, op. cit. p. 199; cf. Sextus, Adv. dogm. I. 129ff.; Dio Chrysostomus, Or. XII. 28; Manilius, Astron. II. 115f.; IV. 885 ff.; Lucan, Bell. civ. IX. 580.

^{page 211 note 2} Dio Chrysostomus, Or. XII. 39 ff.; Pohlenz, , ‘Paulus und die Stoa’, Z.N.W. XLII (1949), 92f.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 3} Cf Poimandres 6 and 12; Festugière, A.-J., La révétion d'Hermès Trismégiste, IV (1954), 56 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 4} Cf. Festugière, op. cit. III. 34f.; Jonas, H., The Gnostic Religion (Boston, 1963), pp. 154ff.;Google ScholarHaenchen, E., ‘Aufbau und Theologie des “Poimandres”’, Z.T.A. LIII (1956), 170ff.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 1} Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 26f.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} Dodd, op. cit. p. 16.

^{page 212 note 3} Ibid. pp. 44f.

^{page 212 note 4} Jonas, op. cit. p. 34.

^{page 213 note 1} cf Gärtner, B., The Theology of the Gospel according to Thomas(New York, 1961), pp. 190ff.; Jonas, op. cit. pp. 68 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 2} Gärtner, op. cit. pp. 197ff. The principle is also clearly expressed in texts like ‘The Gospel of Truth’ 34, 9–14; ‘The Gospel of Philip’ 109, 21–35; 126, 20–127, 13.

^{page 213 note 3} Cf Reitzenstein, R., Die Hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (Leipzig, 1927), pp. 302ff.; Bultmann, op. cit. p. 694.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 4} For the following see Gärtner, B., The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Uppsala, 1955), pp. 117 ff., where the relevant literature is listed.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 1} Leg. alleg. I. 38; Abr. 79 f.; Det. 86.

^{page 214 note 2} Cf Klein, F.-N., Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon von Alexandrien und in den Hermetischen Schriften (Leiden, 1962), pp. 55f. and 73f.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 3} Leg. alleg. III. 96f.

^{page 214 note 4} Cf Goodenough, E. R., By Light, Light (New Haven, 1935), pp. 247ff.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 1} For the discussion of the whole section i. 18–ii. 16 see Wilckens, U., Weisheit und Torheit (Tübingen, 1959) and the critique byGoogle ScholarPrümm, K., ‘Zu neutestamentlichen Gnosis-Problematik. Gnostischer Hintergrund und Lehreinschlag in den beiden Eingangskapiteln von I Kor?’, Z.kath. Th. LXXXVII (1965). 399–442 and LXXXVIII (1966), pp. 1–50.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 2} See Bultmann, R., Glauben und Verstehen, I (Tübingen, 1933), pp. 42ff., and the discussion of Wisdom traditions in the Pauline literature inGoogle ScholarConzelmann, H., ‘Paulus und die Weisheit’, N.T.S. XII (1966), 238ff.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 3} For the Old Testament and Jewish background see Feuillet, A., ‘L'énigme de I Cor. ii, 9’, R.B. LXX (1963), 54ff.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 1} I do not agree with Bultmann, op. cit. pp. 42f., when he makes a clear distinction between ‘the word of the cross’, i. 18ff., and the sophia of ii. 7; cf. E. Schweitzer, art. πνɛμα, Th.W.z.N.T. IV, 422f. and 435; Feuillet, op. cit. pp. 67f., who understands the sophia as another expression of the ‘word of the cross’. Wilckens's attempt to identify the sophia with ‘the Lord of glory’ is dubious as he interprets these expressions only in the context of a Gnostic myth, op. cit. p. 71. See the critique of Wilckens in K. Prümm, op. cit. pp. 20 ff.

^{page 217 note 2} The Gnostic interpretation is found, e.g., in Bultmann, , Theology of the New Testament, I (New York, 1954), p. 173Google Scholar, ‘Both in name and meaning “the rulers of this age“the Lord of glory” to the cross (I Cor. ii. 6, 8) are figures of Gnostic mythology’. B. does not, however, explain what kind of Gnostic myth he refers to or how old it is. It is not that easy to call ‘the rulers of this age’ in ii. 6 Gnostic mythological beings. The other interpretation is favoured by Alio, E.-B., Première épître aux Corinthiens (Paris, 1935), pp. 42f.Google ScholarSchlatter, A., Die Korintherbriefe (1950), p. 26. Cf. the discussion in Prümm, op. cit. pp. 29ff., and Wilckens, op. cit. pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 1} A. Feuillet, op. cit. pp. 54ff., has brought out that the quotationhas primarily to do with the revelation in Christ which now can be grasped by God's Spirit in the Christian and not with the future, eschatological illumination.

^{page 218 note 2} Reitzenstein, op. cit. p. 336, paraphrases ‘indem wir mit Geistesgaben und Offenbarungen (die wir schon besitzen) Geistesgaben und Offenbarungen…vergleichen und sie danach beurteilen und verstehen’, which, however, is misleading since Paul in I Cor. 2 is not discussing the pneumatic gifts or only one category of Christians, namely the charismatic ones. Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen, 1, pp. 42ff., also interprets the pneuma in ii. 10ff. in terms of a special gift of the pneumatic man instead of the gift which all Christians have received; cf. to this last statement Käsemann, E., Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I (Göttingen, 1960), pp. 270ff.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} ‘…der Gegensatz ψυχικς–πνευματικς entspricht dem üblichen Gegensatz σρξ–πνεμα, wonach ψυχικς als σαρκικς zu vestehen ist’, Jervell, J., Imago dei (Göttingen, 1960), pp. 265f.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 2} Dupont, J., Gnosis (Louvain–Paris, 1949), pp. 152ff., distinguishes between two different kinds of Christians, which, however, gives Paul's way of arguing a confusing character, ‘Il y a donc deux catégories de Chrétiens: les pneumatikoi, qui sont favorisés de révélations sur l'au-delà, et les psychikoi, qui n'ont pas accès à la gnose’.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 3} I do not realize why it is necessary, as Wilckens, art. σοϕ׀α, Th.W.z.N.T. VII, 520, does, to establish a contrast between the interpretation of sophia in terms of God's Heilsplan (G. Bornkamm, art. μυστριον, Th.W.z.N.T. IV, 826) and that of ‘das wichtigste und umfassende eschatologische Heilsgut’. To Paul the deep penetration into God's sophia must have as its object both these ideas, which is shown by the referencesto the cross, i. 23, and to the righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, i. 30.—When I say that sophia ‘in one way’ can be identified with Christ, I mean that I cannot agree with Wilckens's attempt to identify Christ with Sophia, understanding them in the light of a Gnostic Erlösermythos. Paul rather wanted to emphasize that the revelation is expressed by the person and teaching of Christ and the only way of a real understanding of the revelation is to share in the divine ‘quality’ of the revealer; cf. Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit, pp. 71 ff.

^{page 221 note 1} Reitzenstein, op. cit. p. 338. Even if I do not agree with R. in his interpretation of I Cor. i–iii, it seems to be ‘logical’ to say that God's Pneuma and Christ's Nous here are parallel. Cf. the critique of R. by Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1958), pp. 191ff.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} I do not find it necessary to discuss all the complicated problems connected with the Prologue. Fine surveys of the different attempts to interpret it are presented in Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium (Freiburg, 1965), pp. 197 ff.;Google ScholarBrown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (New York, 1966), pp. 3–37;Google ScholarRidderbos, H., ‘The Structure and Scope of the Prologue to the Gospel of John’, N.T. VIII (1966), 180–201.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 1} Cf. the stimulating article by I. de la Potterie, ‘L'emploi dynamique de ε׀σ dans Saint Jean et ses incidences thédologiques', Biblica, XLIII (1962), 366fF., theologically developed in his article ‘Je suis la Voie, la Vérité et la Vie (Jn 14, 6)’, Nouv. Rev. Théol, XCVIII (1966), 907–42, stating that we ought to think of this expression in the Prologue in ‘un sens dynamique’. In the last mentioned article P. writes, ‘II semble donc qu'il faille comprendre comme suit ce v. I: “Le Logos était tournévers Dieu” et pareillement le v. 18, qui lui correspond: “Le Fils unique qui est tourné vers le sein du Pére”’, p. 934. As I think that the revelation is the main theme of the Prologue, revelation receiving its unique content and role because of the qualitative kinship between the Logos and the Father, I find this ‘sens dynamique’ leading away from John's intention in the Prologue as well as in the Gospel as a whole. The same thing can be said about Brown's translation ‘the Word was in God's presence’ (op. cit. pp. 5 and 24).

^{page 222 note 2} θες without the article can be a hint at a distinction between the Father and the Logos so that the latter is subordinated to the Father. The main idea behind the clause, however, is to stress the common quality dimension. Bultmann seems therefore in one way to be right when he says ‘Ein paradoxer Sachverhalt soll Ausdruck finden, der mit dem Offenbarungsgedanken gegebene und im Folgenden entwickelte Sachverhalt nämlich, dass im Offenbarer wirklich Gott begegnet, und dass Gott doch nicht direkt, sondern nur im Offenbarer begegnet’, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen, 1950), P. 17.

^{page 223 note 1} For the theological understanding of John xiv. 6 see de la Potterie, , ‘Je suis la Voie, la Vérité et la Vie (Jn 14, 6)’, Nouv. Rev. Théol, XCVIII (1966), 927ff.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} Cf. Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit, pp. 160ff.; Lührmann, D., Das Offenbarungsverstdädnis bei Paulus und in den paulinischen Gemeinden (Neukirchen–Vluyn, 1965), pp. 127ff.;Google ScholarHaenchen, E., ‘Probleme des johanneischen Prologs’, Z.T.K. LX (1963), 321ff.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 2} Cf. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 224.

^{page 224 note 3} Cf. e.g. Odeberg, H., The Fourth Gospel (Uppsala–Stockholm, 1929).Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 1} See Cullmann, O., La foi et le culte de l' Église primitive (Neuchâtel, 1963), pp. 142f.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} In this context there is an interesting relation between ‘see’ and ‘believe’, see O. Cullmann, op. cit. pp. 136 ff.

^{page 226 note 2} All the sayings of Jesus in John that contain the theological conception of ‘to know God’ are not descriptions of the status of those who believed during Jesus' earthly ministry. They deal with the conditions of salvation after Jesus had finished his ministry. People could believe, seeing Jesus and listening to him, but ‘knowledge’ belonged to the conditions created through Jesus' exaltation.

^{page 226 note 3} One could also refer to passages like Nicodemus' words ‘Rabbi, we know (οίδαμεν) that you are a teacher come from God’, iii. 2, or those of the Samaritans ‘We know (οίδαμεν) that this is indeed the Saviour of the world’, iv. 42, but they do not express more than a common messianic belief. ‘To know’ is here not of the same character as that of the theological statements meaning to realize, understand Christ's person and unique task.

^{page 230 note 1} This is evident also from the discussion of the ‘Synusie der Weisheit’ with God and with the disciple in Wilckens, art. σδφۀα,Th.W.z.N.T. VII, 499f.

^{page 231 note 1} Cf. to the many other relations between the Wisdom of Solomon and John the article by Ziener, G., ‘Weisheitsbuch and Johannesevangeliums’, Biblica, XXXVIII (1957), 396–418, and XXXIX (1958), 37–60.Google Scholar