The purpose of this paper is to discuss some aspects of the—to me—perennially fascinating problem of the Johannine literature: in particular of the relationship of the Gospel, the Epistle and the Apocalypse; and to put forward some rather speculative views of my own—though they are not wholly original—which owe their origin to some ideas I have had about the John who on the island of Patmos saw the Apocalypse. Who was he, and why was he there? What, if anything, had he to do with the Gospel and the Epistle? In the course of some twenty-five years' study of the Johannine literature, desultory though it has inevitably been, I have gradually become convinced that the problem cannot be solved piecemeal, and that any theory designed to account for the Gospel must be applicable also to the Epistle and the Apocalypse, and vice versa. And I may as well lay my cards on the table, and state the view which I have been led to hold.

In the opening section of the recently discovered (and now published) Gnostic ‘Apocryphon of John’, the Revealer says to John: ‘Now I have come to reveal to you that which is, that which has been, and that which will be, so that you may know the things which are seen and the things not seen and to reveal to you about the perfect Man.’

Exegetical study in the days of liberal theology assumed that Paul spoke on impulse, according to the mood of the moment, deeply moved, and with often changing emotions. Scholars read between the lines, searching for crises in the life of the apostle that might explain his changes of attitude. If we consider Adolf Deissmann's research on Paul it is not difficult to see that an interpretation assuming a far too detailed knowledge of the apostle's spiritual life is an exaggeration. The actual material of our study is the texts, not the man behind them. And Paul is not as spontaneous as was believed by the older generation of exegetes. The letters are those of an experienced missionary, used to preaching and instructing. And it is possible that in the letters he is dealing with subjects he has discussed before, so that the expressions he uses have not necessarily been new minted for this particular occasion.

It is surprising that the Fourth Evangelist, with his marked interest in the symbolical, should have omitted from his account of the Last Supper all reference to the Eucharist. Yet the instinct of the Church has rightly seen in ‘John’ (whoever be the person behind the name) the supreme New Testament teacher on the sacraments. Time and again, sometimes with hints that are not always obvious save to those who have insight into his mind and methods, he points his readers to the two great sacraments of the Church. It is with good reason that medieval artists are wont to portray Peter carrying the keys, Paul the sword, but John the sacramental cup.