¹ Robinson, J. A. T., Redating the New Testament (London and Philadelphia, 1976).Google Scholar

² E.g. the proconsulship of Gallio (A.D. 51–2 or 52–3; cf. Acts 18. 12) and the procuratorship of Festus (c. A.D. 59–62; Acts 24. 27) have an indirect bearing on the dating of the Pauline literature; the martyrdom of James (A.D. 62; Josephus, Ant. 20, 200 f.) is significant for the date (and authorship) of the letters of James and Jude (cf. Ellis, E. E., Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Tübingen and Grand Rapids, 1978), 226–36).Google Scholar

³ Matt. 24. 15–22; Mark 13. 14–20; Luke 19. 42–4; 21. 20–4. While the latter Lukan passage clarifies the apocalyptic imagery of Daniel 9. 27, 12. 11 (= Matt. 24. 15; Mark 13. 14), it draws its own descriptive phraseology from other Old Testament Septuagint passages (e.g. Hos. 14. 1; Nah. 3. 10; Isa. 3. 25 f., 29. 3; Jer. 20. 4 f., 52. 4). This was demonstrated by Dodd, C. H. in More New Testament Studies (Manchester, 1968), 69–83Google Scholar (= J.R.S. 38 (1947), 52–4Google Scholar). Equally, if the source of Eusebius is reliable, the instructions in Jesus' prophecy (‘flee to the mountains’) are hardly post-70 since they do not accord with what the Jerusalem Christians actually did in c. A.D. 66. According to Eusebius (HE 3, 5, 3) they fled to Pella in the Trans-Jordan valley. Also, it is not quite correct to say that the Gospels do not, on principle, incorporate historical sequels into the ‘kerygmatic’ Jesus-story, as Matt. 27. 8 and 28. 15 show. If predictive prophecy is rejected a priori then, of course, a post-70 date is required. (A similar prophecy occurs in Revelation 11. 2.)

⁴ The passage most often thought to reflect the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem is Jesus' parable of the marriage feast in which an offended king ‘burned ένέπρησεν their city’ (Matt. 22. 7; cf. Josephus, , War 6. 354–64Google Scholar). But as Rengstorf, K. H. has shown (in Judentum-Urchristentum-Kirche, ed. Eltester, W. (Berlin, 1960), 125 ff.)Google Scholar, burning the enemy's city was an established topos and reflects no action peculiar to the events of A.D. 70. In fact the term ‘burned’ is found only here in the New Testament and is, like other terms in the apocalyptic discourse (see note 3), probably an allusion to the Old Testament description of the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. (Jer. 52. 13, ἐνἑπρησεν!)

⁵ Robinson's example. It is from the story, Silver Blaze.

⁶ Acts 7. 47–50, 6. 13 f. (cf. 11. 28); Heb. 8. 4, 13, 9. 6 f., 10. 1–4. Cf. also passages where the temple is criticized or where Christ, Christians and/or the Christian community are regarded as God's true temple. They appear in books generally recognized to be pre-70 (I Cor. 3. 16; II Cor. 6. 16) and in books whose pre-70 date is disputed (cf. John 2. 19–22; Acts 7. 48; Eph. 2. 20; Revelation).

⁷ For the way in which a Christian writing after A.D. 70, when speaking of God's true temple, alludes to the fall of Jerusalem, cf. Barn. 16. 1–5. Cf. also Justin, Dial. 40.

⁸ Robinson (note 1), 266–9, 278. Cf. Albright, W. F., ‘Recent Discoveries in Palestine and the Gospel of John’, The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, ed. Davies, W. D. (Cambridge, 1956), 153–71Google Scholar; Brownlee, W. H., ‘Whence the Gospel according to John?’, in John and Qumran, ed. Charlesworth, J. H. (London, 1972), 166–94Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jeremias, J., The Rediscovery of Bethesda: John 5. 2 (Louisville, 1966).Google Scholar

⁹ So, Robinson (note 1), 145 f., following Edmundson, G., The Church in Rome in the First Century (London, 1913), 123–7Google Scholar. The account of Tacitus (Annals 15, 44) presupposes some interval between the burning of Rome (July A.D. 64) and the persecution of the Christians.

¹⁰ Cf. Tertullian, , Apol. 5Google Scholar; cf. Eusebius, , HE 2. 25. 3–5.Google Scholar

¹¹ I Clement 5. 1–7. 1; Tacitus, , Annals 15, 44.Google Scholar

¹² Tacitus, ibid. (fateor); cf. Pliny, Letters 10, 96 (confiteor); cf. Edmundson (note 9), 131–9; Robinson (note 1), 157.

¹³ Suetonius, Nero 16 (instituta, suppliciis); Tertullian, Apol. 5 (leges); Ad nat. 1, 7 (condemnation of the name); Sulpic. Severus, Chron. 11, 29. For a discussion cf. Frend, W. H. C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965), 164–9Google Scholar; Workman, H. D., Persecution in the Early Church (London, 1906), 52–72, 365 f.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. I Clement, where prayer for ‘rulers and governors’ is offered (60. 4; 61. 1 f.), along with clear allusions to the persecutions suffered at their hands (5. 1–7. 1).

¹⁵ The book of Revelation is placed in the reign of Domitian by Irenaeus, , Adv. Haer. 5. 30. 3Google Scholar; Eusebius, , HE 3. 20. 8Google Scholar, apparently citing earlier sources; Victorinus, , In Apcl. 10Google Scholar. 11, 17. 10; Jerome, , de viris illus. 9Google Scholar. A few sources, also including Jerome, (adv. Jov. 1. 26Google Scholar), associate the book with Nero, e.g. the title of the Syriac versions (cited in Swete, H. B., The Apocalypse of St John (London, ³ 1909)Google Scholar, c). Epiphanius', (Haer. 51. 12; 51. 32)Google Scholar reference to the reign of ‘Claudius’ may, in his source, have read ‘Claudius Nero’ (so, Hort, note 16, xviii). Re Domitian's persecution of Christians, Melito (†c. A.D. 190, cited in Eusebius 4. 26. 9) refers to his ‘slander’ and ‘false accusations’; Tertullian, (Apol. 5)Google Scholar draws a general analogy between Domitian and Nero. Cassius, Dio (Roman History 67. 14)Google Scholar speaks of a charge of ‘atheism’ against Domitian's cousin Clemens and his wife Domitilla and against many others who had drifted into ‘Jewish customs’. On Clemens and Christianity cf. Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers, 1, 1, 32–9Google Scholar, and Frend (note 11), 216 f.

¹⁶ E.g. Hort, F. J. A., Apocalypse of Saint John 1–3 (London, 1908), xxvi ffGoogle Scholar.; Edmundson (note 7), 163–79; Robinson (note 1), 221–53; cf. Rev. 11. 1–3.

¹⁷ Also called the Shemoneh Esreh. For the text and English translation cf. Dugmore, C. W., The Influence of the Synagogue upon the Divine Office (London, ² 1964), 114–25Google Scholar. He dates the Twelfth Benediction, the Birkath ha-Minim, to A.D. 90–117. The pertinent lines read as follows: ‘… let the Nazarenes [= Christians] and the Minim [= heretics] perish as in a moment, let them be blotted out of the book of the living and let them not be written with the righteous …’.

¹⁸ It was found in the Geniza or storage room of a Cairo synagogue established in A.D. 882. Cf. Kahle, P., The Cairo Geniza (London, 1947), 1.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. Meg. 17b and Ber. 28b (Baraitha), where the ‘Petition against Heretics’ apparently is viewed as an annual prayer. In Ber. 4. 3 it is to be recited daily. For other rabbinic references cf. (H. L. Strack and) Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (4 vols. München, 1922–1928), IV, 208–49.Google Scholar

²⁰ E.g. the Matthean form of the Lord's Prayer is thought to be in conscious interaction with the Shemoneh Esreh and other liturgical prayers of the post-70 rabbis. Cf. Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964), 275–9Google Scholar, 309–13.

²¹ E.g. Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (2 vols. Garden City, N.Y. 1966, 1970), 1, lxxxv, 380Google Scholar; Martyn, J. L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York, 1968), 17–41.Google Scholar

²² This is difficult to accept. Formal exclusion from thecommunity, temporary or permanent, was practised in pre-Christian Judaism by the Qumran community (1QS 6. 25, 7. 1 f.), and such disciplines were doubtless used by the Pharisees as well. The word used at Qumran () is sometimes translated in the Septuagint by ἀφορíειν a term used in Luke 6. 22: ‘Blessed are you when they exclude ἀφ;ορíσωσιν you … and cast out έκβάλωσιν your name as evil …’. From the beginning Jesus (Luke 4. 29), Stephen (Acts 7. 58), Paul (II Cor. 11. 25; cf. Acts 9. 23, 29) and others (1 Thess. 2. 14; cf. Acts 8. 1) were, according to the New Testament evidence, threatened with lynching or were ‘reviled’ and ‘driven out’ ἐξέβαλον Acts 13. 45, 50) by Jewish opponents. If this was so, a fortiori some synagogues would certainly have excluded Christians even from the beginning. But see Hare, D. R. A., The Theme of Jewish Persecution … according to St Matthew (Cambridge, 1967), 48–56.Google Scholar

²³ See notes 17, 19. The date of Gamaliel II's death is unknown, but he was the leading member of a delegation to Rome in c. A.D. 95 (e.g. GenR 20. 4; cf. Bacher, W., Die Agada der Tannaiten (2 vols. Berlin, ² 1965–1966 (1903)), 1, 79Google Scholar; Derenbourg, J., Histoire de la Palestine (Farnborough, 1971 (1867)), 334–40)Google Scholar. Herford's, R. T. (Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (Farnborough, 1972 (1903)), 129–35)Google Scholar dating of the Prayer to c. A.D. 80, although widely followed, is highly conjectural and is not convincing.

²⁴ In the rabbinic sources the Prayer refers to the ‘Minim’, i.e. heretics; the reference to the ‘Nazarenes’ or Christians in the ninth-century text, therefore, seems to be a later supplement. The Prayer may have been used against Christians, among others, by the mid-second century when Justin (Dial. 16. 4; cf. 137. 2) speaks of Christians being cursed in the synagogues. But this usage becomes clearly specified only in fourth-century sources, when Epiphanius (Haer. 29. 9) and Jerome (on Isa. 5. 18, 49. 7, 52. 4) refer to Christians being cursed under the name ‘Nazarenes’ (as cited in Strack, H. L., Jesus … nach den ältesten jüdischen Angaben (Leipzig, 1910), 66^*).Google Scholar

²⁵ On Revelation see note 15; cf. Victorinus, On the Apocalypse 10. 11: John was on the island of Patmos ‘condemned to the labor of the mines by Caesar Domitian’. Luther, M. (The Catholic Epistles (St Louis, 1964 (c. 1540)), 203, 213)Google Scholar thought on the basis of Jude 17 f. that the Epistle does ‘not seem to have been written by the real apostle, for in it Jude refers to himself as a much later disciple of the apostles’. Also, Calvin, J. (Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of Peter (Edinburgh, 1963 (1562)), 325)Google Scholar concluded that Second Peter was written by a disciple at Peter's command. Grotius, H., Annotationum in Novum Testamentum (3 vols. Amsterdam (vol. 1) and Paris, 1641–50)Google Scholar, III, 38 (cited in Kümmel, W. G., The New Testament…Problems (London, 1973), 37Google Scholar, but with a mistaken dateline) regarded Second Peter as a post-70 writing of Simeon (cf. II Pet. 1. 1), successor to James as Bishop of Jerusalem.

²⁶ Evanson, E., The Dissonance of the Four generally received Evangelists (Ipswich, 1792)Google Scholar, in which according to an obituary in The Gentlemen's Magazine, 75, (1805), 1073Google Scholar, 1233–6, he ‘undertakes to show that a considerable part of the New Testament is a forgery’, e.g. Matthew, Mark, John, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews, the epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude, and the Seven Letters of Revelation. His essay, ‘The Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation of God examined upon the Principles of Reason and Common Sense’ (1772), shows that he was not uninfluenced by the rationalism of his day. Nevertheless, he affirmed both miracles and prophecy. Cf. Strachotta, F., Edward Evanson (1731–1805)Google Scholar: Der Theologe und Bibelkritiker (Halle, 1940).Google Scholar

²⁷ Evanson (note 26), 20 ff., 111, 258 ff. However, Luke-Acts also suffered later interpolations, e.g. Luke 1. 5–2. 52, 23. 43. Interestingly, Schmidt, J. E. C., in his Einleitung (260)Google Scholar expressed doubts about I Timothy because of its lack of agreement with Acts (cited in Schleiermacher, note 40, 11).

²⁸ Evanson (note 26), 185, 256–9, 261, 269. Evanson's book, translated into Dutch in 1796, may have had an influence on the rejection of Romans in the following century by the ultra-Tübingen school. Cf. Van Manen, W. C., Paulus (3 vols. Leiden, 1890–1896)Google Scholar, 11, 2 f., passim; id., ‘Romans’, Encyclopedia Biblica (4 vols. ed. Cheyne, T. K., London, 1899–1903), IV, 4127–45Google Scholar, who cites Evanson in both of these writings.

²⁹ Evanson (note 26), 263 f. Both Philippians and Titus, however, are possibly Pauline letters that have suffered later interpolations.

³⁰ ibid. 276 f.

³¹ ibid. 279.

³² ibid. 261.

³³ ibid. 141.

³⁴ ibid. 282.

³⁵ His book did go into a second edition (1805) and prompted a rebuttal by Priestley, J., Letters to a Young Man (London, 1793)Google Scholar; by Simpson, D., An Essay on the Authenticity of the New Testament (London, 1793)Google Scholar; and in the Bampton Lectures for 1810 of Falconer, T., Certain Principles in Evanson's ‘Dissonance…’ (Oxford, 1811).Google Scholar

³⁶ Evanson (note 26, 5) rejected any conception of a canonical unity of the New Testament since he regarded the canon as a fifth-century imposition of an apostate church. Like Michaelis, J. D. (Introduction to the New Testament (4 vols. in 6, Cambridge, 1793–1801), 1, 70; IV, 264, 311)Google Scholar, he Concluded that if a book was not authentic, it was thereby excluded from the canon. The relevant passages in Michaelis are summarized by Kümmel (note 25), 70 ff.

³⁷ Evanson's perception of Christology and of New Testament theology generally as a long-term development reappears in Baur, F. C., e.g. The Church History of the First Three Centuries (2 vols. London, 1878–1879, 11, 65 fGoogle Scholar. (GT: 308 f.)) et passim; Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie (Darm-stadt, 1973 (1864)), 38–42, 305 f., 351 f. Cf. Kümmel (note 25), 140 f.

³⁸ Schmidt, J. E. C., Vermutungen über die beiden Briefen der Thessalonicher (Hadamar, 1798)Google Scholar, cited in Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville, 1975), 264.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cludius, H. H., Uransichten des Christentums (Altona, 1808), 55 ff., 296.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ E.g. W. M. L. de Wette and J. G. Eichhorn, cited in Kümmel (note 25), 86 f. For the first rejection of the Paulinity of I Timothy on these and other grounds cf. Schleiermacher, F. D. E., Über den ersten Brief Pauli an Timotheos (Braunschweig, 1896 (1807)).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Schleiermacher (note 40, 101, 114) is an exception. Like Evanson, he interpreted theological differences in terms of a chronological interval. E.g. the absence of the great Pauline themes, the prohibition on second marriages and an established order of widows (I Tim. 5. 9) disclose ‘traces of a later time’ (121).

⁴² E.g. Eichhorn, J. G., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (5 vols. Leipzig, 1804–1827), 111Google Scholar: after Paul's death one of his disciples collected his oral teachings and put them in the form of a letter to Titus (386); since the destruction of Jerusalem is not given as an illustration in the letter of Jude, it was perhaps written in the last years before that event (655). The date of II Peter is uncertain; if Peter had a disciple finish it, it could not have been long after A.D. 65 (641).

⁴³ Eichhorn (note 42, 111, 634) reckons with this possibility in the case of II Peter. It had been advocated earlier by Jerome (Letters 120, 11) and by Calvin. Cf. Calvin, J., Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of Peter (Edinburgh, 1963 (1562)), 325.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ E.g. in 1829 Baur, speaking on Acts 7, shows no doubt about the historicity of Acts. In ‘Die Christuspartei…’ (TZT 1831, IV, 61–206 reprinted in Ausgewählte Werke, 4 vols., ed. Scholder, K., Stuttgart, 1963–1970, 1Google Scholar, which gives the original page numbers) he recognizes Philippians (107 f.), James and I Peter (205 f.) as authentic even though the last two tend to ‘mediate’ the quarrel between Paul and his Judaizing opponents (205 f.). However, he regards a later date for II Peter (already a traditional option) as confirmed since in it this tendency is carried much further. For an English translation cf. Kümmel (note 25), 129 f.; cf. 127. According to Zeller, E. (Erinnerungen eines Neunzigjährigen (Stuttgart, 1904), 93 f.Google Scholar, cited in Harris, H., The Tübingen School (Oxford, 1975), 29)Google Scholar, Baur as late as 1834 had noted no incompatibility between Acts 15 and Gal. 2.

⁴⁵ It is unclear when Baur first became a follower of G. W. F. Hegel's thought. In his controversy with J. A. Möhler in 1833 he identified his method as Hegelian (TZT 1833, IV, 421 n.), and an earlier influence of Hegel cannot be excluded. Cf. Fitzer, J., Möhler and Baur in Controversy (Tallahassee, 1974), 97 f.Google Scholar; Harris (note 44), 26, 33, 155–8. From the time of Baur's Die christliche Gnosis (Tübingen,1835) and Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe (Tübingen, 1835) a Hegelian pattern became increasingly explicit. Cf. Kümmel (note 25), 132.

⁴⁶ E.g. on his interpretation of I Cor. 1. 12 the appeal in I Thess. 2. 12–14 to the example of Jewish Christians ‘has a thoroughly non-Pauline stamp’ (Baur, F. C., Paul (2 vols. London, 1875 (1845)), 11Google Scholar, 87 = GT², 11, 96). The ‘bishops and deacons’ in Phil. 1. 1 reflect a post-Pauline church order (F. C. Baur, ‘Ursprung des Episkopats’, TZT 1838, 111, 141 = Ausgewählte Werke, note 44, 1, 461).

⁴⁷ Like C. C. Tittmann, Baur restricted the influence of Gnosticism on Christianity to the second century; Gnostic echoes and opponents in Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians and the Pastorals pointed, then, to their later origin (Baur, F. C., The Church History of the First Three Centuries (2 vols. London, 1878 (1835)), 1, 127 fGoogle Scholar. = GT², 121; cf. Ellis (note 2), 88). Like F. D. E. Schleiermacher. (note 41), he also regarded the attitude toward second marriages and the order of widows in the Pastorals as a sign of a post-Apostolic date (Pastoralbriefe, note 45, 118 ff.; Paul, note 46, 103 n.).

⁴⁸ Even if, as Hodgson, P. C. (The Formation of Historical Theology (New York, 1966), 208)Google Scholar notes, he modified Hegel's scheme as he applied it. From the beginning Baur regarded a philosophical system as an essential precondition for historical investigation. Cf. Baur, F. C., Symbolik und Mythologie (3 vols. Stuttgart, 1924–1925), 1Google Scholar, xi: ‘Without philosophy history remains for me (bleibt mir) forever dead and mute.’

⁴⁹ Best surveyed in his Paul (note 46), his Church History (note 47) and Baur, F. C., Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie (Darmstadt, 1973 (1864)), 39–42.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Cf. Munck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Richmond, 1959), 69–86.Google Scholar

⁵¹ For a summary and critique of their contributions cf. Kümmel (note 25), 245–80, 309–24.

⁵² Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos (Nashville, 1970), 119, 11–21Google Scholar, 317 f. = GT ⁵1964 (1913), 75 f., VII–XV, 246 f. For Bousset, of course, the miracles and resurrection of Jesus could not have occasioned, at the very beginning, the divine status ascribed to him since apart from ‘the gift of healing’ (100 = GT, 59) they were rejected a priori on philosophical grounds and were regarded as mythical elaborations. Cf. 98–106 = GT, 57–65, where his philosophical assumptions are clearly evident. Often Bousset appears, like Evanson, to envision a unilinear ‘stream of development’ (12 = GT, VIII). However, he also reflects a Hegelian pattern of thought when he writes that a diaspora Christian ‘form of piety, which grew in its own soil, quite early merged with the gospel of Jesus and with the latter entered into a new form…’ (19 = GT, XIII). His treatment of the Gospel of John is similar: taking the Pauline pneuma with his own Logos Christology and ‘preserving the little bit of humanity in the picture of Jesus that was still to be kept… [the Fourth Evangelist] has reconciled the myth with history…’ (220 = GT, 162).

⁵³ Bousset (note 52), 157 ff., 265–71 = GT, 107 ff., 201–6. The interpretation of Pauline ‘knowledge’ and ‘wisdom’ in terms of a Gnostic (or Wisdom) mythology was carried out by later ‘history of religions’ research, e.g. of R. Bultmann and his ‘school’. For a critique of this approach cf. Ellis (note 2), 45–62; Hengel, M., The Son of God (Philadelphia, 1976)Google Scholar; Wagner, G., Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh, 1967).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ E.g. Bousset (note 52), 32 ff., 358–67 = GT, 2 ff., 282–9.

⁵⁵ Cf. Ellis (note 2), 119, 125, 245 ff.; Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism (2 vols. Philadelphia, 1974)Google Scholar; Marshall, I. H., ‘Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity’, N.T.S. 19 (1972–1973), 271–87.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ E.g. the Pharisees in their anthropology and their views of the state after death. Cf. Goodenough, E. R., By Light, Light (New Haven, 1935), 6Google Scholar; id., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (12 vols. New York, 1953–1965), 1, 53, 111–15, 264–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cf. Sukenik, E. L., Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece (London, 1934), 69 f.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ellis (note 2), 246 n.; Fitzmyer, J. A. in C.B.Q. 32 (1970), 507–18Google Scholar; Sevenster, J. N., Do υou Know Greek? (Leiden, 1968), 96–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ Cf. Dalman, G., Jesus-Jeschua (Leipzig, 1922), 5.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cf. Stendahl, K., The School of St Matthew (Lund, ² 1969), 34, 190–292Google Scholar, who is probably correct in attributing the ‘Christianized’ interpretations of the Old Testament peculiar to the First Gospel to a Matthean ‘school’ of exegetes. Re the Fourth Gospel cf. John 21. 24 which presupposes the participation in some manner of co-workers of the Beloved Disciple in the composition of the Gospel. A somewhat similar tradition is reflected in the Muratorian Canon (9–16): ‘The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, [one] of the disciples: When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, he said: Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that while all were to go over [it], John in his own name should write everything down.’ Cf. Cullmann, O., The Johannine Circle (London, 1976).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Roller, O., Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe (Stuttgart, 1933), 14, 17 ffGoogle Scholar. Given the quality of the ink and reed-pen and the rough surface of papyrus, it might take over an hour to write one page of copy. For Greek letters, the use of shorthand by a stenographer (notarius) is attested only from later centuries. But in the first century a trusted secretary (librarius) might more or less precisely copy and complete a letter in accordance with oral or written instructions from the author (19). Cf. Cicero, ad Atticum 13. 25. 3, where Tiro, the amanuensis, is said to ‘take down whole sentences at a breath’. Roller (307) doubts that this refers to stenography; but cf. Mentz, A., Die Tironischen Noten (Berlin, 1944), 39–50.Google Scholar

⁶² E.g. Phil. 2. 6–11; Col. 1. 12–20; I Tim. 3. 16. Cf. Deichgräber, R., Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit (Göttingen, 1967)Google Scholar; Martin, R. P., Carmen Christi (Cambridge, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the literature cited in each volume.

⁶³ E.g. I Cor. 2. 6–16; cf. I Tim. 2. 11–15 with I Cor. 14. 34 f.; cf. Ellis (note 2), 156 et passim and ‘The Silenced Wives of Corinth’, Essays in Honour of B. M. Metzger, ed. Epp, E. J. and Fee, G. D. (Oxford, 1980), forthcoming.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ E.g. regulations: ?I Cor. 11. 3–12; 12. 4–11 (cf. Ellis, note 2, 24 n.); ?I Tim. 3. 2–13, 14; oracles: ?II Cor. 6. 14–7. 1; I Tim. 4. 1–5, 6.

⁶⁵ Perhaps, e.g., the expositions in Jas. 2. 20–6; II Pet. 3. 5–13.

⁶⁶ It is also present, of course, among Anglo-American scholars who have been influenced by this heritage of German scholarship. Cf. Dunn, J. D. G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London, 1977), 345, 356.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ E.g. Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St Luke (London, 1960), 131–6Google Scholar; and ‘Luke's Place in the Development of Christianity’, Studies in Luke–Acts, ed. Keck, L. E. (Nashville, 1966), 306 f.Google Scholar: Luke represents a comprehensive synthesis of components from the earlier period. The same thought-pattern was reflected earlier by Bultmann, R., Existence and Faith (New York, 1960), 237 fGoogle Scholar. = T.L.Z. 73 (1948), 665 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ von Campenhausen, H., Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power (Stanford, CA 1969), 296 f. cf. 81–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ E.g. the ‘church order’ reflected in I Cor. 14. 34 f. and I Tim. 2. 11–15.

⁷⁰ E.g. ἐπíσκοποι in Phil. 1. 1 and ἐπíσκοποσι in I Tim. 3. 2; Titus 1. 7; Acts 20. 28.

⁷¹ E.g. Phil. 2. 6–11; Rom. 10. 9, 13 = Joel 3. 5 (κυύριοσ = Yahweh). Cf. Hengel, M., ‘Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie’, Neues Testament und Geschichte, Festschrift für O. Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Baltensweiler, H. (Tübingen, 1972), 43–67Google Scholar; ibid., Son of God (note 53); Moule, C. F. D., The Origin of Christology (Cambridge, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷² Cf. Smalley, S. S., John: Evangelist and Interpreter (Exeter, and Greenwood, SC, 1978), 9–40.Google Scholar

⁷³ Cf. Ellis, E. E., The Gospel of Luke (London and Greenwood, SC, ² 1974), 4 ff., 55–60Google Scholar; Jervell, J., ‘Paul in the Acts …’, Les Actes des Apôtres, ed. Kremer, J. (Gembloux, 1979), 297–306.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ A σίλλυβος with the name ‘Luke’ was in all likelihood attached to this dedicated work from the beginning. The early and undisputed identification of this Luke with Paul's sometime colleague is confirmed by the internal evidence and is highly probable. Cf. Ellis (note 73), 40–50, 64 f.

⁷⁵ Stendahl (note 60).

⁷⁶ Cullmann (note 60). Cf. Culpepper, R. A., The Johannine School (Missoula, 1975).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ellis (note 2), 3–22. Cf. Acts 13. 1 f. On ‘pseudo-apostolic’ groups cf. ibid. 12 n., 80–115; Matt. 7. 15; II Cor. 11. 13; 1 John 4. 1; Rev. 2. 2, 6, 14, 20–2.

⁷⁸ Cf. Rom. 1. 11 f.; 16. 3–15; I Cor. 16. 12; Gal. 2. 7–9. Re the sharing and application of each other's traditions cf. I Cor. 11. 16; 14. 33b; 15. 1 f.; Gal. 1. 18 (ιστορήσαι); I Tim. 3. 1a et passim (πίστος ὸ λόγος); II Pet. 3. 15 f.

⁷⁹ Cf. the reservations about the Gospel of John expressed above. A case for a pre-70 or post-70 origin of the Johannine epistles has not, I think, been made. Nor can the Pastoral Letters be inter-spersed among Paul's other letters. I have not worked enough in II Peter to havea viewpoint although, like Robinson, I was impressed with the arguments of Zahn's, T.Introduction to the New Testament (3 vols. Grand Rapids, 1953 (1909))Google Scholar. Now convinced (cf. note 2, 226–36) that Jude is to be dated A.D. 55–65, I shall need to consider II Peter in the light of this.

⁸⁰ Cf. letters 71 and 75 in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 12, ‘St Augustine: Letters 1–82’, ed. Parsons, W. (New York, 1951), pp. 327, 366 f.Google Scholar