^{page 314 note 1} For a summary of the literature discerning development in Paul's eschatology, cf. Hurd, John C. Jr, The Origin of I Corinthians (New York, 1965), pp. 8 f., n. 3Google Scholar; Hoffmann, Paul, Die Toten in Christus (Münster, 1966), pp. 4 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 2} Attempts to harmonize Paul's eschatological statements are relatively scarce. Besides the survey in Hoffmann, , op. cit. pp. 20 ff.Google Scholar, cf. Kennedy, H. A. A., St Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things (London, 1904), pp. 262 ff.Google Scholar; Geerhardus, Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids, 1953), pp. 172 ff.Google Scholar; John, Lowe, ‘An Examination of Attempts to Detect Developments in St Paul's Theology’, J.T.S. XLII (1941), 129 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 3} Hurd, John C. Jr, ‘Pauline Chronology and Pauline Theology’, in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. Farmer, W. R., Moule, C. F. D. and Niebuhr, R. R. (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 225 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 4} Die Gnosis in Korinth (Göttingen, 1956).Google ScholarMoule, C. F. D., ‘The Influence of Circumstances on the Use of Eschatological Terms’, J.T.S. XV (1964), 1 ff.Google Scholar, argues that Paul uses different eschatological expressions within a single letter (e.g. Romans) because of a changed situation. Moule, however, construes the change less in terms of the circumstances of the recipients than in terms of the shifting of Paul's own theological themes.

^{page 314 note 5} Cf. Robinson, James M. and Cobb, John B. Jr (eds.), The New Hermeneutic, ‘New Frontiers in Theology, II’ (New York, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 6} ‘The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism’, New Hermeneutic, pp. 164 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Funk's investigation of I Cor. ii. 6–16 in his Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York, 1966), pp. 275 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 1} ‘World in Modern Theology and in New Testament Theology’, in Soli Deo Gloria—New Testament Studies in Honor of William Childs Robinson, ed. Richards, J. McDowell (Richmond, 1968), pp. 88 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 2} Cf.Funk, , New Hermeneutic, p. 170Google Scholar; Robinson, James M., ‘Kerygma and History in the New Testament’, in The Bible and Modern Scholarship, ed. Hyatt, J. Philip (New York, 1965), p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 3} It has been argued (unconvincingly) that Paul in Thessalonica had preached the imminence of the parousia at the expense of any mention of the resurrection of the dead; cf. Guntermann, Friedrich, Die Eschatologie der Hl. Paulus, ‘NT Abhandlungen, XII, 4/5’ (Münster, 1932), pp. 42 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 4} The attempt to avoid this interpretation of I Thess. iv. 15, e.g. by Karl, Staab, Die Thessalonicherbriefe, ‘Regensburger NT, 7’ (Regensburg, 1959), pp. 35 ff.Google Scholar, is unconvincing. Similarly, Moore, A. L., The Parousia in the New Testament, ‘Supplements to Novum Testamentum, XIII’ (Leiden, 1966), pp. 108 ff.Google Scholar, argues that Paul is not certain that he will be alive until the parousia. Moore's exegesis of I Thess. iv. 13–18 and I Cor. xv is forced, and his interpretation of Rom, . xiii. 11Google Scholar and Phil, . iv. 5Google Scholar smacks of a kind of de-temporalizing similar to that which he finds objectionable in Bultmann (pp. 67 ff.).

^{page 315 note 5} ‘New Testament Eschatology’, Scottish Journal of Theology, VI (1953), 136 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 6} The New Testament Doctrine of the ‘Last Things’ (London, 1948), p. 117.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 7} Jesus and His Coming (New York, 1957), p. 161.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 1} Theology of the New Testament, trans. Grobel, Kendrick (New York, 1951), 1, 201.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 2} ‘St Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of Resurrection’, N.T.S. XII (1965–1966), 119.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 3} Chapters in a Life of Paul (New York, 1950), p. 86.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 4} ‘Concerning the Date of Paul's Macedonian Ministry’, Nov. Test. IV (1960), 60 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 5} Cf. Duncan, George S., St Paul's Ephesian Ministry (New York, 1930), pp. 124 ff.Google Scholar; and Hurd's summary (Christian History and Interpretation, p. 243Google Scholar). In a more recent article (‘The Sequence of Paul's Letters’, Canadian Journal of Theology, XIV (1968), 193 ff.Google Scholar), Hurd suggests that some who accept the Ephesian imprisonment place I Cor. before Phil., apparently in spite of the fact that I Cor. XV. 32 is usually cited as evidence for the imprisonment.

^{page 316 note 6} Cf. , Staab, op. cit. pp. 35 f.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 1} Cf. , Hoffmann, op. cit. pp. 173 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 2} Cf. Hettlinger, R. F., ‘2 Corinthians v. 1–10’, Scottish Journal of Theology, X (1957), 174 ff.Google Scholar; Hans, Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, ‘Meyer's Kommentar, 9th ed.’. (Göttingen, 1924), pp. 157 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 3} Cf. Ellis, E. Earle, ‘II Corinthians v. 1–1 in Pauline Eschatology’, N.T.S. VI (1959–1960), 211 ff.Google Scholar; Ronald, Berry, ‘Death and Life in Christ—the Meaning of 2 Corinthians v. 1–10’, Scottish Journal of Theology, XIV (1961), 60 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 4} Cf. Lietzmann, Hans, An die Korinther, ‘H. z. N.T.’ (Tübingen, 1949), pp. 117 ff.Google Scholar; Sevenster, J. N., ‘Einige Bemerkungen über den “Zwischenzustand” bei Paulus’, N.T.S. I (1954–1955), 291 ff.Google Scholar Some scholars are convinced that the text is in on way concerned with the intermediate state; Cf. , Ellis, N.T.S. VI, 211 ff.Google Scholar; Hoffmann, , op. cit. pp. 253 ff.Google Scholar; Karel, Hanhart, The Intermediate State in the New Testament (Franeker, 1966), pp. 150 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 5} For a summary of the arguments of the representatives of this position, cf. Wilcke, Hans-Alwin, Das Problem eines messianischen Zwischenreichs bei Paulus (Zürich, 1967), pp. 51 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 6} ‘Die Leugner der Auferstehung in Korinth’, Nachgelassene Reden und Aufsätze (Berlin, 1952), pp. 110 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 1} The view of Schniewind, Schmithals et al. presupposes the existence of a pre-Christian gnosticism. For a survey of the issues involved. cf. Wilson, R. McL., Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford, 1968), pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar In terms of the significant Messina conference on gnosticim (13–18 April 1966), what Schmithals calls ‘gnosticism’ should be described as ‘proto-Gnosticism’ cf. Bianchi, Ugo (ed.), Le Origini dello Gnosticismo (Leiden, 1967), p. xxvii.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 2} Gnosis, pp. 70 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 3} Die leidende Apostel und sein Herr (Göttingen, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 4} ibid. p. 94.

^{page 318 note 5} Op. cit. pp. 240 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 6} For the view that the opponents in Corinth are Jewish Christian egocentric gnostics cf. Bieder, Werner, ‘Paulus und seine Gegner in Korinth’, Th.Z. XVII (1961), 319 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 7} Exegetische Probleme der Zweiten Korintherbriefes (Darmstadt, 1963), pp. 3 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 8} Gnosis, pp. 223 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 1} Die Gegner des Paulus im. 2. Korintherbrief (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1964). Cf.Google ScholarSchulz, Siegfried, ‘Die Decke des Moses’, Z.N.W. XLIX (1958), 1 ff.Google Scholar For the view that the opponents of II Cor. represent a Jewish Christianity similar to that of Stephen, cf. Gerhard, Friedrich, ‘Die Gegner der Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief’, in Abraham unser Vater— Festschrift für Otto Michel, ed Betz, O., Hengel, M., Schmidt, P. (Leiden, 1963), pp. 181 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 2} Cf. , Georgi's review of Schmithals' Gnosis in Verkündigung und Forschung (1968/1969), pp. 90 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 3} ‘Kerygma and History’, Bible and Modern Scholarship, p. 140.Google ScholarPubMed

^{page 319 note 4} ‘Die Irrlehrer des Philipperbriefes’, Z.Th.K. LIV (1957), 297 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 5} ‘The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment (Philippians III)’, N.T.S. VII (1961–1962), 317 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 6} ibid. p. 332.

^{page 319 note 7} ibid. p. 331.

^{page 319 note 8} Klijn, A. F. J., ‘Paul's Opponents in Philippians iii’, Nov. Test. VII (1965), 278 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues against both Schmithals and Koester, that the opponents at Philippi are Jews.

^{page 320 note 1} ‘Die historisch Situation der Thessalonicherbriefe’, in his Paulus und die Gnostiker (Hamburg–Bergstedt, 1965), pp. 89 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 2} ‘Häretiker im Urchristentum’, R.G.G.³, III, 17 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 3} This question is discussed in a different but illuminating fashion by Wilder, Amos N., ‘Eschatological Imagery and Earthly Circumstance’, N.T.S. V (1958–1959), 229 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 4} Cf. the recent survey by Robinson, James M., ‘The Coptic Gnostic Library Today’, N.T.S. XIV (1967–1968), 356 ff.Google Scholar; Wilson, , op. cit. pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 1} Cf. Funk, Robert W., ‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance’, in Christian History and Interpretation, pp. 249 ff.Google Scholar; and his Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God, pp. 224 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 2} This view of many older commentators (e.g. Plummer, A., I.C.C.Google Scholar; Strachan, R. H., MoffattGoogle Scholar) has been recently supported by Georgi, , Gegner, pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar; and Bornkamm, Günther, Die Vorgeschichte des Sogenannten Zweiten Korintherbriefes (Heidelberg, 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 3} Cf. the discussion of this problem by Wilcke, , op. cit. pp. 112 f.Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 4} So Frame, James E., Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians, ‘I.C.C.’ (Edinburgh, 1912), p. 164.Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 5} Cf. the discussion of this problem by Hurd, , Origin of I Cor., pp. 43 ff.Google Scholar Some of those who consider I Cor. to be composite assign vii and xv to the same letter (e.g. Dinkler, E., R.G.G.³, IV, 18).Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 6} The older commentators were inclined to consider II Cor. i–ix (sometimes with the exception of vi. 14—vii. I) as a unity (e.g. Strachan and Plummer). A recent attempt to defend the unity of i–xiii has been made by Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament, trans. Mattill, A. J. Jr, (Nashville, 1966), pp. 211 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 1} So Georgi, , Gegner, pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar; Bornkamm, , op. cit. pp. 22 f.Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 2} Recent partition theories of Schmithals and Koester have been noted above. Cf. also Beare, F. W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (New York, 1959), pp. 23 ff.Google Scholar For a recent defence of the unity of Phil. cf. , Kümmel, Introduction, pp. 235 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 3} Mention has been made above of the Ephesian imprisonment as the place of the composition of Phil. For a recent argument supporting Rome cf. Beare, , Philippians, pp. 155Google Scholar, and at least the possibility of Caesarea, cf. Kümmel, , Introduction, pp. 229 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 4} Cf. Funk, , Christian History and Interpretation, pp. 249 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 1} The background of II Cor. v is hotly debated. That Jewish concepts are present has been established by Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1948), pp. 308 ff.Google Scholar; Sevenster, J. N., ‘Some Remarks on the Gymnos in II Cor. v. 3’, in Studia Paulina—in Honorem H. de Zwaan (Haarlem, 1953), pp. 202 ff.Google Scholar; Ellis, , N.T.S. VI, 211 ff.Google Scholar However, Sevenster's argument that Paul uses Hellenistic terminology with different meaning simply serves to make our point. The Hellenistic character of the passage has been delineated by Bultmann, , Theology, I, 201 f.Google Scholar; Thorleif, Boman, ‘Hebrew and Greek Thought-Forms in the New Testament’, in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation—Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper, ed. Klassen, W. and Snyder, G. F. (New York, 1962), pp. 6 ff.Google Scholar Abundant parallels are cited by Windisch, , II Kor., pp. 141 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 2} Grant, Robert M., Gnosticism—A Source Book of Heretical Writings from the Early Christian Period (New York, 1961), p. 121.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 3} Isa, . xx. 4Google Scholar; Micah, i. 8Google Scholar; Ezek, . xxiii. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 4} Plato, , Cratylus, 403Google Scholar; Philo, , De Virtutibus, 76.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 5} Gospel of Philip, 23–4Google Scholar; Gospel of Thomas, log. 20, 37.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 1} Op. cit. pp. 218 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 240 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 3} N.T.S. VIII, 330.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 4} Cf. Grundmann, W., ‘Überlieferung und Eigenaussage im eschatologischen Denken des Apostels Paulus’, N.T.S. VIII, (1961–1962), 12 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 5} Cf. Davies, Paul E., ‘The Relevance of Apocalyptic for Ancient and Modern Situations’, in The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, ed. Willoughby, H. R. (Chicago, 1947), pp. 286 f.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 6} So Koester, Helmut H., ‘Paul and Hellenism’, in Bible and Modern Scholarship, p. 194.Google Scholar The view that Romans reflects the controversies of the collection period (cf. Suggs, M. Jack, “The Word is Near You”: Romans 10. 6–10Google Scholar within the Purpose of the Letter', in Christian History and Interpretation, pp. 289 ff.Google Scholar) remains an interesting hypothesis. Although the epistle may have circulated in various editions, and may have been addressed to other congregations (e.g. Ephesus), one thing is certain: a copy of Rom. i–xv was sent to Rome—a church which had no direct involvement in controversy with Paul.

^{page 325 note 7} This point is acknowledged by most interpreters of Paul's eschatology. Cf. as examples Oscar, Cullmann, Salvation in History, trans. Sowers, S. G. (London, 1967), p. 267Google Scholar; Hunter, A. M., Paul and His Predecessors (Philadelphia, 1961), p. 102Google Scholar; Pinnock, Clark H., ‘The Structure of Pauline Eschatology’, Evangelical Quarterly, XXXVII (1965), 11.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 1} Although Bultmann, (Theology of the NT, 1, 292 ff.)Google Scholar stresses the present character of the salvation-occurrence, he acknowledges the future element in Paul's thought. Shires', Henry M. comment that the ‘consummation of God's plan is still in the future’ (The Eschatology of Paul (Philadelphia, 1966), p. 50)Google Scholar is typical of most scholars.

^{page 326 note 2} Cf. Tannehill, Robert C., Dying and Rising with Christ (Berlin, 1967), p. 70Google Scholar; Schweizer, Eduard, ‘Dying and Rising with Christ’, N.T.S. XIV (1967), 1 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 3} Caird, G. B., ‘On Deciphering the Book of Revelation—III. The First and the Last’, Expository Times, LXXIV (1962–1963), 84Google Scholar, suggests that ‘eschatological language is never employed independently of its concrete, historical embodiment and realization’. In view of this eschatological realization, the present can be described as life in the Spirit; cf. Hamilton, Neill Q., The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul (Edinburgh, 1957), p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 4} Schoeps, H. J., Paul—The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, trans. Knight, Harold (Philadelphia, 1961), p. 124.Google Scholar According to Schoeps, the fact that ‘no change has taken place in the substance of the world’ (p. 124) is proof to the Jews that early Christian eschatology is mistaken. This argument indicates that Paul's fundamental shift away from Jewish eschatology must have occurred in his early Christian experience.

^{page 327 note 1} Robinson, , Bible in Modern Scholarship, p. 119Google Scholar; ‘Even though the kerygma takes place in Different language in different situations for the sake of scoring the equivalent point, still such hermeneutical translation will to some extent involve alteration of meaning’.