² This may depend upon which commentary the preacher has read. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John I–III (ET Tunbridge Wells 1968–1982, = German 1967–1975) is the most soft-hearted, but kindliness also prevails surprisingly often in Rudolf Rultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (ET oxford 1971 = German 1966), Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St John (2nd edn.London 1978)Google Scholar and Lindars, Barnabas, The Gospel of John (1972)Google Scholar. There is more realism in Becker, Jürgen, Das Evangetium nach Johannes I–II (2nd edn.Gütersloh 1985).Google Scholar

³ It is normal to regard Nicodemus as representing official Judaism (Bultmann, 133, Lindars, 149, Becker I, 131), or the dialogue between the Church and the Synagogue (Barrett, 202); but then to add a gloss, e.g. Bultmann, ibid. n. 4, ‘his later conduct also bears witness to his faithfulness’; Barrett, 210, ‘representative of the halfintentioned (363), who ‘can hardly be considered as a “typical” case of the unbelieving Jew’ (364). Becker sees that the whole scene stands for the tensions within the Church, and is intended ‘einen innergemeindlichen Anstoss [zu] Überwinden’ (I, 141) in line with 6.60ff; but even he goes only part of the way.

⁴ So Barrett, 205, ‘out of darkness to the true Light’; cf. Schnackenburg, 365. But the tone of the verses on the true Light (3.19–21) is not too friendly.

⁵ The wording is Matthaean redaction. The issue of John's relation to the Synoptics is too complex to discuss here. I accept Johannine dependence on all three Synoptics directly, as proposed by F. Neirynck in numerous writings — cf. Evantrelica (BETL LX, Leuven 1982), 181–488.

⁶ Schnackenburg I, 366, and other commentators see 3.3 as Jesus' answer to Nicodemus' unexpressed question, ‘What must I do to share in the world to come?’ I fear this is just eisegesis (from Lk. 18.18), an unjustified smoothing over of Jesus'; rasping rebuke. The text gives N. as approaching Jesus with respectful but inadequate words, and Jesus sharply changing the subject: ne needs a totally new beginning.

⁷ Here again Schnackenburg's charity exceeds his judgment ‘N. makes a clever intervention’ (II, 160) — cf. Bultmann, 311, ‘N's cool objectivity’. N.'s comment certainly serves to expose the hypocrisy of the Jewish leadership, but we need to notice also that he is not spoken of as a believer (Becker I, 278); there is a rather obvious contrast between his feeble opposition and that of the robust blind man in Jn. 9, who suffers for his faith.

⁸ Schnackenburg III, 296f, sees N. as acting ‘out of love’, ‘as a man for whom Jesus’ death leads to a breakthrough of a more decisive attitude in his faith. But the text never mentions N.'s faith, or says that he believed (in contrast to many others in the Gospel), or (unlike his companion Joseph) that he was a disciple. We may contrast Becker II, 602, ‘Dabei bleibt Nikodemus Jude, im Unterschied zu Joseph, der heimlicher Jesusanhanger ist’; this may be going too far, but it is nearer the text than Schnackenburg.

⁹ For various speculative attempts to link N. to men in Jewish sources named Nicodemus, Naqai, etc., see Schnackenburg I, 365. If N. was not a contemporary of Jesus but a missionary to Asia in the 50s, some of these suggestions will gain in plausibility.

¹⁰ Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus c. 190, speaks of ‘Philip, one of the 12 apostles, who has fallen asleep in Hierapolis';, and of three of his daughters, two who grew old in virginity’, and one who ‘lived in the Holy Spirit’ (Eusbeius H.E. 5.24.2–17). It is difficult not to suspect a confusion with Philip the evangelist of Samaria and his four virgin daughters who prophesied in Acts 21.9; in which case we should have an explanation for the friendly attitude to Samaritans in John (4.4–42, 8.48).

¹¹ John is similarly ambivalent about other key matters. He thinks Jesus' σ⋯ρξ is the true food in 6.55, and that the σ⋯ρξ avails nothing in 6.63. God sent his Son to save the κ⋯σμος 3.17, but the κ⋯σμος cannot receive the Spirit in 14.17and hates the disciples in 15.19. Let him who has never used a word in two senses propose the first Teilungshypoihese.

¹² Lieu, S. R. C., Manichaeism (Manchester 1985), 21,136f, for the Manichaean Elect and Hearers.Google Scholar

¹³ See E. LeRoy Ladurie, Montaillou (Harmondsworth 1980 ET = Paris 1978); the Cathar believer became a parfait/goodman by receiving the consolamentum.

¹⁴ Paul uses ‘the kingdom (of God)’ nine times, of which six are negative; the controversial tone is obvious at 1 Cor. 4.20, ‘The kingdom of God is not in word but in power’; 15.50, ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’.

¹⁵ Commentators normally take 3.6 as elevating the discourse into the spiritual stratosphere. So Bultmann, 141, ‘σ⋯ρξ refers to the nothingness of man's whole existence’; Barrett, 210, ‘essentially the two words point respectively to man and God’; cf. Schnackenburg I, 371f. But this divorces it from its context with Nicodemus. Lindars, 153, draws the comparison with Rom. 8.1–17 for a similar purpose; but ignores the more down-to-earth controversy with the ‘fleshly’ claims of Jewish Christianity in Gal. 3–4.

¹⁶ Many commentators, beginning with Irenaeus, understand ‘I know a man in Christ…’ to be a self-reference: so Barrett, C. K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London 1973)Google Scholar, and authorities there cited. But this is in defiance of 12.5, ‘On behalf of such a man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast.’ Barrett approves Wendland's line, that ‘Paul distinguishes two men within himself’ (307); but this seems to be a sophistry. Good sense is available if ⋯πτασ⋯αι and ⋯ξοκαλ⋯ψεις are distinguished. ‘Revelations’ in Paul are always un-veilings to men on earth; this is his only use of ‘visions’. Barrett's objection, that Luke uses ⋯πτασ⋯α in the same sense, of a vision on earth, is not final; Paul may have used the word with a different nuance.

¹⁷ The potential of the visionary to become an authority alternative to the Law probably accounts for the reserve of the rabbinic tradition to Merkaba visions (e.g. mMeg. 4.10, mHag. 2.1, bHag. 14a). A contemporary church in Britain which includes visions is the predominant West African Church of the Cherubim and Seraphim. I asked the Chief Apostle about control of the ‘prophets’ at Gillott Road, Birmingham. He said, ‘At first they tell their visions in a weekday service; later if we think suitable on a Sunday. If their Sunday vision is unsuitable, the deacons escort them outside and they finish their vision in the passage.’ We may contrast Arthur Miller's picture of the witches of Salem in The Crucible.

¹⁸ John the author of the Apocalypse is in many ways a Jewish Christian: he writes a highly Semitic Greek, and his visions and his view of celibacy (14.4) are characteristic of Jewish Christianity. But his christology is Pauline, and that is why his book is in the canon: Matthew and he both pass the vital test.

¹⁹ There is probably also a claim to visions underlying 1 Cor. 2.6–16. Jewish Christians spoke of γνσις but no such knowledge was vouchsafed, says Paul, ‘citing’ Isa. 64.3, ‘Eye hath not seen nor ear heard, nor has it ascended into the heart of man’. ‘Of man’ is Paul's adaptation, so the eyes and ears are of men, not of the powers.

²⁰ Stone, M. E., Scriptures, Sects and Visions (London 1980)Google Scholar; Rowland, C. C., The Open Heaven (London 1982).Google Scholar

²¹ Ignatius, Philad. 7.1, cites these words with reference to inspiration in worship: ‘I cried aloud in your midst, I spoke with a loud , with the of God’. The surprise (‘he knows not whence…’) is that the divine voice says, ‘Attend to the bishop.’ Similarly in 1 Cor. 12: the Corinthians used to go after idols, and now that they have the Spirit that can speak, they need to be taught that he will not be saying just anything, like ‘Anathema Jesus,’ but only what comes from God and tends to God, like ‘Jesus is Lord.’ John (like Paul) thinks that those born of God/the Spiritshow this by not sinning, but by loving their brethren (l Jn.3.9f, 4.13); cf.Schnackenburg 1,374.

²² Lindars, 155, and many, note the puzzling logic of these verses: ‘how can the substance of verses 5–8 be regarded as anything less than “heavenly things”?’ He refers to Odeberg's suggestion of a polemic against ‘Jewish merkabah mysticism’, but without enthusiasm. Such a polemic would be too general to be pointed here: but as an attack on a Jewish Christian pneumatology it would be pointed indeed. There are rather lame explanations in Brown I,132, Barrett, 212, Schnackenburg I, 377f.

²³ The words can only be taken as from the evangelist's perspective: in the urgency of the Jewish Christian controversy he has slipped into the first person plural, and a post-Ascension viewpoint.

²⁴ Lindars, 323f, ‘excises’ the words ‘who had believed in him’; but he has no MS authority for this, and is increasingly isolated. They are accepted without discussion by Schnackenburg II, 204 and Becker I, 301f, both of whom stress the relevance of Jn. 8.31 ff to John's tensions withjewish Christians. Brown, who had deleted the words in his Commentary (1966) I, 354f, is less certain in The Community of the Beloved Disciple (London 1979)Google Scholar, and seems to assume the ir genuineness in The Epistles of John (New York 1982)Google Scholar, 52f. Barrett, 354, is non-committal.

²⁵ Shorter patristic references are a dangerous basis on which to extrapolate Jewish Christian beliefs. Justin (Dial. 48) mentions Jews who take Jesus to be Messiah, but ‘a man from men’, and refers to (Jewish) Christians who deny the pre-existence of Jesus, and think he became Messiah by divine election. So Irenaeus Haer., 5.1.3, where the Ebionites deny the Incarnation; Tertullian, De Carne Christi 14, where ‘Ebion’ made Jesus a ψιλ⋯ς of the seed of David only; de Virg. Vel. 6, where they deny the virginity of Mary; Origen, Comm. in Malt. 16.12, where they are blind because they will view Jesus as only a Davidide. Concentration on these brief and hostile comments has led to the widespread use of the ambiguous term Adoptianism, e.g. by Schoeps, H. -J., Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen 1949), 77fGoogle Scholar. Jesus was not just ‘adopted’ by God at the Baptism; Christ, a divine power, entered him.

²⁶ At 30.18.5 Epiphanius writes of Jesus becoming the Son of God, in the Ebionite view, ‘by spiritual progress (προκ'λπ⋯ν) and mystical union (συν⋯φειαν ⋯ναγωγς) which came upon him from above‘. For all Epiphanius’ dubious reputation, these details are rather impressive.

²⁷ It is of course only a hypothesis that the Ebionites of patristic times were the lineal descendants of the Jewish Christians. They derived their own name from the Hebrew 'ebyonim, the Poor, and associated it plausibly with the tradition of the common purse in Jerusalem in Acts 2–4 (Epiphanius Pan. 30.15.4).

²⁸ So Becker I, 132, ‘Dieser Christologie … wird also von einer Gruppe im joh. Gemeindeverband vertreten, wie ja auch das “Wir” in 1.14 (u.s.w.) eine analoge soziologische Basis hat.’ But Becker does not identify the group as Jewish Christian.