REVIEWS

Ernst Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 2. ergänzte Auflage, in: Handbuch zum, Neuen Testament 16, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1953, 208 S.

The first edition of Lohmeyer's commentary on the Apocalypse appeared in 1926. It was a notable contribution to Lietermann's "Handbuch", especially for its remarkable conception of the eschatological message of the book. Captivity and his lamented death in 1946 prevented Lohmeyer from a complete revision. The present editor of the "Handbuch", Prof. Gfnther Bornkamm of Heidelberg, was, I think, right in preferring a reprint of Lohmeyer's book with some slight alterations in minor points, mainly from the autor's own copy, and with additional bibliography to a more or less unsatisfactory revision by another scholar. Lohmeyer's book was such a unity that it should stand as such by itself in the history of interpretation. In this way it will remain available while a future expositor of the Apocalypse in this series will be much freeer in making an up-to-date commentary of his own. We may express the hope that such a completely new book will appear before long. Bilthoven, Sweelincklaan 4 W. C. VAN UNNIK

C. H. Dodd, The I nterpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, University Press, 1953, xii + 478 pp. 428. net. In 1953 the Professor Emeritus in the University of Cambridge, whose many good gifts had already rejoiced the New Testament scholars and the interested outsiders (a.o. The Bible and the Greeks 1935, The Parables of the Kingdom 1935, commentaries on Romans and the Johannine Epistles, The Apostolic Preaching 1936, Gospel and Law 1951, According to the Judaism, Gnosticism and Mandaism are successively discussed. The second part (p. 133-285) is devoted to an exposition of the Leading Ideas of the gospel, such as eternal life, know- ledge of God, truth, faith, son of God, son of Man, the Logos. In the third part, entitled Argument and Structure (p. 289-443), the author, without giving a real commentary to the text, sets out to trace the course of the argu- ment through the whole gospel. To these three parts, which are of about equal length, a short but interesting Appendix has been added, in which

236 237

"some considerations upon the historical aspect of the Fourth Gospel" are offered (p. 444-453). Six Indices locorum and one Index nominum conclude the work, which also typographically may be called a masterpiece of the University Press (and Printer). The commonplace that it is impracticable to do justice to the work in question in a relatively short review is perfectly relevant here. It was not without reason that it has been typified as a book "such as only one is written in a country in the course of a generation".' Together with Bultmann's Commentary and, though in a less degree, that of Barrett (1955), it will put a stamp on the Johannine studies for several years.a2 Still the attention might be drawn to a few points. In the first part of his book Dr. Dodd makes an attempt to penetrate into the great riddle of John, the mysterious literary and spiritual "background" of the gospel. Broadly speaking his position is that, paying due regard to the influences of early Christianity and Rabbinism and to the highly original character of the gospel, he principally views it against the background of what he calls the "higher religion of Hellenism". With this term he denotes the religious currents which are mainly to be derived from the Hermetic literature and of which there are also clear traces in the works of Philo Iudaeus. Unlike Bauer, Bultmann a.o., Dodd does not cite Mandaism in this connection: "... alleged parallels drawn from this medieval body of literature have no value for the study of the Fourth Gospel unless they can be supported by earlier evidence" (p. 130). In his chapter on Gnosticism he does not discuss the vague and extensive Gnosis of Hans Jonas and Rudolf Bultmann, but, following the terminology used by most British scholars, he has in mind "the amorphous group of religious systems described by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in their works against Heresy" (p. 97). Accordingly his conclusion is that "Johannine Christianity, in spite of the common background, (is) an entirely different thing from semi-Christian or near-Christian Gnosticism" (p. 114). To put it concisely, in contrast to Bultmann whose commentary he hardly ever cites, Dodd considers the background of the gospel to be more Hellenistic than Eastern. In so far one might say that, albeit in a very personal way, he breathes new life into the former view that John had best be regarded as "the Gospel of the Greeks". I believe that this opinion constitutes a wholesome reaction against many modern inter- pretations of St. John, which are based mainly on Jewish (Old Testament and Rabbinic) antecedents. On the other hand, it may be asked whether Dodd does not disturb the proper balance, which, in this delicate question, it is so difficult to preserve, in favour of the "Greek" side. Is one entitled to speak in John of Platonism, though in a somewhat vague and popularised sense (see p. 139f.; p. 170-78)? Is it wholly justified to attach so much