of a detailed exegesis of 1 John 5:20e-21 and the delineation of the closure of 1 John, which G. finds in 1 John 5:6-21, although I am not completely convinced of this. With chaps. 6–8, we come more to matters of content. G. combines an exegesis of 1 John 5:18-20d with reflections on dualistic language and its function in 1 John. Then the chapters get much longer, with ‘‘Sin and Apostasy’’(pp. 109-48) and ‘‘Christology and Community’’ (pp. 149-91) as true pie `ces de re ´sistance. Because the ending of the letter contains (in 5:14-17) an ominous reference to a prayer for a sinner and a ‘‘sin unto death,’’ where prayer no longer helps, the obvious tension, if not outright contradiction, between the confession of sins in 1:6–2:2 and the sinlessness of the true believer in 3:4-10 cannot be ignored. With regard to the so-called ‘‘slogans’’ in these passages, G. quotes some excellent new parallels for openings with ean eipo ¯men, ho lego ¯n and ean tis eip¯ e Ä from ancient school texts. He then proposes a possible, though still hypothetical, solution to these vexing problems by importing the mortal sin of 5:16, defined as apostasy in the end-time, to 3:4-9 and separating that issue completely from 1:6–2:2, where other, less severe sins are treated. The topic of christology leads us from the three witnesses in 5:6-10 back to 2:22-23 (‘‘who denies that Jesus is the Christ’’) and 4:2-3 (‘‘that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh’’). G. opts for a minority position, though he does so with a growing number of authors (see now a work not yet known to G., Hansjo ¨rg Schmid, Gegner im 1. Johannes- brief: Zu Konstruktion und Selbstreferenz im johanneischen Sinnsystem [BWANT 159; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002]), contending that the bone of contention is the messiahship of Jesus, and the opponents are former Jewish Christians who did not want to take the next step, namely, to confess Jesus as Son of God, and so they have returned to pure Judaism. Besides this concession, G. constantly and rigorously downplays the relevance of opponents or secessionists for the understanding of 1 John. However, between ‘‘finding opponents lurking in every nook and cranny’’(p. 157) and concentrating exclusively ‘‘on strengthening the identity of the community and maintaining its boundaries’’ (p. 165), there surely should be some middle path. I refrain from listing further points of disagreement (some) and agreement (consid- erably more), but I cannot avoid commenting critically on the final chapter, ‘‘The Function of the Ending.’’ For now, suddenly, the idols in v. 21 are explained as ‘‘a reference to Judaism seen as a whole’’ (p. 204). G. refers to the use of the accusation of idolatry in inner-Jewish and Jewish–Christian conflict, but that is simply not the same matter, as G. seems to feel himself (see p. 204: ‘‘I am arguing that 1 Jn 5:21 makes this major step’’). This is reminiscent of the metaphorical interpretations that G. rejected earlier; he therefore calls his own solution not metaphorical but rhetorical. I simply fail to see the difference. It is a bit disappointing to have to end the review of what is basically a fine study on such a critical note. Let me underline, therefore, the fact that fine observations, helpful material, and solid argumentation nevertheless make this book a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion of this enigmatic writing, 1 John. Hans-Josef Klauck, The University of Chicago Divinity School, Chicago, IL 60637 STEPHEN HAAR, Simon Magus: The First Gnostic? (BZNW 119; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003). Pp. xxiv + 385. €98. In this dissertation from the University of Queensland (2002), Haar seeks ‘‘to clarify the certainties and uncertainties’’ surrounding Simon, the so-called first Gnostic (p. 9). He BOOK REVIEWS 321