For generations biblical scholars have said that the Fourth Gospel was read, accepted and commented upon by heretical groups in early Christianity long before orthodox Christians valued it and accepted it into the canon. Indeed, it is argued that the very fact that Gnostics and other sects cherished the book made it suspect in orthodox circles. It was only Irenaeus (ca. 180 AD) who turned the tables and managed to get the Gospel accepted in the churches.

Charles Hill calls this longstanding view the ‘Orthodox Johannophobia Paradigm’ (OJP) and sets out to destroy it. He shows that in fact the situation was the other way round: the orthodox Christians soon accepted John’s Gospel and with it a four gospel canon, whereas Gnostics read it but were generally critical about the book. Hill argues, indeed, that within a generation of its publication the Fourth Gospel was part of the Scriptures of the Church in Syria, Asia, Rome and Gaul.

The main focus of the book is on John’s Gospel but the three Epistles and Revelation are treated as valuable parts of the Johannine Corpus. There is no doubt that Hill is generally convincing and that thanks to him the OJP can no longer be upheld. He shows that Christians such as the author of the longer ending of Mark, Aristides, Melito and Tatian confidently used John. The Early Church—with the exception of just one man—never treated John’s Gospel with suspicion and there is no reason why present day scholars should continue to do so. The criteria of the supporters of the OJP are exposed as totally unrealistic; it is nonsense to require quotations with quotation marks in a second-century text before one accepts that that text could depend on an earlier text.

Having said this, I must add that the author did not convince this reader in every aspect of his argument. He is generally stronger when he shows how the Gnostics criticised or ignored the gospel than when he tries to demonstrate the use of it by people as early as Ignatius and Polycarp. Too soon he assumes that knowledge of a Johannine story or concept is proof of possession of the actual Gospel and he is insufficiently open to the possibility of oral transmission. Another weakness is that despite the fact that Papias is central to an important part of his argument, Hill ignores Eusebius’ criticism of Papias as a stupid person. I also found his treatment of the alleged John the Elder and of the issue of Docetism less than convincing. But overall we can be grateful for an important study which overthrows a long-standing misconception about a key biblical book.

Hill has not written for undergraduates. He assumes quite a bit of prior knowledge and uses Greek without translation. There are more typos (also in the Greek) than one would expect in a major publication like this, and also too many mistakes in names and book titles. For example, the Dutch church historians Hill quotes are called Gilles (not Giles) Quispel and Han (not Hans) Drijvers.

This is an important book and it should be in every theological library. The price puts it beyond the reach of most individuals, but no specialist on the Johannine literature can afford to miss it. It contains good and useful indices, pictures of relevant manuscripts and early Christian art, and one map. Hill announces that he hopes to write two more volumes, one on the split in the Johannine community mentioned in 1 John 2:18–19 and one on the authorship of the Johannine literature. We eagerly anticipate their publication and hope they will be equally brave and iconoclastic.