A remarkable phenomenon in African Christianity occurred between about 1912 and 1930 when, mostly out of the ferment of indigenous reaction to Western Christian missions, local “prophets” emerged and founded African Independent Churches. “Independency” is the term employed to characterize this phenomenon which came to embrace both the charismatic prophet figures and the separatist churches they or their followers created. Over six thousand such movements were identified throughout Africa in 1968, with the situation still in considerable flux. By the end of the twentieth century it is estimated that some 350 million Africans will have converted to one form or another of the various types of Christian practice now active on the continent.

In its present position within the literary structure of the Book of Judges, Judg 1:1–2:5 stands as an introduction to those events purported to have transpired following the death of Joshua (1:1a). When it is read within the context of the deuteronomistic history as a whole, however, it is apparent that such cannot be the case, since most of the narrated events in Judg 1:3–36 have already been reported in Joshua 14–19. Thus, the present introduction to the Book of Judges appears to be a secondary and somewhat awkward redactional gloss to the deuteronomic account of the era of the Judges in the period after the initial entry into the land recounted in Joshua 2–12. The separation of Judg 1:1–2:5 is based on the investigations of the literary compilation of the predeuteronomic stories of the “deliverers” and the recognition that Judg 2:6–3:6 serves as the original deuteronomic introduction to this period of Israel's history. But despite the assertions of its secondary literary nature and its numerous parallels with Joshua 14–19, Judg 1:1–36 is generally seen as a collection of miscellaneous fragments of varying dates and varying reliability which presents a partial description of the initial occupation of the land. Judg 1:1–36 stands in distinct contrast to the pan-Israelite view presented in Joshua 2–12 and is thus of historical importance for a reconstruction of the period of the settlement. In general, modern scholarship has separated the introductory section of the Book of Judges from the body of the work it serves to inaugurate in its canonical form and has insisted that this introduction has no immediate or contextual connections with the stories that follow it.

From ancient times it has been averred that the Gnostics derived their basic ideas from the Greek philosophers, especially Pythagoras and Plato. For example, Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 2.14) argued that the Valentinian Gnostics borrowed their doctrines of the pleroma and kenoma from Democritus and Plato. Hippolytus (Ref. 1.11), more systematically, tried to show that the founders of the Gnostic heresies borrowed most of their ideas from Greek philosophy and religion. The Valentinian brand of gnosis, Hippolytus (Ref. 6.21–29) argues, is derived from the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato. Tertullian (Praesc. 7) claimed that all of the heresies were based on Greek philosophy. Valentinus is stated specifically to be “of the school of Plato.” Plotinus (Enn. 2.9.6), the reputed founder of Neoplatonism, claimed in a famous tract that his doctrinal opponents, whom he did not identify but who were obviously Gnostics, based their doctrines on a misunderstanding of Plato. Porphyry's Life of Plotinus 16 provides us with more information on the Gnostic opponents of Plotinus, and refers to them as αἱρετικοὶ ἐκ τῆς παλαιᾶς ϕιλοσοϕίας (“sectarians from the ancient philosophy,” i.e., Platonism).

My text from The Author's Apology suggests two reasons for the extraordinary popularity that The Pilgrim's Progress enjoyed for more than two centuries. First, despite its adherence to a rather harsh doctrine of double predestination, which divides the world into the saved and the damned, it is essentially a work of reconciliation, demonstrating the fundamental compatibility of ancient paradigms (“Gospelstrains”) and modern experience (“Novelty”). Second, it invites, even necessitates, the active engagement of its readers, who will enlist their knowledge of the Bible to recognize the “sound and honest Gospel-strains” beneath or behind or within what seems a novel. But that Bunyan felt somewhat ambivalent about this achievement is indicated here, I think, by his choice of the word “seems” to characterize the surface of his book. This ambivalence derives from the author's position midway between the hermeneutical procedures of his chief precursor, Martin Luther, and those of the radical Protestants with whom he had come in contact from the time that he experienced his conversion.

When on any occasion his father engaged in an argument with somebody … [Johannes Climacus] was all ears. … His father always allowed his opponent to state his whole case, and then would ask him very carefully whether he had anything more to say before he began his reply. … The father's rejoinder would follow, and lo! in a trice everything would be changed. How this happened remained a riddle to J. C. But his soul was delighted by such a drama. The opponent would speak again, and J. C. would be still more attentive, so that he should miss nothing. … [T]he father … would then perorate, and J. C. could almost hear his heart beat, so impatiently did he await what should happen.