Reviewer: Stephen MacLeod
Date: 5/11/2008
Talbert, Charles H. Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. (New York, NY: Crossroads Publishing Co.) 1994
The author is Charles H. Talbert, Professor of Religion at Wake Forest University. It was written at Wake Forest during the 1990-1991 school year, to provide a commentary that is reflective of modern scholarship on the Gospel and the Johannine letters, in language that is accessable to a wide variety of persons and “make them feel at home in the biblical text.” The author cites that it presented in a form that is to be for upper-level undergraduate students, seminary students, pastors, educated laypeople, graduate students, and professors.
The author states in his editorial preface that the structure is designed to focus on a close reading of the final text, rather than the line-by-line dissection method of most commentaries. After the general introductory apparatus in the preface, which includes a key to abbreviations used in the body of the work, the book is divided into two sections. The first section covers the Johannie epistles, for he contends that the evidence points to the fact that these pre-date the Gospel itself in the introduction to the section, or at about the same time (p. 3,4). The structure of this section also reflects the assertion that the proper order in which the epistles were written was 2 John, 3 John, and 1 John; to address the conflict over how the nature of Christian Orthodoxy is to be held, reflective of the Gospel account. The result is that the first chapter after the section introduction deals with 2 and 3 John, and 1 John 1: 1-5. The remainder of the chapters discuss the subsequent passages in 1 John. Within these chapters, the passages are broken down further by the messages expressed by them, rather than by following traditional chapter or even verses breakdowns; in fact, verses are even sub-divided in many cases to illustrate the points that the author wishes to present. For each sub-heading of verses, he expresses the assertions which the text is trying to make, and the qualifications of what that assertion means. Part two of the book explores the Fourth Gospel itself, as a narrative theology. That is, confirming to believers what it is they believe as a form of systematic theology, as opposed to looking at the Gospel account as addressing a specific problem raised by believers (63). While it speaks to specific question in the present of the community, it also speaks to its past and potential future challenges. In the similar fashion to Part one, it breaks down the gospel analysis into chapters in a way based on the narrative of the tale, rather than by using traditional markers (although it does not sub-divide verses here). These breakdowns are erratic in length, with some contained within chapters, and others spanning two chapters. Within each chapter, the verses are broken down further, into digestible segments to illustrate the larger point of the whole.
As the structure indicates, the book is intended to express larger points of context for the Gospel and Epistles that a literal dissection might express. The evidence that Talbert cites also reveals the larger meanings, rather than the minute details. He uses both modern and classical scholarship as his resources to prove his larger points. The abbreviations section in the general prologue is a list of scholarly and theological journals and commentaries from which his modern evidence is drawn from. These modern theologians represent, as he states, the “cutting edge” of theological understanding of the text. However, he also references Aristotle for literary and philosophical context, Augustine, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr to examine the text as well. Luminaries such as H. Richard Niebur, who are modern yet not contemporary are also cited to interpret the biblical sources. Overall, though, it is historic and modern thought that governs the assertions in this book, and no other sources are explored. Additionally, there does not appear to be citation for the original source material (Hebrew or Christian Bible, Qumran scrolls, etc.) that are used in the source language, and little use of word entomology. It does not mean that this is true; after all, the author’s point is not to dissect and analyze the scriptures word-by-word). Every source he sites in his acknowledgements page are from translations of the texts, not the original languages, which may call into question if they should be considered primary or secondary source material.
Talbert devotes an entire chapter to Jesus washing his disciple’s feet in John 7: 1-35. It is not one of the longer chapters (only about ten pages), but to demonstrate the richness of his analysis, it seems sensible to detail a reasonably short, self-contained segment of a familiar passage. After opening with a brief review of the previous chapters of his book, he states that this unit functions as an introduction to what follows, i.e. the Passion narrative (189). He then outlines the structure of the entire segment of the scripture, revealing the pattern of the narrative. He describes it as having a concentric pattern, but with two components that are out of sequence. He explains his the reasoning for this using the literary conventions of ancient Mediterranean literature that consider perfect symmetry to be contrary to nature, and therefore not as beautiful, and the demands of the story requiring Jesus to finish washing the feet before he can reflect on the action. (190). Talbert then details the concentric pattern he illustrates in his outline. For example, in verse 2 the story states that Satan had already put it into Judas’ heart to betray Jesus; the pattern curves back when near the end of the passage, Judas goes out and betrays Jesus, inspired by Satan (26b-30). For the former, the author references the similarity between Satan’s influence and the Spirits of Light and Darkness found in Qumran Scroll 4. For verse 3, Talbert points out that the statement Jesus makes is a return to expressing prophetic knowledge, and cites other verses within the Fourth Gospel that he had previously displayed such knowledge (191). This is balanced in the concentric pattern in verses 18-26a where Jesus displays prophetic knowledge of his betrayal by Judas. In this case, he cites examples from John where Jesus displays that he is always anticipating the moves of his enemies (including ones subsequent to this passage), but also references Hebrew scripture, the synoptic Gospels, and extra-cannonical texts as well (195). The apex of the concentric pattern meets in the dialogue between Peter and Jesus in verses 6-11, Talbert explores this dialogue and relates it to the one with Nicodemus in chapter 3 (191). He also reflects on the customs of the ancient Mediterranean, and the illustrative property of the foot-washing itself; “Jesus’ death takes care of the daily sins of disciples who have already been cleansed from the principle of sin.” (192). He further points out that this is post-baptismal problem that was being addressed in 1 John 7,9 and 2: 1-2. The mirror-passage to this one is in verses 12b-17, where another interpretation of the foot-washing is offered. Here the author cites Genesis Rabbah and Tacitus’ Annals to point out that “the sender is greater than the sent” (193), or that the disciple’s actions should be of the same characteristics as those of Jesus himself. The conclusion of the passage reflects this sentiment, as Jesus gives his new commandment to love one another as he has loved them (199).
I think my reading experience of Talbert’s book only scratches the surface of what it has to offer. There is so much here, and with limited time to read it and reflect on it (despite the lateness of this review!) I think that my understanding of the text is still very limited. In the introduction to Part one, the author suggests that the most productive reading of this book would be to read it straight through first, before going back and consulting the individual chapters as a reference (3). I would have to agree with that assessment, but with a few caveats. First, the book is so full of rich material, and such wonderful exploration, that it needs time to be digested. Like a seven-course meal, you should go through it from beginning to end, but one must do it over an extended period of time to take it all in. Second, I think that while it seeks to bring the larger meanings rather than trivialities, there are a tremendous load of details in the larger meanings. It would be better to own this book than it was to use a library copy, for that way notes could be jotted down in the margins and points could be highlighted, because it is sometimes difficult to recount the specific points without such reference marks. Finally, I think that despite the accessibility that Talbert offers in his exploration, the sheer density of material would take so much to unpack fully, that I believe that this review pales in the face of it. This is a book to explore in detail, over a semester or long Bible Study, and cannot be summed up into a few words. I enjoyed the book, I appreciate the content, but I believe that I need to get a copy myself for a long-term commitment to it to be able to fully explore and appreciate Talbert’s efforts here.
Reviewer: Karen Garcia
Date: 5/3/08
Howard, James M. "The Significance of Minor Characters in the Gospel of John." Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (January-March 2006): 63-78.
James M. Howard is the Director, Southern Colorado Center, School of Adult and Graduate Studies, Colorado Christian University in Lakewood Colorado. His article is written for readers who seek a deeper understanding of these characters and their role in confirming Christ as Messiah.
The author compares several minor characters in the Gospel of John - the mother of Jesus, the royal official, the lame man, the blind man, and Mary and Martha. Each of these characters is changed by their association with Jesus. Most (except the lame man) become believers of Jesus and cause others to believe as well. The author takes the characters involved in each of the seven "signs" (which includes the death and resurrection of Jesus), comparing the events and their results: Jesus' mother at the Wedding at Cana and at the Crucifixion, the royal official's dying son and Mary and Martha's dead brother, and the lame man and blind man.
Each character (with the exception of the mother of Jesus) believes in Jesus because of his or her interaction with him. (The mother of Jesus believes before seeing any of the miracles.) She expects Jesus to do something about the lack of wine. Later, wine is also instrumental in the crucifixion of Jesus. The healing of the royal official's son and the resurrection of Lazarus are both intended to reveal Jesus' power over life and death. One instance involves simply a healing (sight unseen), while the other involves the raising of the dead. The Sabbath healings of the lame man and the blind man both involve the healing powers of a pool of water. While the blind man becomes a believer, the lame man is healed and does not become a follower.
Nelson compares the lame man's story with the blind man's story. Both had been afflicted for a long period of time - 38 years for the lame man and a lifetime for the blind man. In both cases, Jesus took the initiative to heal them, and in both instances, the men were near pools known for their healing properties. Both events took place on the Sabbath and in both cases, Jesus was interrogated for breaking Sabbath. Both men were invited to believe in Jesus and sin is brought into question in both stories. In the end, the lame man identifies Jesus as the one who healed him, but he does not become a follower and nothing further is known about him. The blind man, however, goes about proclaiming what Jesus has done for him.
As a person who has an interest in the Gospel characters, I enjoyed reading this article. I enjoy exploring details about each character, trying to determine why each character acted the way they did and why they were included in the text. Newton does a good job of starting to answer these questions. He quotes Alan Culpepper's "Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel," which explores these characters in more detail. Nelson's article made me want to read Culpepper this summer to find out more.
Reviewer: Aaron French
Date: 4/25/08
Collins, Raymond F.: These Things Have Been Written: Studies on the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991). 226.5 C696t.
Raymond F. Collins was a professor of New Testament Studies at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, and a specialist in the Johannine literature of the New Testament. The book is a collection of essays written between 1976 and 1989 and published in a variety of scholarly journals. The author seems mostly interested in reaching other specialists, and his arguments are painstakingly researched and supported.
There are twelve essays in this volume, presented in four thematic groups. The first group is about the theme of discipleship in John's gospel, the second looks at the overall structure of the gospel, the third explores John's use of signs/miracles, and the fourth takes up Christological concerns.
Collins has a detailed familiarity with the Johannine manuscript tradition and the textual variants in that tradition, and he uses his knowledge of textual histories to reconstruct the origins of certain ideas and passages in John. His readings of John are also built on close analyses of Greek words and phrases, and his philological observations are supported by a broad knowledge of contemporary Greek and Jewish literature. Collins also is well acquainted with the nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship on the gospel of John.
Here is a characteristic example of how Collins sets up the conditions of his arguments, showing what the textual difficulties are that he will proceed to elucidate. It is a discussion of the difficult sayings of Jesus in reply to his mother in 2:4: "Authors who take 'What have you do to with me?' as a question that implies a refusal, find confirmation of their interpretation in the statement which follows it in John 2:4, namely, 'My hour has not yet come.' The question and affirmation point to some distance between Jesus and his mother. He will not heed even her implicit request for a miracle. How then can the fact of the miracle's being performed be explained? Those who opt for a Marian interpretation of the pericope have recourse to some theory of Mary's intercessory power. Those who propose that John 2:3b-4 is an addition to the tradition have recourse to the notion that the seeming contradiction did not belong to an earlier strata of the tradition of the water-becomes-wine. Given Dodd's apropos reminder that it is the text which lies before us for which an explanation must be offered, it seems preferable to look in another direction for an understanding of 'My hour has not yet come.'" (p.168) I have quoted this at such length because it is highly representative of Collins' style of exegesis. Over the course of the next several pages, he addresses all of the concerns raised in this paragraph about the text in question, drawing on a wide range of philological and source-critical evidence. (His conclusion in this case is that we are not warranted in reading Jesus' reply to Mary as antagonistic, but that we should instead read his words as something like, "Woman, what are the conditions governing our relationship right now? Isn't this my hour?")
I picked this book because I felt that it would look at John from a variety of perspectives, rather than just focussing on one, such as the Johannine community or the narrative structure of John. In this I was not disappointed. I found the scholarship a little too dense for my level of understanding of John, but I was fascinated by Collins' style of exegesis. I appreciated the arguments in this book more as a tour of the literature and of the possibilities for exegeting particular passages than I did for the conclusions that were drawn, which I often felt didn't stand up to the elaborate discussions that had preceded them. This book would benefit specialists in this field the most, but I would turn to it as an exegetical reference, because it offers concise summaries of the difficulties scholars struggle with in certain passages in John.
Reviewer: Amanda Wagner
Date: 3/26/08
Moloney, Francis J., Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5-12, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996). 226.5 M738s
Moloney wrote this book as a followup to his book Belief in the Word, which is a commentary on John 1-4. In this book, Moloney hopes to continue the reading of the Gospel of John in such a way that enlightens the reader to what the Gospel writer intended to say while encouraging the reader to actively engage in a new reader-influenced reading of the text. In the preface, Moloney asserts that his goal is to “blend traditional historical critical scholarship and the more contemporary reader-oriented approaches” to the text of John 5-12. Though the book is fairly easy to read and comprehend, Moloney does assume that the reader is familiar with the basics of historical textual criticism. At the time of publication, Moloney was Professor of Theology at Australian Catholic University. His research for this book was helped by the Catholic Biblical Association of America. He was a visiting professor in 1993-1994 for the Catholic Biblical Association at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. Moloney was also a contributing editor for the Sacra Pagina Bible commentary on John. Highlights from this book can be found within that commentary.
Moloney begins by giving a brief preface to the book, followed by a list of abbreviations. The list is quite lengthy, since he refers to many works in the Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud, Jerusalem Talmud, and Midrashim Rabbah, as well as other Jewish, intertestamental, and patristic literature. Since there are many more abbreviations than can be remembered, the list is conveniently located in the first few pages of the book for easy access while reading. The text itself is divided up into eight chapters, the first seven of which deal with sections of the text. Moloney works with the natural divisions in the text, devoting each chapter to a section of John’s Gospel rather than following the biblical chapter divisions. The first chapter of this book provides commentary on John 5:1-47. Since it is quite likely that the reader has picked up this book without reading Moloney’s commentary on John 1-4, his first task of this chapter is to give a quick overview of those first four chapters, or what he calls the prologue of the Gospel. Then he divides this part of the text further into three subsections: Jesus’ Healing Work on a Sabbath 5:1-18; Life and Judgment 5:19-30; and Witnesses and Accusation 5:31-47. Within each of these subsections, Moloney first gives an overview of what he calls the “shape of the narrative,” followed by a close “reading of the narrative.” Though he uses these terms in other chapters, Moloney sets up each chapter in a way that best follows the pattern of the text. Chapter three explains the theme of “Jesus and Tabernacles” expounding on John 7:1-8:59. He gives a quick introduction to the chapter, followed by a lengthy explanation of the feast of tabernacles in Jewish tradition. The explanation of the feast is supplemented by details about the water libation ceremony, the ceremony of light, and the rite of facing the temple. It is only after all of this background explanation has been given that Moloney focuses on the text itself. Rather than splitting the text into subsections as he did in the first chapter, Moloney tackles this section of text as a whole. He talks first about the shape of the narrative, outlining the four major sections of this text and how they relate to one another. Then Moloney begins the task of commenting on the text. It is at this point that the four subsections of the narrative are used, and at times these subsections are further broken down as Moloney indicated in his mapping of the shape of the narrative. It is Moloney’s aim to allow the text to dictate how his book should be ordered. When it makes sense to look at the structure of individual subsections of the text, Moloney’s chapters reflect that. When the structure is only clearly evident within the context of the entire section, Moloney changes the layout of his chapter to highlight the text in this way. Each chapter is then brought together by a short conclusion, summarizing what Moloney feels are the most important points to glean from that section of text. The fluid layout of Signs and Shadows is one of its biggest assets. The layout allows the reader two distinct ways of gaining information from this commentary. Should the reader only want information on a specific pericope or verse, the information is quickly available by following the section subheadings. If a wider context is needed, the reader need only flip back a few pages to find the narrative map in order to see where the pericope falls within the context of the section. Because each chapter builds on the previous chapters and also on Moloney’s first book in his commentary series, the book can be read in its entirety as a way to gain insight into chapters 5-12 of the Gospel of John. The eighth chapter of Signs and Shadows is written as a conclusion to the book. Though it says little more than has already been stated in the conclusions to each of the chapters, this conclusion can be read as a kind of crash course through the middle of John’s Gospel. At the end of this short chapter, Moloney reflects on what he hopes the reader has gained from this commentary. Rather than providing one more scholarly commentary meant only for pastors and academics, it is Moloney’s hope that this book has shown that the Johannine Gospel is written for the common reader. Though more layers can be seen in the text, Moloney believes that this gospel was written, first and foremost, as a dramatic narrative. Finally, Moloney includes a comprehensive bibliography where he lists his sources, other commentaries on the Gospel of John, and then other pertinent literature.
The book strives to blend the historical critical method with a reader-oriented approach to the text. Though Moloney does provide some background into the events taking place in the narrative, this book aims to explore the relationship between the reader and the narrative. As such, Moloney is not so much interested in historical or archaeological evidence. If this evidence is sought by the reader, Moloney provides ample bibliographic information of other books for the reader to explore. The book is based on the Greek text, which Moloney routinely cites.
I picked the following passage because it reflects the way Moloney guides the reader to engage with the text by his use of questions for the reader to work to answer. Additionally, this passage shows how Moloney maps out the shape of the narrative. Witness and Accusation: 5:31-47 Why view the Sabbath from the perspective of a man who, claiming to be Son of God, breaks the Law (vv. 16-18), arguing that he has received from his Father Sabbath authority to give life and to judge (vv. 19-30)? “The Jews” have every right to ask for more from Jesus before they withdraw their accusations and turn to honor him. The second part of the discourse (vv. 31-47) continues the trial. Although Jesus speaks, “the Jews” are addressed throughout (hymeis: vv. 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45). Verbs in the second person plural are aimed at a specific audience (vv. 37, 40, 43, 46, 47). “The Jews” become the accused through a discourse that unfolds as follows: a) Verses 31-32: The problem of an acceptable witness to Jesus is raised by Jesus himself. b) Verses 33-40: A series of witnesses are presented to “the Jews.” They are: (i) John the Baptist (vv. 33-35) (ii) the works of Jesus (v. 36) (iii) the word of the unseen Father (vv. 37-40). c) Verses 41-44: Jesus presents two contrasting understandings of doxa. d) Verses 45-47: “The Jews” are accused by the writings of Moses.
This is a great book that caters to a wide audience. It is written to be very accessible to even beginning students, though some knowledge of Greek is helpful but certainly not required. This book is a good choice for anyone who is interested in engaging with the text and enjoying it for its narrative quality rather than for someone who wants to read John with an eye to historical criticism. I enjoyed this book and came out of the experience with a completely new portrait of Jesus, a portrait painted by an expert storyteller.
Reviewer: Sue Kaplan-Burgess
Date: March 17, 2008
Thompson, Marianne Meye: The Incarnate Word: Perspectives on Jesus in the fourth Gospel [Former title: The Humanity of Jesus in the fourth Gospel].(Peabody, Hendrickson, 1993). BT 218 .T48 1993 (St Joseph's College Library)
Marianne Meye Thompson is a ordained Presbytarian minister and is the George Eldon Ladd Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary. She is also a memeber of Studioruim Novi Testamenti Societas and has participated in several projects at the Center of Theological Inquiry in Princeton, NJ. She is a active member of the editoral boards of Theology Today and New Testament Studies.
The book looks at the Johannian Christology interpretation in the mid to late 1980’s. She contrasts and compares her thoughts about the Gospel of John with those of German Theologians Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann as well as other theologians. As you proceed through the book, she lays out an alternative approach, supported by some well known theologians (Georg Richter and at times Rudolf Bultmann by working through the origins of Jesus, the incarnation of the flesh, signs, seeing faith, the death of Jesus, and finally the humanity of Jesus in light of the fourth Gospel. The humanity of Jesus is what this book is ultimately about. She provides a balanced argument for and against Jesus’ humanity.
his book is based on scholarly study and debate of other scholar’s views of Jesus’ humanity in the fourth Gospel. Though the English and perhaps German Bible translations are used, there is clear evidence of the use of Greek words and meanings in isolation (ex σαρζ).
The passage I have chosen is John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.” “καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας” This passage is where the book and I believe that it is truly the heart of the book. A great amount of this book centers around the word σὰρξ or sarx – meaning flesh. It is this word upon which the issue of Jesus’ humanity rests according to Thompson. She then proceeds to tie it to the signs as well as Jesus’ death.
Initially I found the book a very slow read in order to gain an understanding of what Thompson was talking about. The book was much clearer to me when I re-read it. Overall, I liked the book. It has given me some pause to think about what the Gospel of John is really saying about Jesus’ humanity. I still do, after reading this book have a belief that Jesus was divine and human while here on earth. This would be an excellent book for clergy who want a better understand of the Gospel of John. It might also be an interesting book to be used with an adult Bible study class. I would also recommend the book to a lay person who was looking for a deeper understanding of John.
Reviewer: Mark E. Woodsum
Date: 3/17/08
Brown, Raymond E.: An Introduction to the Gospel of John (New York: Doubleday, 2003). ISBN: 0-385-50722-4; BTS: 226.2 Se57w 1996.
Raymond E. Brown (22 May 1928 - 8 August 1998) was an American Roman Catholic Priest and Biblical scholar. He was regarded as a specialist concerning the hypothetical “Johannine Community,” which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John. He also wrote several important studies on the birth and death of Jesus. He was a professor emeritus at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, where he taught for 23 years. Fr. Brown was one of the first Catholic scholars in the United States to use the historical-critical method to study the Bible. He was always controversial within the more traditional Catholic communities because he denied the inerrancy of Scripture and cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith. He was generally regarded as occupying a more moderate ground in the field of biblical studies, opposing the literalism found among many fundamentalist Christians, while at the same time not carrying his conclusions as far as many other scholars. Born in New York, the son of Robert H. Brown and Loretta Brown, Fr. Brown received his BA in 1948 and MA in 1949 from Catholic University of America. In 1951, he received his STB from St. Mary's Seminary, and in 1953 was ordained a priest in the diocese of St. Augustine, Florida. During his career he served as president of the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies, and he was a member of the Pontifial Biblical Commission as well. He was also the expert appointed to review and provide the nihil obstat for The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, the standard basic reference book for Catholic Biblical studies, of which he was one of the editors and to which he himself contributed. Fr. Brown was widely regarded as one of America's preeminent biblical scholars and was awarded 24 honorary doctoral degrees by universities in the United States and Europe (both Protestant and Catholic institutions). In 1998, he died while at St. Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park, California. Cardinal Mahoney called him "the most distinguished and renowned Catholic biblical scholar to emerge in this country ever.”
As is the case with most of Fr. Brown’s work, he presents a thorough and methodical analysis of the topic in question. Beyond the writing itself, he gives us an exceptional bibliography and an equally helpful index. In fact, the index is so well done that finding information on virtually any aspect of the Gospel of John is greatly simplified. The bibliography offers the opportunity to take sub-topics even further. After a comprehensive introduction entitled “Overview of Johannine Studies,” Fr. Brown jumps right into issues of the unity and composition of the John Gospel. This is followed by a juxtaposition with the synoptic Gospels, with appropriate historical analysis, and then he moves into apologetics and the overall purpose of the Gospel. He then gives us a very thorough chapter on the author, along with covering issues of time and place of authorship. In my view, this should have come at the beginning, but it is likely that the author felt that some context needed to be set up prior to discussing the authorship matter and consequent time and place issues. After the above analysis, which covers roughly two-thirds of the book, Fr. Brown moves into the theological matters presented by the Gospel of John, while keeping in mind issues of language, editing, and the historical realties therein. He concludes with an excellent summary that pulls together all of the highlights of the book and would not be a bad place to start one’s appreciation of this fine book. A quick reading of the summary first, would actually be quite helpful before delving into the main body of the work.
Fr. Brown offers the reader an incredible bibliography of over 200 books, commentaries, articles, and essays from which he clearly derives much of his material - given that he credits 400+ footnotes in the book. His sources represent a wide range of scholarly theologians from around the world (mostly late 20th century). Moreover, he refers to, and offers excellent explanations regarding, all of the important Greek manuscripts relevant to this type of research and commentary. Finally, he draws upon the historical and archeological evidence as well in order to further substantiate his positions. The bottom line is that this book has an impressive backdrop in terms of detailed research and scholarly support, which is then used to construct an analytical and thoughtful proposition with regard to the Gospel of John.
The chapter "Echoes of Apologetics and the Purpose of the Gospel" is, in many ways, the most significant chapter of the book. Fr. Brown rejects the idea that the Gospel is primarily an apologetic, polemic, or missionary motif in regard to the admirers of John the Baptist and “the Jews.” Fr. Brown takes the position that the Gospel was written for believers, to lead them into a deeper faith, not as a document to refute or to change the mind of the adherents of these other groups that were at odds with the followers of Jesus (pages 151 – 153). Indeed, though it is clear that there were those who considered John the Baptist to be the Messiah, not Jesus, this would have only been of secondary importance to the author of the Gospel of John (pages 154 – 156). Fr. Brown also believes quite firmly that members of the Johannine community were expelled from the synagogue and that this was an epochal event. While Fr. Brown has changed his older use of "Palestinian Judaism" to "Traditional Judaism," he still divides the world of conceptual influences into "Traditional Judaism" and "Hellenism, Philosophy, Non-Jewish." Moreover, he insists that 1st century Judaism necessitated considerable assimilation of Hellenistic culture. In addition, the evangelist/author addresses his narrative to a religiously diverse audience in Ephesus that required non-Jewish symbols, metaphors, and concepts. Clearly, literary criticism is important for this exegesis, especially in sorting out how John's language about "the Jews" is to be understood. Not being an expert on the writings of John, there was much material presented by Fr. Brown that, while occasionally controversial, was both important and thought provoking for me. For example: the Beloved Disciple is not John, the son of Zebedee; the remarkable storyteller who wrote the Gospel, and whom Fr. Brown calls the "evangelist," was a follower of the Beloved Disciple; a final edition was compiled by another disciple; the Book of Revelation does not come from the same Johannine circles as the Gospel and Epistles. Finally, the Gospel was composed in three stages, not five (as Fr. Brown had suggested in earlier works). He identifies three layers of text of John: 1. An initial version based upon a personal experience of Jesus. 2. A structured literary creation by the author which draws upon additional sources. 3. The edited version that readers know today.
This is clearly a scholarly work, but at the same time eminently readable and approachable to the non-theological reader. Fr. Brown was committed to interpretation that is theologically relevant, yet not theologically dogmatic. I appreciated his view that the John Gospel is basically independent of the Synoptic Gospels, and that the Johannine material has been more deeply shaped theologically than the Synoptic material. Fr. Brown divides the Gospel into two sections: the "Book of Signs" and the "Book of Glory." The Book of Signs recounts Jesus’ public miracles, which are called signs, whereas the Book of Glory comprises Jesus’ private teachings to his disciples, his crucifixion and resurrection. Brown's work was certainly controversial among traditionalists who objected to the elements of his work that they regarded as casting doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith. Yet other writers have criticized Brown for excessive caution, for what they saw as his unwillingness to acknowledge the radical implications of the critical methods he was using. As is the case with moderates, they are often maligned by the more extreme positions on both sides of the debate. Yet, for me, his approach was both compelling and convincing.
Reviewer: Laura
Date: 3/17/08
Freed, Edwin D. “Ego Eimi in John 1:20 and 4:25.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41.2 (1979) 288-291. ATLA0000179803.
This article was written by Edwin D. Freed of Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania in 1979. Here he is focusing on the use of the words ego eimi (“I am”) within John’s Gospel, specifically in two places where they are used with the word messias (Messiah) by John the Baptist and by Jesus. This article is written for a scholarly audience; Freed makes use of the Greek but does not translate it for the reader
Freed looks closely at the wording of the two passages in turn and then puts forth his theory that this specific use of these statements predate John if not Mark as well.
The Greek text of the New Testament
“After the first chapter, the next time the title messias/christos appears is in the discourse with the Samaritan woman, here the words are used in a positive way by Jesus himself. The woman says to Jesus: ‘I know that messias is coming, he who is called christos; when that one comes, he will announce to us all things. Jesus says to her ego eimi, ho iaion soi (4:25-26). The question about whether the words ego eimi are to be understood in the absolute sense forming with the words that follow an expression similar to Isa 52:6 and therefore implying a divine meaning, or whether the predicate messias/christos is to be supplied from the preceding sentence, need not detain us.” (289-290) This passage shows how Freed makes use of Greek words and phrases.
I enjoyed this article very much. It not only concerns language for which the Gospel According to John is famous, but I also find the author’s writing style to be clear and straight-forward. I think this article should be read by anyone doing research on any of Jesus’ “I am” statements. Though Freed does not translate the Greek he uses for the reader, Greek font is not used, they are the more easily recognized words, and the short phrases used are cited so that any reader could look them up in an English Bible. There are only a few of these phrases. I suspect that some readers might actually have a more difficult time with a few grammatical points he makes rather than with the Greek.
Reviewer: Laura
Date: 3/17/08
Purvis, James D. “The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans.” Novum Testamentum 17.3 (1975) 161-198. ATLA0000190485
This article was written by James D. Purvis of Boston, MA in 1975. His intention is to give an overview of the “recent” interest in studying the apparent close connection between the Gospel According to John and the Samaritans. This includes the author’s own conclusions on the subject. While not expressly stated, judging by the language, extensive footnotes, and the journal in which it is published, this article is intended for a scholarly audience
After the introduction, the first section of the article discusses the availability, quality, and pertinent content of Samaritan texts. In the second section the author explains why scholars see an important connection between the Samaritans and John within the Gospel itself and in other portions of the New Testament. Purvis then discusses the similarities between Samaritan traditions and Johannine Christology. In the third and final section he gives his conclusions concerning the links between Samaria and John while looking specifically at certain passages in that Gospel.
The author makes use of Aramaic and Medieval Samaritan Aramaic sources. He does not make specific reference to the Greek text of the New Testament. His sources are textual, ranging from the Old and New Testament to seemingly all known Samaritan texts from the 4th through the 19th century C.E.
“A number of Samaritan eschatological figures - or supposed Samaritan eschatological figures - have been proposed for the alleged model of the Johannine Christology, not all of which may be clearly identified from Samaritan texts. BUCHANAN has suggested two: the one a royal figure modeled after Joseph, supposedly the Messiah ben Joseph or ben Ephraim otherwise known from medieval Jewish sources; the other a prophetic figure modeled after the old northern Israelite prophet Elisha. Of the two, a stronger case is made for the prophet Elisha model, although both present difficulties in regard to the Samaritan traditions.” (178) Most of this article is like the above, though with possibly even more space spent referencing the works of others and comparing and contrasting their positions
I picked this article thinking that it would be interesting to know more about the Samaritans of the First Century. I found most of this article fairly dry reading, though, with approximately the first two-thirds taken up with discussing the merits of the Samaritan texts and references to quite a few other scholarly works concerning the connection between John’s Gospel and Samaria. That being said, Purvis makes some very interesting and illuminating points concerning the treatment in John’s Gospel of the Jews/Judeans versus that of the Israelites - Samaria and Galilee. Those who are concerned with the apparent anti-Semitism of John’s Gospel would do well to read this. I was glad to have had the background of the first two-thirds so I could better understand his conclusions and points in the final third. This would be a very worthwhile article to read for those looking to have a better understanding of Samaria and its traditions during Jesus’ time. Its copious footnotes are an excellent source for further research
Reviewer: Lynn Briggs
Date: 3/19/08
Lee, Dorothy A.: "Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalene and Thomas in John 20." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 58 (1995)37-49. O'Collins, Gerald S.J., and Kendall, Daniel S.J. "Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus' Resurrection." Theological Studies 48 (1987) 631-646.
Dorothy A. Lee published "Partnership in Easter Faith" in 1995. Her intended audience is Biblical scholars interested in narrative readings of texts. Also, anyone interested in finding out more about these two Biblical figures who are viewed as secondary figures to other more prominent figures such as Peter and The Beloved Disciple. Gerald O’Collins, S.J. and Daniel Kendall, S.J. wrote “Major Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus’ Resurection” in 1987. The intended audience is Theological scholars. However, I think anyone interested in the resurrection account, Easter faith, or the feminist perspective on the historical catalyst of women in communicating both the resurrection and Easter faith would be quite interested in this article. In addition to these, anyone interested in the differences between the gospel accounts of the resurrection and the Pauline account would find this article interesting as this is addressed.
Dorothy A. Lee structured her article as follows: 1. Introduction: the author’s perspective is that a narrative reading of John 20 shows both Magdalene and Thomas as fundamentally important in defining what Easter Faith is within this gospel. 2. Examining the literary structure of John 20 a. Scene one—Magdalene encounters Christ and doesn’t recognize him b. Scene two—Jesus’ gift of the Spirit c. Scene three—Thomas doubts and struggles to understand d. Conclusion 3. Examining the scenes again by location a. At the empty tomb on Easter Morning (vv. 1-18) b. In a room in Jerusalem on Easter night (vv. 19-23) c. In a room in Jerusalem one week later (vv. 24-29) d. Summation of the Gospel (vv. 30-31) 4. This method of hermeneutic alters a more traditional one which poses Peter and The beloved disciple as the primary roles, whereas Mary Magdalene and Thomas have the supporting roles. 5. The parallel roles of Magdalene and Thomas, rather than Peter and the beloved disciple are key to understanding the structure of John 20. 6. The main goal of John 20 is to communicate Easter faith (20:31) and draw the implied reader into the apostolic community where the Spirit is breathed by the risen Lord. 7. Three ways the stories match each other: a. Both characters show a similar determination to meet the Lord. (To see and to touch him.) b. Each receives a revelation and makes a paradigmatic response of faith. c. Each is portrayed as playing a major role for future believers. 8. A look at each in depth a. Mary Magdalene’s determination i. Her faith credentials were established at the foot of the cross ii. She herself is a beloved disciple and is faithful iii. Peter’s lack of faith and the beloved disciple’s silence contrast with her grief and persistence iv. Her tears suggest misunderstanding, but also love and determination which will be rewarded v. In reaching out to Jesus she is determined not to lose him a second time b. Tomas’ determination i. Thomas was absent on Easter night ii. Thomas is now in the same position the other disciples were in when they had their encounter with the risen Lord iii. He is no more doubtful than they iv. The disciples didn’t believe Mary Magdalene; Thomas doesn’t believe the disciples v. His desire to touch the wounds is a sign of his misunderstanding vi. In the end, he too, doesn’t need to touch to believe c. Mary Magdalene receives revelation and responds in faith i. Magdalene is confused at who she is speaking to ii. She confesses her faith in response to the Lord’s naming of her iii. Imagery of John 10:1-18. Mary responds in faith to the voice of the Good Shepherd. iv. Further imagery of John 10:1-18. The Shepherd gives life to the sheep by laying down his life for the sheep. She recognizes this. v. She responds with the intimate form “Rabbouni.” d. Thomas receives revelation and responds in faith i. Thomas sees and believes ii. The risen Christ with wounds of his death reveal to Thomas the divine Logos-become-flesh. iii. He responds verbally saying, “My Lord and my God.” iv. Thomas’ confession is the pinnacle of the Gospel’s Christology. e. Mary Magdalene’s role for future believers i. Witness to the resurrection ii. Mary is given a commission—an apostolic role iii. As the first disciple of the risen Lord, she is comparable in status to Peter elsewhere in the NT. f. Thomas’ role for future believers i. Jesus’ words to Thomas in verse 27 are an encouragement to faith ii. Jesus’ words to Thomas in 29a apply to the Easter community as a whole, not just to Thomas iii. Faith of future believers is singled out for blessing iv. Thomas’ declaration comes one week after Easter. Therefore, he is a narrative bridge between Easter Sunday and the life of the believing community. 9. Conclusion: In the literary partnership that emerges from John 20, Mary Magdalene and Thomas meet the risen Jesus and thus bring Easter faith into being for the implied reader. O’Collins and Kendall structure their article as follows: 1. Definition of “witness” and “major witness” 2. Clarification of term “resurrection” 3. An in-depth look at six resurrection accounts 4. Mary Magdalene is listed first in 5 of the 6 accounts 5. Mary Magdalene has the “center stage” in John’s gospel account (20:10) 6. Pauline source is earlier; Magdalene is not present 7. Three possible solutions to the dilemma 8. Historical prejudice of not allowing women as witnesses 9. Classical Commentators on the importance/meaning of the postresurrection appearances 10. Feminist critique on “traditional” positions 11. Exploring the question: Is the appearance tradition as important as that of the male leaders in the early church? 12. An alternative way to look at the earliest disciples’ importance in terms of the men and the women and the importance of each to the story a. Peter i. Spokesperson of the disciples ii. Guardian of Jesus’ interpretation of the law iii. Representative of the typical disciples, but not above other disciples iv. Part of the group in charge of the post-Easter ministry of the church b. the women i. primary messengers commanded to announce resurrection’ ii. among those commissioned to witness iii. Mary Magdalene considered an equal witness
The evidence used in the article “Partnership in Easter Faith” was literary narrative. The Greek texts were highlighted, but English is also utilized. The author was able to support her structural arguments. The evidence used in the article “Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus’ Resurrection” was primarily historical evidence. Greek biblical texts were explored as well as historical writings from the Early Church Fathers and other writers from Antiquity such as Origen.
An example from the article “Partnership in Easter Faith” is: “The two stories function in a literary partnership that encircles the giving of the Spirit. In parallel episodes, Mary Magdalene and Thomas engage in the struggle for understanding and come to Easter faith. Magdalene is not a weak, helpless woman moving blindly from one misapprehension to another, nor is Thomas a pessimistic character prone to existential doubt. Just as Magdalene is a witness to the resurrection and announces its meaning, so Thomas brings that faith to a climax and acts as a bridge for future believers. Their faith-struggle involves misunderstanding that is to be read in positive rather than negative terms. The implied reader identifies with the struggle and, through the centripetal force of the narrative, is drawn into the presence of the Spirit.” I chose this paragraph from the abstract because it concisely summarizes the main premise of the article. I found this article to be very interesting. I love these two characters and agree with the author that the traditional rendering of each is subordinate to the roles of Peter and John. I’m sold on the author’s hermeneutic! An example from the article “Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus’ Resurrection” is: “What should strike the reader of this schematic presentation is the fact that Mary Magdalene is mentioned in five out of the six Gospel narratives and, when mentioned, is always the first person named. Is this merely accidental or were the Gospel writers recognizing her importance?” (p. 634) I chose this because it concisely summarizes an exploration of all Biblical texts that speak of the resurrection. I found it evocative to examine the texts by searching them for the appearance of Mary Magdalene, and the findings intrigued me. If you want to know more (as I did) you will have to read the article!
I loved the article “Partnership in Easter Faith.” My favorite two stories of post-resurrection Easter are these two stories! I can relate to Mary’s tears and misunderstanding in her state of grief. And I can relate to Thomas needing to see in order to believe, yet when he sees, learning that he doesn’t need to see after all. These stories give me great comfort and speak far more powerfully than the running to the tomb of Peter and the beloved disciple. I love the author’s work on the narrative reading of this chapter! I very much enjoyed reading the article “Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus’ Resurrection.” It was structured and organized very well. This made it most helpful to me as a reader. I also loved the exploration of the six Biblical accounts of the resurrection in which the authors searched for the presence of Mary Magdalene. I found their findings insightful. I highly recommend the article for anyone interested in the subjects of the resurrection or Mary Magdalene.
Reviewer: Terri Bracy
Date: 031308
Malina, Bruce J., Rohrbaugh, Richard L., Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, c1998). No BTS call number available.
Bruce J. Malina (Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (Paul S. Wright Professor of Christian Studies at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon) are the co-authors of two in a series of Social Science Commentaries, one on the synoptic gospels and one on the Gospel of John. Malina co-authored two other commentaries with John J. Pilch on the Letters of Paul and the Book of Acts, and he was the sole author of a fifth on the Book of Revelation. All three authors are founding members of The Context Group—a working group of international scholars committed to the use of the social sciences in biblical interpretation. Malina has authored, co-authored or edited many other books and journal articles, as has Rohrbaugh and Pilch.
The Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John begins with a brief preface and a lengthy introduction, which must be read not only to understand the authors’ stated purpose (“to enable the reader to interpret the Gospel in a way that would be fair to its original author and audience”), but because it also defines key terms or concepts that the reader must know in order to understand that which follows. Some of these terms include antilanguage and antisociety (how John’s community lived and communicated with one another); the differences between a high-context (everybody’s an expert and very little written or spoken about needs to be explained) and a low-context society (nobody’s an expert and everything needs to be explained in detail), and the meaning of recontextualization (how the understanding of a document can change from one society or culture to another depending upon its world-view). The introduction also explains the importance of the reading scenarios, which are listed at the beginning and at the end of the commentary and are placed adjacent to the passage which offers its best example. There are also brief notes throughout, which comment on specific passages, as well as maps, illustrations and diagrams that help to orient the reader to the difference in time and place. The table of contents demonstrates an unusual division of the book into 13 segments which are based upon the way a document in antiquity was generally written (so that it could be easily remembered for recitation). That was often done by finding a word or phrase that is repeated (called chiasmos or parallel brackets) at the beginning and end of each unit or by completing a theme. The authors explicate the outline in more detail in the appendix. The main part of the commentary follows a standard format by taking the text verse by verse and by using the above-mentioned criteria, offering “insight into the social system in which John’s language is embedded.”
The introduction states that this commentary is “intended to be supplemental to much traditional Johannine scholarship.” It does not “recount historical events, provide linguistic information, explain literary allusions, or trace the history of cultural concepts.” Nor does it do any literary analysis or address literary forms. Instead it explores the meanings derived from social systems in order to help readers better understand “a first-century Mediterranean, alternate society, written in anti-language.” Without footnotes, there is no primary source to refer back to, so the reader must trust the scholarship of the authors.
Unsurprisingly, the first structural segment consists solely of the prologue – John 1:1-18 – which presents the cosmic status and mission of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah who is the source of Light and Life that makes us children of God. The reading scenarios introduced in this segment are poetry, Word, light, and life. It lists the themes from this opening poem that will recur throughout the gospel (with their scriptural references): the preexistence of the Word, the light of the world, the opposition of light and dark, witness/testimony, life, world, glory, the only Son, and no one save the Son has seen God. Many of these themes, the authors argue, are either unique to John or are given special emphasis and are part of the anti-language that I mentioned above. Each is explained in greater detail in the notes as they arise in the text. For example, the themes of life and light are “closely associated” and are in direct opposition to darkness and death. Malina and Rohrbaugh contend that the strong oppositions found in this Gospel support their contention that John’s followers are an antisociety, or an ingroup that considers all others who do not “believe” as they do (the world) the outgroup. Quoting modern day vernacular, according to the John source, “You are either with us, or agin’ us.”
I am well aware that this is but one way of structuring the Gospel of John and that it is but one point of view among many. Having said that, I found it fascinating, not only because it looks at the text differently than most of what I have studied while in seminary, but because it just makes sense to me. Now I understand why I have had difficulty with this gospel in the past. The certitude found here, if you believe the author’s antisociety argument – that there is only one way to believe and if you do not believe in exactly that way you are wrong and doomed – is what sent me running from the church in my twenties. I am also grateful that I waited to read this perspective until now since it was very difficult for me when I first came to seminary to see beyond the literal and understanding the cosmic significance of some of the themes found of John would have been out of my reach. I recommend this book highly to any student of the bible, not to replace or diminish other ways of approaching the text, but to enhance and broaden their understanding.
Reviewer: Piers Kaniuka
Date: 3/13/08
Cullman, Oscar: The Johannine Circle (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976). 226.5 C898j
Cullman, Oscar
The Johannine Circle was written by Oscar Cullman in 1975. A leading Bible scholar, Cullman intended the work for students, scholars, and academics. He wrote the work while at the Institut de France in Paris. Cullman’s major thesis is that Christianity is primarily rooted in what he calls a “marginal form of Palestinian Judaism.”1 This ‘heterodox” Judaism is syncretistic, having been influenced by Hellenistic and Samaritan Judaism, as well as Mandaean religion and the Qumran community. He argues that the circle surrounding the author of the Fourth Gospel can be located in this Palestinian milieu, whereas the rest of the early Christian movement cannot. Hence, Cullman rejects the idea there was no “Hellenistic Judaism” in Palestine. Cullman makes a painstaking argument for the existence of a community centered upon a dominant personality, who is also the author of the Fourth Gospel. His book is divided into ten sections, seven of which are devoted to the Johannine circle and/or the Evangelist himself. Two sections address literary issues, including the question of redaction, language, sources and style; an appendix is dedicated to hypotheses about the date and place of origin of the Gospel of John. Cullman wrote a book for specialists. He frequently debates other scholars throughout the work, especially Bornkamm, Bultmann, Kasemann, R.E. Brown, Dodd, and Meeks. When it suits his purpose he cites the original Greek. He also makes frequent reference to the synoptics, the Johannine letters, Acts, the Qumran texts, and several Gnostic writings.
One of Cullman’s main points is that the Evangelist goes beyond the synoptic tradition by showing how the life of the historical Jesus prefigures the coming mission of the risen Christ. (For example, in 10:16 when Jesus alludes to his “other sheep, that are not of this fold”, or when he says that only after he is “lifted up” will he “draw all men” to himself (12:32).) Cullman notes how the author believes himself to be inspired by the Paraclete, that the Risen Christ speaks through him, and that this confers a unique (but by no means exclusive) authority upon his Gospel. Much of the book is dedicated to a discussion of the heterodox Judaism that characterizes the Johannine community. Cullman locates this Judaism in the area of Palestine and Syria. He argues that the beliefs and practices of the Qumran community are especially evident in John (the practice of ritual meals and ablutions as well as a critical attitude towards the temple and priesthood). The role of Samaria is also strongly emphasized. Cullman holds that Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well not only anticipates the future Christian mission but also suggests that the first missionaries to Samaria were themselves non-conformist Jews or “Hellenists”.
Cullman ultimately concludes that the Johannine circle was the smaller of two groups of early disciples. The larger group, whose representative was Peter, came from a more traditional Jewish background. The Twelve apostles were from this group. The smaller group was focused around the author of John and had emerged from the marginal Palestinian – Syrian context mentioned above. Cullman writes, “In this community, the basic liturgical notion that the presence of God, the ‘glory’, has been detached from the temple and cannot be localized in one place, led to greater fixity of the new liturgical forms in which Christ was experienced as crucified and risen. These were baptism and the eucharist.”2 Thus the differences between the two communities account for the unique content and style of the Fourth Gospel. Cullman further suggests that, at times, Jesus may have instructed the two groups differently. If so, the smaller group, as represented by the beloved disciple, was addressed in a more inward and intimate fashion. It is important to note that Cullman does not argue that the Johannine circle enjoyed a privileged status in early Christianity. Nor does he give either group temporal priority; instead he suggests that both communities existed from the time Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist.
Cullman exercises great speculative restraint throughout the book. He notes that Johannine scholars often come to wildly different conclusions. Hence, he is reluctant to assume that John’s redactor was motivated by some theological or ecclesiological bias; instead he argues that the redactor(s) was himself under the influence of the author and was therefore conservative in his treatment of the Gospel. The section that intrigued me the most was the one dedicated to the author. I was especially taken with the hypothesis that identifies the beloved disciple with Lazarus. The mistaken belief that the beloved disciple “would not die” certainly could be taken as referring to Lazarus. He was also from Judea and was not one of the Twelve. Jesus was said to have loved him. Unfortunately, Cullman doesn’t pursue this question further. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. Cullman makes a strong argument for “marginal” or “heterodox” Judaism without indulging in excessive speculation. He demonstrates that Christianity arose in a complex syncretistic cultural environment, one that resists the easy dichotomy of Palestinian - Hellenistic. The book also goes a long way towards dispelling the persistent misconception that John is the least historically accurate of the gospels. Cullman shows that while the author of John undoubtedly depended upon the synoptic tradition, he also introduced elements that are probably more historically accurate than anything in the synoptics. Specifically, he identifies, “…the traditions which relate to Judaea and Samaria” and “…the very precise details about topography and Jewish rites; and especially the passion narrative and its chronology….”3 This was an interesting and provocative book. I am sure I would have appreciated it even more if I had a better acquaintance with the secondary literature. Still, it was a great read for a seminary student. It certainly left me with more questions than I brought to it. p. x p. 86 P. 23
Reviewer: Sarah Pringle-Lewis
Date: 3/12/08
Jeremias,Joachim : Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1969)983 J472j
Joachim Jeremias was a Lutheran theologian, and scholar of Near Eastern studies . Born in 1900 in Dresden, he spent his early life in Jerusalem where his father, Dr. Friedrich Jeremias was the provost of the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer. He, Joachim, studied theology and oriental languages in Tubingen and Leipzig. He obtained both the Ph.d and the Doctor of Theology at Leipzig. Jeremias centered his academic career at the University of Gottingen. Rejecting liberalism, he developed into a follower of neo-orthodoxy, which sought to recover an orthodox view of Christianity, but which retained a mostly liberal view of the Bible as subject to error. He opposed the Nazi regime during the 1930s and rooted his theology in the teachings of the historical Jesus. With this in mind his work is designed to uncover with as much accuracy as possible the experiential environment of 1st Century Palestine. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus was originally written in 1962 in German under the title, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu for the earnest scholar hopping to immerse themselves in the biblical world view.
Jeremias divides the book into four parts: Economic Conditions in the City of Jerusalem, Economic Status, Social Status and The Maintenance of Racial Purity. Each part is futher divided into sub categories, for example, in Part Four: The Maintenance of Racial Purity, there are seven sub categories. These sub categories are further divided into even smaller topics. See example below: PART FOUR: THE MAINTENANCE OF RACIAL PURITY XII THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY XIII ISRAELITES OF PURE ANCESTRY A. Legitimacy of ancestry B. Historical value of lay genealogies C. Civil rights of full Israelites XIV DESPISED TRADES AND JEWISH SLAVES A. Despised trades B. Jewish slaves XV ILLEGITIMATE ISRAELITES A. Israelites with slight blemish 1. Illegitimate descendants of priests 2. Proselytes 3. Freed Gentile slaves B. Israelites with grave blemish 1. Bastards 2. Temple slaves, fatherless, foundlings, eunuchs XVI GENTILE SLAVES XVII THE SAMARITANS XVIII THE SOCIAL POSITION OF WOMEN
In the opening chapter on the economic life of David’s city, Jeremias says, “In order to obtain a complete picture of the economic life of an ancient oriental city we must enquire into the nature of its industries, its commerce, and its traffic. Further, if the character of the city is to emerge from this enquiry, when we have established the existing conditions, we must then examine the causes which have brought them about.” And it is that attention to detail which is evident throughout. The volume offers well-organized and careful conclusions about Jerusalem's industry, commerce, social-economic classes, quest for pure bloodlines, and attitudes toward foreigners and slaves. He employs archaeological evidence, written evidence, and the leading scholarly knowledge of his day to create or rather recreate for the reader the living and working conditions of 1st Century Jerusalem.
This principle held against the Samaritans had as its first and most important consequence that from the beginning of the first century AD they were regarded as being on a level with Gentiles all things ritual and cultic. As we have seen they were probably forbidden access to the inner courts of the Temple from about AD 8. This is confirmed by a Mishnah passage, obviously old, probably dating from when the Temple still stood. In it , it was forbidden to accept the Temple tax from Samaritans, or sin offerings, or guilt offerings and bird offerings [for women after childbirth and with hemorrhage]; only votive offerings and freewill offerings were to be accepted, as in the case of Gentiles (M. Shek. 1.5).16 this inclusion of Samaritans among the Gentiles in ritual and cultic matters is attested too by some words of R. Judah b. Eli (c. AD150, who represented the older tradition as regards the Samaritans): He said that a Samaritan may not circumcise a Jew, for he would direct his intention towards Mount Gerizim (TA Zar. Iii.13, 464; b. A. Zar. 27a Bar.; Kutim i.9b). We find the same thought behind the ban enunciated by R. Eliezer (c AD 90) on eating at Passover unleavened bread belonging to a Samaritan, ‘for the Samaritans are not versed in the precepts of the commandments’, and on eating an animal killed by a Samaritan ‘since an unexpressed intention in a Gentile [while slaughtering] is directed to idolatry’ (M. Hull.ii.7).” p.336 I picked this passage as I am interested to know what social prescriptions defined Jesus’ exchange with the woman at the well. A Samaritan woman speaking to a man, a man from Galilee who was a Jew seemed to be regarded as a great sin. This passage helps to put that conversation into context. With the weight of the religious authorities against the Samaritans it does show their dialogue to be a revolutionary thing..
I enjoy history, just about any history. Although Jeremias can become bogged down with citations and cross referencing, I found the book to be a valuable reading experience. It allowed the people of the city to be more real to me as their daily lives and struggles were explained. I think that any student of the Christian scriptures will find this to be a good reference.
Reviewer: Stan Scott
Date: March 11, 2008
O’Day, Gail R. “The Gospel of John: Reading the Incarnate Words.” In Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher, eds. Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. 25-34.
Gail R. O'Day, Ph.D., is Associate Dean of Faculty and Academic Affairs and A.H. Shatford Professor of Preaching and New Testament at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology. Professor O'Day's current research focuses on the Gospel of John, the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, and the Bible and preaching. She is the editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature (Society of Biblical Literature), editor of The Oxford Access Bible (Oxford University Press 1999), and author of Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Fortress Press 1986), among many other publications. This article appears in a book, listed in Moloney’s Sacra Biblia, published by a religious/scholarly press (Westminster John Knox), and so appears intended primarily for a scholarly audience. But I found the language of the article quite understandable, and not overly technical or difficult.
The word “Reading” in Professor O’Day’s title is important, in the sense that she wants to make a point about how the Fourth Gospel (FG) works in the experience of readers, in both ancient and modern times. She begins by telling how the Gospel played a prominent role in the interpretive strategies of a variety of early Christian interpreters—ranging, notably, from Gnostics, to their opponents, to Montanists, to allegorists, to advocates of Nicene orthodoxy, to many others. The prominence of FG in early Christianity depended partly upon the popular assumption that it was authored by one of the twelve disciples, John son of Zebedee. But, O’Day asks, “Why John?”—i.e. why was John read in so many varied ways by different individuals and groups, when Matthew, Mark, and Luke, also thought to have been written by disciples, were not read in such divergent ways “across a wide theological spectrum.” The answer to this question, according to O’Day, lies in the literary and theological character of FG. Her point is that many interpreters found in FG a model they could use in their own interpretations: a beautiful seamless movement from telling the story of Jesus to expounding its theological and spiritual meanings. Clement of Alexandria (190s C.E.) argued that the Fourth Evangelist (FE), perceiving that the “external facts” of Jesus’ life had already been made plain, sought to write a “spiritual gospel”—a statement used by some modern scholars to dismiss the historical value of the Johannine evidence. O’Day on the other hand believes Clement was simply pointing out that external facts, while important in themselves, “do not make the Gospel move” and that the author sought to tell the “internal facts” as well. Hence the rhetorical strategy that O’Day perceives, in which story (or historia) and theological interpretation are “inseparably intertwined” in FG. It is a strategy that invites the reader (modern readers as well as contemporaries of FE) to read for “more than just the events.” Its method invites us in other words to identify what the story means for us readers, and opens up the story to “the world of the reader’s own experience.” The way dialogues and conversations are handled, notably, works to draw the reader in to the events “as a participant.” And the confessional language of the Prologue (e.g. “We beheld his glory, 1:14), by blurring the line between the author and reader, works by including the reader in the first-person plural “we.” According to O’Day, the language of the Gospel opens up the Jesus story “to the reading community’s own experience.” And in this way readers are enabled to “discover the presence of God in Jesus for themselves.”
As I reread the article I notice that, unlike the one I reviewed by Wayne Meeks, O’Day doesn’t cite a single line in the original Greek, but uses English translation throughout. She does give a brief exposition of the word “Paraclete”—a transliteration of the Greek noun parakletos—as “the one who comforts” or “the one who helps.” The example given is John 14:16: “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, to be with you forever.” Like other parts of her article this exposition is used to support her claim that the text is a rendering of the “hermeneutical principle” embedded in the incarnate Word. Jesus is the concrete manifestation of an invisible principle—the Logos, or Word—which is actually God. By moving dialectically from theology, as in the Prologue exposition of the Word, to the concrete external story of Jesus, the author skillfully brings all of us readers who are receptive to it, into a kind of living relationship with Jesus, as well participation in the “inner” life, or consciousness, of the Word. This is what O’Day means by “reading the incarnate Word.”
“John 1:1 [‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God’] points to what the reader needs to know to understand the story that is about to be told. It is a ‘prologue’ in the true sense, in that it sounds the introductory note that anticipates what is to follow, but it is only half the introduction. The rest follows: [T]he Word became flesh and lived among us. (1:14) When these two verses (John 1:1 and 1:14) are read together, the distinctive character of FG’s theological world begins to take shape. John 1:1 announces and affirms the presence of the Word with God ‘in the beginning,’ outside the reckoning of time and place. John 1:14 then announces and affirms the reshaped presence of the Word completely within the reckoning of time and place. The movement of the Word from God’s sphere (1:1) into the human sphere (1:14) by means of the incarnation, the making-flesh of the Word, positions Jesus to provide humanity with access to God in ways never before possible through the relationship between God and the Word [28]. . . . The interpretive puzzle and delight of the Gospel of John comes from the fact that the movement between and among its many levels of meaning is not usually accompanied by explicit markers that say, ‘Now we move from the level of narrative to the level of theological meaning.’ This is because the theological reality of the incarnation—that God is made known in the life, ministry, and death of the incarnate Word, the Son—is the shaping hermeneutical principle of the creation of this Gospel. FE simultaneously tells a story and tells other than a story. The narrative style of FG re-incarnates the theological reality behind the Gospel: that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Story and interpretation intertwine in FG because human and divine, flesh and glory, intertwine in Jesus. [29].” I picked these passages because they illustrate the main point of this powerful argument—that the incarnation itself as a literary metaphor, tells us how to read the Gospel. It provides a “hermeneutical principle” (a guide to interpretation) that can lead readers as they move through the different levels of meaning in the text. The argument also suggests that by reading the Word in the Gospel, with understanding, we too can become the embodiment of the Word, or the Word made flesh.
I thought this was a wonderful explanation of the fact that the text of John works on different levels, by an artistic counterpoint, that has powerful effects in the lives of readers. Though O’Day doesn’t emphasize this terminology, I might say the Gospel works by expressing an outer meaning (the events of Jesus’ life and ministry) in relation to an inner meaning (that there is a principle of harmony or a life principle, called the Logos or Word, that has all power and makes and controls everything real). I was most interested in O’Day’s ability to explain how the multi-layered language of the text works to draw the reader (us) into, and make us participants in, its meanings. For example, she emphasizes the “familial intimacy” of the language of the text (e.g. references to God as “Father” and “the one who sent me [Jesus]”). Such language, she argues, is a way of leading the reader who “believes” in Jesus into the “power” to become “children of God” themselves. By accepting Jesus as the incarnation of the God-principle we (readers) may enter, so to speak, into his “family,” and become (metaphorically) children of God. I enjoyed reading Gail O’Day, a little more than Wayne Meeks, and would like to read more of her writings. I would recommend her writing to others as well. Very sane, passionate, and engaging.
Reviewer: Margaret Moser (Peggy)
Date: March 11
Tobin, Thomas H. “The prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish speculation.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 no 2 Ap 1990, p 252-269. ISSN: 0008-7912. Ashton, John. “The Transformation of Wisdom a Study of the Prologue of John’s Gospel.” New Testament Study. Vol. 32, 1986, pp 161-186. www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/johnesr.htm.
Thomas Tobin teaches at Loyola University of Chicago and has written four books and numerous scholarly articles relating to his interest in the letters of Paul, Hellenistic Judaism, Hellenistic philosophy, and Gnosticism. At present he is writing a two-volume commentary on Philo’s treatises Legum Allegoriae 1-3. Lately, he was elected to the American Theological Society. John Ashton was a thirty year member of the Society of Jesus. He has taught at Heathrow College, University of London, and at the Universities of St. Andres and Edinburgh. He joined the faculty of theology at Oxford University in 1984, retiring in 1996. He is the author of Understanding the Fourth Gospel.
Because “logos” is an important concept having a long and complicated history, Tobin begins his article by focusing on the hymn part of the Prologue. By dividing the article into “The Reality and Functions of the Logos,” “The Contrast of Light and Darkness,” and “The Logos and the Heavenly Man,” Tobin guides the reader with regard to how the author of the hymn developed an interpretation of the “logos” that became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. Ashton’s article is viewed through two primary sections – Literary and Historical. Ashton ends his article with a third section that is concerned with “what exactly is being affirmed” in John 1:14 “Myth, History or Theology.” To read either of these two articles without some knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures would be difficult. Each article challenges the reader to think beyond a Christian understanding and to be open to the risk of broadening an awareness of what may be behind the identity of “logos.” Aston’s use of Greek, Hebrew, German, and French with few translations provided was frustrating for me as I have no background in languages other than English. Tobin’s article was much easier to grasp. Though Tobin too referenced original languages, he expanded interpretations of words and phrases making my reading less of a hindrance.
Ashton introduces the reader to the Book of Wisdom that provides evidence so as to give wisdom a history. Ashton further provides evidence of the career of “logos” through Proverbs 8, Baruch, Ben Sirach, 1 Enoch 42:1-2 as well as referring to many scholarly writers concerning the Johannine Prologue from both a Jewish and Christian standpoint. Tobin also views the Prologue of John through various means that include Aristobulus, Philo of Alexandria, the world of Hellenistic Judaism and the Christian gospel. These various viewpoints help to provide evidence of the integration concerning the Hellenistic Jewish speculation to that of the “logos” as becoming the incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. What connects these two separate parallels for Tobin is the use of comparable vocabulary and context, though the conclusions are very dissimilar and distinct.
Ashton’s use of the career of “logos” emphasizes the mystery of wisdom, which according to Enoch proffers “a view of wisdom as a revelation of mysteries outside the law” (Ashton, 168). Yet, true wisdom did not rest among men but instead remained in heaven. In the Prologue, “logos” is a deliberate and intentional rival of the Law in so far as it is the exclusive agent of revelation and salvation and not just a masculine substitute of the feminine Wisdom. Even if “logos” found a home among men it did not happen as expected as “his own received him not.” Tobin understands the functions of “logos” first to be cosmological – the one closest to God, a prototype for the ordering of the universe, and the instrument through which the universe was ordered. Secondly, he comprehends “logos” to be a means in which the human soul is lead into the domain of the divine (Philo). From a Hellenistic Jewish perspective the “logos” is much to abstract to be identified with the “logos” of The Prologue (Jesus of Nazareth). Nevertheless, by integrating the “logos” in Hellenistic Judaism to that of the heavenly man may have led to the connection of the “logos” with that of a specific person, Jesus of Nazareth, found in the hymn of the Prologue. By identifying “logos” with the heavenly man of Gen. 1:27, it bridges the gap between the “logos” and Jesus of Nazareth: “logos – heavenly man – particular man (Jesus of Nazareth)” (Tobin, 267).
The Prologue, is it myth, history, or theology? As historical, the Prologue seems to be part of a pre-Christian Gnostic hymn that was taken over by the evangelist and tailored to form the Prologue. If this is so, the Prologue would be considered a myth of pre-existence that was used to support the introduction to the Gospel of John. Since theology is embedded in symbolism, history and myth contribute to an appropriate form of theology from either the perspective of Judaism or Christianity. Even so, can we explain “logos” merely on Jewish wisdom literature? Tobin states that Jewish wisdom literature never displaced the figure of wisdom by “logos” – the “logos” that is found in the hymn of the Prologue. Though Wisdom is linked with light and night (Wis. 6:12; 8:26), in Wisdom 7:29-30, Wisdom is not identified with light and thus not to be contrasted with light and darkness in John 1:4-5, let alone associated with the incarnation of the “logos.” Though I desire to see Wisdom regain her rightful place in history, these two articles do not present enough justification to restore Wisdom to such an historical distinction.
Reviewer: Karen Indorf
Date: 3/11/08
Culpepper, R. Alan, “The Johannine Hypodeigma: A Reading of John 13,” Semeia. no. 53 (1991): 133-152. ISSN: 0095-571X
R. Alan Culpepper serves as the Dean of the McAfee School of Theology. He received a B.A. (1967) from Baylor University, his Master of Divinity (1970) from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. (1974) from Duke University. Before coming to McAfee, Dean Culpepper taught in the Religion Department at Baylor University. He is the New Testament editor for the Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary and for the Biblical Interpretation Series published by E.J. Brill, and is on the editorial board from the Library of New Testament Studies. This article was published in Semeia in 1991 when he was a Visiting Professor at Baylor University.
Dr. Culpepper begins by acknowledging that John 13 poses interpretive problems that lead to the conclusion that the text must be redacted. However, his purpose is to understand the chapter at face value regardless of sources, exploring the narrative context and the responses of those who read it, and being able to tie together its various themes through the use of knowledge vs. ignorance. He divides John 13 into six distinct units: 1-5: Introduction; 6-11: The First Conversation with Peter; 12-17: Jesus' Exhortation to the Disciples; 18-20: The Forecast of Betrayal; 21-30: Jesus and Judas; 31-38: The Second Conversation with Peter. The narrative hinges on what Jesus knew and what the disciples did not know or understand. Culpepper also draws the reader into the narrative. By reporting the "inside information" that is known to Jesus, the reader is privy to the knowledge of Jesus’ revelation, watching from an informed vantage point that the disciples do not have.
There is clear indication that Dr. Culpepper used the Greek New Testament. He also cites many other New Testament scholars, including his own theological writing, “Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel.” He cites references with an extensive bibliography and endnotes. He also uses the term “hypodeigma” (example), a term used in the Septuagint that exhorts the faithful to pay attention to an exemplary death. This theme is how he ties together the narrative.
In the case of Peter and Judas, their ignorance led to denial and betrayal. Although there is a promise that he will understand later, at the time, Peter is unable to comprehend the meaning of the footwashing in terms of Jesus’ death, which also has implications for Peter’s own discipleship and death, and for the whole Johannine community when it too faces persecution and the threat of death. The hypodeigma of Jesus death becomes the interpretation for not only the footwashing, but also Peter’s denial and Judas’ betrayal.
I very much appreciated reading this article. I had always considered the footwashing to be about serving others, a ritual done in the context of the Eucharist, and often a symbol used by deaconesses and others with formal church vocations. Culpepper looks beyond that practice of service and picks up deeper theological themes, using hypodeigma to relate Jesus’ death to what is finally revealed to the disciples after the resurrection, including what it will mean for their own deaths. It was also interesting to be aligned with the narrator in having some hindsight in contrast to Peter’s total lack of understanding. It gives me more compassion for his impulsivity and stubbornness.
Reviewer: Karen Indorf
Date: 3/11/08
Brown, Raymond E., S.S. “The Resurrection in John 21: Missionary and Pastoral Directives for the Church.” Worship 64, no. 5 (September 1990) 433-445. ISSN: 0043-941X
Raymond E. Brown S.S., a Roman Catholic priest, biblical scholar, and teacher, was Professor Emeritus at Union Theological Seminary in New York before his sudden death in 1998. This article was published in 1990 when Fr. Brown was the Auburn Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies at Union. It is found in Worship, an ecumenical journal published bimonthly by the monks of Saint John’s Abbey in Collegeville, MN, for the study of liturgical theology and practice, presumably for readers who are biblical scholars or persons interested in scholarly work.
Fr. Brown begins with an acknowledgment that chapter 21 is thought by most scholars to have been redacted later, especially given the seemingly totally independent appearances of Jesus in 21, as though the disciples hadn’t seen him previously in 20. However, for the purpose of this paper, he is choosing to treat them sequentially to maintain continuity with the rest of the gospel and for the liturgical context in which he is writing. He then proceeds to divide chapter 21 into four subdivisions: (1) the miraculous catch of fish; (2) the meal of bread and fish; (3) Jesus and Simon Peter; (4) Jesus and the beloved disciple. He exegetes each section individually but also ties them together, especially the first with the second and the third with the fourth. He also reflects on how this text and its components are relevant today in terms of how the church and its members live out their post-resurrection discipleship. The final verse (21:25) is dealt with as a conclusion to the whole gospel.
There is clear indication that Fr. Brown used the Greek New Testament. He also cites Jerome as well as critical New Testament scholars in general. He bases much of his theology on comparing John with the synoptic gospels, but also uses other New Testament writings by Paul and Peter as well as some Old Testament references.
In his commentary on his first two subdivisions, the miraculous catch of fish and the meal of bread and fish, Brown stresses the fact that the disciples initially do not recognize the risen Christ in spite of his previously cited appearances to them in chapter 20. (This speaks to the redaction issue mentioned above) However, Brown uses this dilemma theologically, as a demonstration of the disciples’ difficulty in moving from belief to praxis. Here they were, resuming their ordinary lives and professions as fishermen as though nothing had happened in three years, let alone in three days. As Brown states, there was not “a sign of transformation.” It was only after a miraculous catch, and later at a meal, that they once again recognized Jesus. Brown then uses the last two segments of the chapter to talk about what discipleship is going to mean for the disciples.
I picked this passage because I liked the emphasis on moving beyond belief to how it plays out in post-resurrection practice. I also liked the theological insights and conclusions. They have value in demonstrating the mission of the post-resurrection. However, Brown’s choice to ignore the seeming conflict between chapters 20 and 21 and the probable later redaction of 21, made it seem forced and artificial. Although he acknowledged other source issues as he went along, it always seemed as though there was an elephant in the room. I was left wondering how his theological conclusions might have been different, or not, if he had approached his source criticism of the chapter differently.
Reviewer: Barbara Chodowski
Date: 3/11/08
Weiss, Herold. “Foot Washing in the Johannine Community.” Novum Testamentum 21 (1979) 298-325. First Search: Atla. ** In our text, Sacra Pagina: John, the Volume number is listed as 41, although the full page text article on Atla lists the Volume number as XXI or 21.
The article was written by Herold Weiss of the Notre Dame University, USA and was published in 1979. The intended audience for this article is academic, has an interest in biblical interpretation and may enjoy sociological or anthropological accounts as it is a look at the Johannine Community and its practices using the scripture as a guide.
Weiss provides an extensive look at a variety of sources that discuss the meaning of foot washing in John, beginning with older attempts to explain the activity as an act of humility or service, another approach that looks at the practice as preparation for martyrdom, source criticism looking at the synoptics and the old testament (which yielded an interesting comparison to Hellenistic synagogue practices and ancient textual references). The main body of the article explores the meaning the story in the fourth gospel had for the community within which it originated. The paper concludes, after a lengthy discussion, that the purpose of foot washing in the community had an eschatological function father than ceremonial function.
Weiss rambles through a wealth of biblical and the writings of Philo to discuss previous attempts of interpretation of the event. He settles on the premise of Robinson, who identified the purpose of foot washing in the setting of Jesus’ Ministry his way to prepare the disciples for martyrdom. Weiss, however, shifts the focus of the analysis from Jesus’ life to the lives of all those who lived in the Community where John writes. This he feels is a valid focus as he determines that the community was not only required to be separate from the synagogue, but in danger from it. Following Christ was indeed an act that was perceived to lead to death. Weiss uses a multitude of gospel references to support this focus. If following Christ meant sure death, then it follows that eschatology would be very prominent in the concerns of the community. He connects washing and anointing to acts surrounding Jesus, his death and burial using accounts throughout the synoptics to support the fact that the event was connected to the act of martyrdom and death, and the ceremonies that follow. I was unable to determine which biblical translations Weiss used, but on page 321, he uses Greek letters for a word meaning “to bind, to set straight one’s clothing in order to go somewhere.” [I tried, but I could not figure out how to get the computer to write the word in Greek]. This is also true of Philo, although many sources referenced in the notes appeared to be written in German.
The passage I have chosen from the Weiss article is located in page 323. I have chosen it because I believe it best describes how the discourse between Jesus and Peter illustrates Weiss’s points. The passage reads as follows: “At the footwashing, Jesus supposedly assumes the role of servant and washes the disciples’ feet. But Jesus was in fact the Lord and Master, and the disciples were right in thinking so. When Pete refuses to accept that his Lord and Master should wash his feet, he has told by Jesus that his refusal is based on ignorance of what his Lord is doing. Peter is thereby acting as a servant. But Peter does not stay a servant forever, he became also a friend. Eventually he learned about the Lord’s destiny as well as his own: he also would have to lay down his life for his friends, or, like a good shepherd, lay down his life for his sheep.” This conversation is meant to reorient Jesus’ followers to their correct role. The foot washing does not symbolize serving, but leading and being prepared to lead. Leadership means being able to take responsibility for those who follow you and for those who share your love. In this case, assuming the role of leader meant being prepared to die.
This article was definitely worth the time I spent reading and rereading it. It is definitely scholarly in nature, and looks deeply into the Bible as a text to find validity in its interpretation. It gives an excellent overview of literature dealing with foot washing. I enjoyed Weiss’ writing. His presentation is very logical. For me, it was easy to follow. This was extremely important, as the article was long and packed with interpretation. Again, I am somewhat biased as it touches on two topics that keep my attention: personal relationships in the Bible (especially friendship) and the act of foot washing. I am very glad to have read the piece. I hope to use as a part of my research in the near future.
Reviewer: Kelly Harvell
Date: 3/11/2008
Brown, Raymond E.: The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1979). 226.5 B814c.
Father Raymond E. Brown was the Auburn Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary. He was also a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. He was a leading biblical scholar. He wrote not only for scholars, educators, and clergy. He also wanted to reach the everyday person in the pews. He had a life-long love for the study of the Gospel according to John. This particular book is not intended for a first-time study of the gospel but is intended to attempt to show the relationship between the John and the other books of the New Testament thru church life thirty to sixty years after Jesus’ lifetime. As a note: He dies indicate that this book contains a lot of conjecture on his part based on information that he gathered and that if 60% of it were accepted he would be happy.
This book is broken into four major phases: before the Gospel, when the Gospel was written, when the epistles were written, and after the epistles. Each of those phases of time is further separated. Phase One starts with the originating group of the Johannine community. It then moves on to include a second group of Johannine Christians that includes conflict with “the Jews”, a change in their Christology (higher), corollaries for their theology, and continuity with the earlier group. There is also a section about the gentiles and a look at the wider community. Phase Two is about the relationship of the Johannine community to the rest of the surrounding peoples, non-believers and other Christian groups, and a discussion about whether the community can be viewed as a sect. Phase Three is about the internal struggles of the community broken down into the “life situations” shown in the Epistles, and the areas of dispute (Christology, Ethics, Eschatology, and Pneumatology). Phase Four is the history following the first century. It is further divided into a history of the fourth Gospel in the second century, the secessionists and the second century heterodoxy, the author’s adherents and the great church, and finally a reflection.
The author is attempting to draw together a lifetime of research into the Johannine writings (including John I, II, and III). He references a wide variety of other researchers and experts who are listed in a bibliographical index at the back. Appendix I is a discussion about reconstructions that had appeared between the completion of his commentary and the writing of this book. The researchers included there are: J. Louis Martin, Georg Richter, Oscar Cullmann, Marie-Emile Boismard, and Wolfgang Langbrandtner. The author never indicates which version(s) of the Bible he is referencing.
As we shall see in Appendix I, in Martyn’s reconstruction of Johannine history, he offers no real explanation for the appearance of a higher Christology in the “Middle Period” of pre-Gospel development. Richter, on the other hand, supposes a conflict between the earliest Johannine Christians of his Group I and the higher christologians of his Group II. I am not satisfied with either of these approaches, and I think that chap. 4 may help us with the problem. Immediately after that chapter we get a picture of a very high Christology and sharp conflict with “the Jews” who charge that Jesus is being deified (5:16-18). (p. 36) I picked this passage because it shows several characteristics of this book. There is a description of the opinions brought forth by other researchers. Then there is his understanding and what it is based on. I was led through his thought process and given the information that he based it on. It helped me to understand why he reached his decision and it gave me a better understanding of other research as well.
This book was an easy book for me to read. It may not be that way for everyone though. I enjoy puzzles and it is a sort of puzzle that describes all the pieces and then decides where and how to use them… or in some cases, to disregard them. It was very thought provoking and brought to me several discussions that I was not aware of. I would not suggest it for someone just getting into the study of this Gospel but it is very helpful for someone looking to round out her/his study.
Reviewer: Barbara Chodkowski
Date: 3/11/08
Schneiders, Sandra M. “The Foot Washing (John 13:1-20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981) 76-92. First Search: Atla.
The author is Sandra M. Schneiders, I.H.M., of The Jesuit School of Theology at Berkley. The article was published in 1981. The focus of the article is academic, specifically theological. Its intended audience would be academics, clergy, or theologians interested in biblical interpretation and hermeneutics.
The article begins with a discussion of applicable research dealing with hermeneutics specifically drawn from Gademer and Paul Ricoer which concludes suppositions. These suppositions are then used for interpretation of John 13: 1-20 in the second part of the article. The conclusion of the article grapples with how these interpretations can be applied to hermeneutics.
As I can find references to scriptural texts in both Greek and English, I would conclude that the author used a variety of texts in her analysis. On page 83, she uses the placement of pronouns in the Greek text to indicate interpretive clues. The author also uses the synoptics as further evidence for certain interpretations. To make the hermeneutical connection, the article explores the passage from the view of Interpretation Theory, where the meaning of the text is viewed as being able to be lifted or separated from what the original person meant to say. Schneiders uses appropriation, or “discerning the meaning of the text for the contemporary reader” in lieu of traditional exegetical methods. She does, however compare the results of her approach to that of traditional exegesis in the article in order to support the validity of her interpretive approach.
I have chosen to relate what Schneiders concludes as one valid meaning of the foot washing for Christians today. She states that: “at least one meaning of the foot washing for contemporary disciples lies not in an understanding of Christian Ministry in terms of self-humiliation or individual acts of menial service but as a participation in Jesus’ work of transforming the sinful structures of domination operative in human society according to the model of friendship expressing itself in joyful mutual service unto death.” I chose this passage because it specifically points to difference between interpretive techniques that the author intended to explore and also explains the passage application.
: I was excited to read this article for several reasons: I have always been intrigued with the work of Paul Ricoer and I find this application fascinating, I have a personal interest in the nature of friendship in the New Testament, and the topic of foot washing has always been of interest to me as well. Given the layers in which John writes, it makes sense that Ricoer’s theories would be useful in its analysis as they too illuminate symbolic layers and applications. Recognizing the layered structure of the article itself, I found it somewhat difficult to impart the information I wanted to give the reader of this review in this format. Although the article comes to viable interpretations about John 13:1-20, it also presents a case for an alternative type of analysis which differs greatly from traditional exegesis. Both the interpretation of the text using the method and the discussion of the method itself were fascinating to this reviewer. I think that anyone with an academic literary background, background in research or exegesis, or anyone who enjoys working with symbolism would enjoy reading this article. I certainly did.
Reviewer: Angela Tarbox
Date: 3/11/08
Rensberger, David: Johannine Faith and Liberating Community (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1988). 226.5 R297j.
David Rensberger is Professor of New Testament at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, Georgia. This consortium of seminaries has dedicated itself to the education of “Christian leaders for ministry and service in the Church and the global community.” In particular they are dedicated to leading the way in confronting the challenges facing American communities. The faculty takes a liberation theology approach in their assertion of the Black Church’s unique position to lead in a national renewal and “encourage faith-based solutions to community problems.” This particular book began from published articles and classroom based development so was written for Bible scholars and liberation theologians. However, it is also rich harvest for sociological and political enthusiasts.
In the first chapter, Rensberger outlines the historical and narrative approaches used to interpret the book of John in the past and then defends his approach to the text which includes an examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the underlying premise that John was written by and for those in a particular sectarian community who was confronting Jewish non-believers and silent believers who lived in the shadows. The next two chapters really attempt to illustrate the symbolic significance of various players mentioned in John and the communal relationships lying behind the stories. In Chapter 4, Rensberger addresses the importance of baptism and the eucharist from a communal perspective. Chapter 5 discusses the political and societal impact of Jesus’ arrest and trial and the conflict felt by the Johannine community from both within (the Jewish context) and without (Roman politics). Rensberger’s concluding chapter brings it all together by arguing that John is currently relevant to social and political issues as well as those challenges of oppression and justice.
Rensberger used a variety of books and journals (in English, German and French) including a Greek-English Lexicon and texts taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also included are various books on Black Theology, Liberation Theology, and Feminist Theology, as well as secular books on sociological approaches to religion and urban history.
“…The radical confession that created the Johannine community and its gospel may offer us the possibility of a contemporary Christianity whose dogmatic and ethical, individual and social dimensions are at last integrated into a single whole…. The specific claim that it makes about Jesus, that as Son of God he confronts the human world with its own hatefulness, and the specific response that it calls for, a public response of integration into a community of love, overcome all narrowly dogmatic and individualist interpretations” (151). I chose this passage because I believe it sums up Rensberger’s personal conviction that the Gospel of John is just as relevant today as it was when it was written. After all, why study a text if it has no bearing on the student or the audience who may benefit from that learning?
I enjoyed this book tremendously and learned a lot from Rensberger’s theory as well as from the approach he took to John. I particularly liked the way Rensberger presented the symbolism of some of the characters spoken of in John. He argues that, on one end of the spectrum are “the Jews” who actually represent the Pharisees after the First Revolt who were now in a position of power. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea stand somewhere in the middle as silent believers afraid to lose their status in the Jewish community. The blind man and his family represent believers in the lower economic class who are afraid to speak up because of the contempt and power of the Pharisees. Finally, the Johannine Christians stand at the other end as the public confessors of the true faith. This was instrumental in understanding the climax of his book and the primary conclusion mentioned above.
Reviewer: Harry Bennert
Date: 3/10/08
Witherington III, Ben, Johns Wisdom - a commentary on the fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995).
Ben Witherington III, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore Kentucky. The author states that he's writing this book for pastors, Teachers, and seminary students - who are wishing to study this Gospel in some detail "without being overwhelmed by scholarly jargon and debate."
The Beginnings Including the Prologue: an 84 page section which includes an extensive 'background and foreground of the fourth gospel' - a section which I found most helpful as it gave me the concepts of 'a subspecies of ancient biography' and 'distinctive primitive preaching' as the general source of the synoptics as well as John. Part I. Beginnings: Including the Prologue - John 1:1-2:12 Part II. The Public Ministry of Jesus:Phase One John 2:13-4:54 Part III. The Public Ministry of Jesus: Phase Two John 5:1-12:11 Part IV. The Passion Narrative: Phase One John12:12-17:26 Part V. The Passion Narrative: Phase Two John 18:1-19:42 Part VI. The Resurrection Narratives: Including the Epilogue John 20:1-21:25 Thus this book covers the entire book of John in great detail and although extensive, I found I enjoyed the reading. He uses "the historical horizon" and "bridging the horizons" as methods of understanding the passages discussed and , to me, a suggestion of how said passage can be used in a sermon!
I don't know which, a Greek or English, translation of the Bible was used as a source for this discussion but my sense is that Witherington is capable in Greek and English. He characterises the purpose of John as a Gospel to be used to speak to unbelievers, in order to bring them into the fold but not as written material to be given to them but to have it used as a template for teaching. It incorporates the wisdom literature. This Gospel wants you to know that Jesus is God; that he came here from heaven and will return to heaven even though, as demonstrated in the passion, he appears to die as a finite human. His resurrection appearances are striking and this Gospel wants to astound you!! It tends to employ the literary technique of cresendo! It demonstrates that Jesus death was a plan of God. That whatever Jesus did, he did with God's approval!
In chapter 19 of the book and chapter 20 of John verses 11-18 we read of the resurrected Jesus appearing to a weeping Mary Magdalene at the tomb and eventually being recognized when he speaks her name. Her response can send shivers up your spine as the effect of surprise and climax are experienced by the reader - a technique the book of John liked to use. It thrills one to read this passage. It encourages a faith. The fact that a woman is the first to hear or experience the resurrected Jesus is another affect of the writing of the beloved disciple. And the irony of it being a woman!! Witherington in his discussion in the 'historical horizon' and 'bridging the horizons' makes a point of the things I just mentioned. Witherington's book is so well done that I'm going to plan to read it again and again as I'm sure it will be a source of information to me now and in the future.
My responses to this book are many and very positive. As someone who is starting later in life than many to be a pastor, I feel that this easy-to-read book has helped me alot. A prime example was the discussion of the Samaritans and why the Jews despized them. The fact that Samaria had been conquered in the past and intermarriage with nonjews subsquently occurred, made the Samaritans and particularly the women unclean!! (according to strict Jewish law) Yet geographically the area was situated in the middle between Galilee and Judea. Encountering with them would have happened frequently, it seems to me, but I'm sure the Jews were counseled to avoid contact with them. This is just one tiny example of the "tidbits" I picked up in this book. I found it most enlightening and will plan to keep it in my library. Those who might profit from it most are those, like me, who struggle with 'jargon' used in the theological world. I've heard alot over the years about medical jargon, so I can be appreciative of a teaching book which seemed to avoid such and really taught me.
Reviewer: Harry Bennert
Date: 3/10/08
Witherington III, Ben, Johns Wisdom - a commentary on the fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995).
Ben Witherington III, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore Kentucky. The author states that he's writing this book for pastors, Teachers, and seminary students - who are wishing to study this Gospel in some detail "without being overwhelmed by scholarly jargon and debate."
The Beginnings Including the Prologue: an 84 page section which includes an extensive 'background and foreground of the fourth gospel' - a section which I found most helpful as it gave me the concepts of 'a subspecies of ancient biography' and 'distinctive primitive preaching' as the general source of the synoptics as well as John. Part I. Beginnings: Including the Prologue - John 1:1-2:12 Part II. The Public Ministry of Jesus:Phase One John 2:13-4:54 Part III. The Public Ministry of Jesus: Phase Two John 5:1-12:11 Part IV. The Passion Narrative: Phase One John12:12-17:26 Part V. The Passion Narrative: Phase Two John 18:1-19:42 Part VI. The Resurrection Narratives: Including the Epilogue John 20:1-21:25 Thus this book covers the entire book of John in great detail and although extensive, I found I enjoyed the reading. He uses "the historical horizon" and "bridging the horizons" as methods of understanding the passages discussed and , to me, a suggestion of how said passage can be used in a sermon!
I don't know which, a Greek or English, translation of the Bible was used as a source for this discussion but my sense is that Witherington is capable in Greek and English. He characterises the purpose of John as a Gospel to be used to speak to unbelievers, in order to bring them into the fold but not as written material to be given to them but to have it used as a template for teaching. It incorporates the wisdom literature. This Gospel wants you to know that Jesus is God; that he came here from heaven and will return to heaven even though, as demonstrated in the passion, he appears to die as a finite human. His resurrection appearances are striking and this Gospel wants to astound you!! It tends to employ the literary technique of cresendo! It demonstrates that Jesus death was a plan of God. That whatever Jesus did, he did with God's approval!
In chapter 19 of the book and chapter 20 of John verses 11-18 we read of the resurrected Jesus appearing to a weeping Mary Magdalene at the tomb and eventually being recognized when he speaks her name. Her response can send shivers up your spine as the effect of surprise and climax are experienced by the reader - a technique the book of John liked to use. It thrills one to read this passage. It encourages a faith. The fact that a woman is the first to hear or experience the resurrected Jesus is another affect of the writing of the beloved disciple. And the irony of it being a woman!! Witherington in his discussion in the 'historical horizon' and 'bridging the horizons' makes a point of the things I just mentioned. Witherington's book is so well done that I'm going to plan to read it again and again as I'm sure it will be a source of information to me now and in the future.
My responses to this book are many and very positive. As someone who is starting later in life than many to be a pastor, I feel that this easy-to-read book has helped me alot. A prime example was the discussion of the Samaritans and why the Jews despized them. The fact that Samaria had been conquered in the past and intermarriage with nonjews subsquently occurred, made the Samaritans and particularly the women unclean!! (according to strict Jewish law) Yet geographically the area was situated in the middle between Galilee and Judea. Encountering with them would have happened frequently, it seems to me, but I'm sure the Jews were counseled to avoid contact with them. This is just one tiny example of the "tidbits" I picked up in this book. I found it most enlightening and will plan to keep it in my library. Those who might profit from it most are those, like me, who struggle with 'jargon' used in the theological world. I've heard alot over the years about medical jargon, so I can be appreciative of a teaching book which seemed to avoid such and really taught me.
Reviewer: Stanley Scott
Date: 3-10-08
Meeks, Wayne. “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972) 44-72. ATLAReligion, full-text download. FirstSearch.
The author of this intensive study of the language of John is Wayne Meeks, Woolsey Professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University. Meeks is an authority on the social world of the Apostle Paul. He is known for his wide expertise in the origins of Christianity and in the interpretation of the New Testament. I saw him among other scholars in a fascinating PBS production called “From Jesus to Christ,” about the origins of Christianity. His books include: The Origins of Christian Morality and The First Urban Christians. He has taught at several universities including Dartmouth and Duke, but has been a professor at Yale since 1969. This article (1972) was written early in his career at Yale. Its citations in Greek and other languages, and its elaborate use of footnotes mark it as clearly intended for an audience of New Testament scholars.
The article claims in the beginning that the uniqueness of John’s gospel in early Christian literature consists in the “special patterns of language” which it uses to describe Jesus Christ. Most notable is the description of Jesus as the one who has descended from heaven and reascends to the Father. This pattern according to Meeks was first noted in 1925 by German scholar Rudolph Bultmann, who claimed that the descending/ascending redeemer motif is borrowed by the author of John from gnostic myths. In gnostic tradition the redeemer’s descent and ascent is thought to parallel that of all human souls, whereas in John there is no such analogy between redeemer and redeemed. A question Meeks raises is whether the Johannine and gnostic myths were independent or whether one influenced the other. But he decides he is not going to try to answer this question but simply to explore the function of the mythical pattern within the Johannine literature. He believes that mythical language like that of the descending/ascending redeemer is primarily an expression of the religious person’s sense of relationship to self and world. Meeks believes the Johannine literature was not the work of a lone genius but of a community that persisted over a considerable span of time. In Meeks’ view, the Fourth Gospel involves some great thematic coherence as well as “glaringly bad transitions” between episodes, redundancies, and the use of double entendre and self-contradiction (“I do not judge . . . yet if I do judge . . . 8:15), that could be incomprehensible unless one were within a community where such expressions were understood as part of common discourse. The motif of descent and ascent in the Fourth Gospel is a matter of discourse, not narrative. It is assumed and talked about, but never described in narrative form. The gospel consists of what Meeks calls a “closed system of metaphors” i.e. descent and ascent, that served the function not only of separating Jesus from all worldly individuals, but became a symptom of the separation of the Johannine community from the synagogue and its continuing hostile relationships with the synagogue [69]. The sect took on a “counter-cultural stance” that allowed them (or some of them) who heard the Stranger from the world above to become, like him, men and women “not of this world.”
The article is a “reading” of John based on the Greek text. Passages in Greek are cited throughout the article. It is also based on Meeks’ understanding and elaborate use of the arguments of other scholars in the field—e.g. Rudolph Bultmann, and many others, often cited in German or other languages.
“The pair of verbs [cited in Greek] ‘ascend/descend,’ appears in John for the first time in the perplexing promise made to Nathanael in 1:51: ‘Amen, amen I say to you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.’ This traditional logion depends on a midrash on Gen 28:12, from which the participles, in just this peculiar order, are drawn. . . . The saying has the form of a solemn prophecy, which, because of its place at the beginning of the book, demands some fulfillment in the subsequent narrative. This is all the more so if, . . . the logion’s purpose is to use the Bethel midrash to ‘correct’ the traditional prophecy of the parousia which is found in similar form in the Synoptics (Mark 14:62; cf. 13:26; Luke 17:22; Mark 16:7 par.) in the direction of a ‘realized eschatology’.” Yet there is certainly no explicit fulfillment in John; . . . there are no angelophanies in the Fourth Gospel. [In 3:13] we are told that ascending and descending are the exclusive properties of the Son of Man. There is a curiously close connection throughout the gospel between this title and the descent/ascent language. . . . The ‘food’ that the Son of Man gives is ‘bread which descends from heaven’ [6:31-33], which God, not Moses, gives. . . . That bread is identical with the Son of Man himself. [58] . . . The pattern, descent and ascent, becomes the cipher for Jesus’ unique self-knowledge as well as for his foreignness to the men of this world. His testimony is true because he alone knows ‘where I came from and where I am going; (8:14) [60].” This passage (excerpted from several pages) illustrates the over-all gist of the article, which is a complex argument about the language of the Fourth Gospel. In Meeks’ view, the gospel shows Jesus as a being entirely separate from men and women “of this world,” and is implicitly making a claim about the separateness of the Johannine community from the existing Jewish community (synagogue).
I enjoyed the article, but found it a challenge. It’s nearly 30 pages of dense writing. Most of Meeks’ scholarly references, and his use of the Greek text, were at this point unfamiliar to me, though I am interested in New Testament scholarship. So I found reading the article difficult, but rewarding. Since it was written in 1972, I couldn’t help wondering what new controversies Professor Meeks has tackled since that time. Its style is not exactly “user friendly” to the general reader. But once I got into it, I found it hard to put down. (I downloaded if from ATLAReligion.) It’s addressed to other scholars, and if you’re interested in digging in to controversies scholars are thinking about in New Testament studies, you might enjoy reading Meeks, as I have. I would also recommend watching the PBS series “From Jesus to Christ” for a powerful and quite comprehensible look what Meeks and other scholars are saying about the New Testament.
Reviewer: Annette Joseph
Date: 03/09/08
Koester, Craig R.: Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Prss, 1995). 226.5 K819sf.
Craig R. Koester wrote this book while on sabbatical from Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1995. It was written for biblical scholars and theologians interested in Johannine symbolism and for pastors for use in exegetical studies. (xii)
Abbreviations; Preface; Symbol, Meaning, and Mystery; Symbolic and Representative Figures; Symbolic Actions; Light and Darkness; Water; The Crucifixion; Symbol and Community; Postscript: Johannine Symbolism and Christian Tradition In the start of the book Koester gives his reasons for writing this and then puts out his theory on symbolism in John and some stories central to that. It seems like once he introduces the reader to these central stories he looses his thunder for the rest of the gospel. These two stories (the woman at the we