Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles ed. by R. Alan Culpepper, Paul N. Anderson

Abstract

Reviewed by: Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles ed. by R. Alan Culpepper, Paul N. Anderson Michael G. Azar r. alan culpepper and paul n. anderson (eds.), Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles (ECL; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014). Pp. xii + 333. $39.95. By “communities in dispute,” the editors intend to intimate the origins of the Johannine Epistles themselves as well as the contemporary state of Johannine scholarship (p. 3). As such, the essays drawn together here, which are the fruits of a 2010 symposium at Mercer University, bring together a variety of sometimes contradictory perspectives on the epistles. In addition to a brief coauthored introduction, R. Alan Culpepper (“Setting the Stage: The Context for the Conversation”) provides a thorough preview to the main eleven essays of the collection, thoughtfully setting them against the backdrop of scholarly trends in the last century, while Paul N. Anderson (“Moving the Conversation Forward: Open Questions and New Directions”) summarizes the three-part collection at the end with an eye toward future possibilities in research. Part 1 (“The Relationship between the Gospel and the Epistles”) comprises three essays. In the first, Urban C. von Wahlde (“Raymond Brown’s View of the Crisis of 1 John: In the Light of Some Peculiar Features of the Johannine Gospel”) interacts with the erst-while and esteemed priest-scholar’s view of 1 John as a “tract” (p. 24) seeking chiefly to correct a misinterpretation of the main Johannine tradition expressed in the Gospel of John itself. While von Wahlde largely agrees with Brown’s basic thesis, he also nuances Brown’s understanding of the “dominant strain of Johannine theology” (p. 25). Paul N. Anderson’s essay (“The Community that Raymond Brown Left Behind: Reflections on the Johannine Dialectical Situation”) likewise interacts directly with Brown’s work—in this case, the broader development of the Johannine oral and written tradition—concentrating in particular on the “dialogical autonomy” (p. 62) of that tradition. R. Alan Culpepper (“The Relationship between the Gospel of John and 1 John”) concludes part 1 by offering a thorough survey of scholarly approaches to the literary and thematic relationship between these two books and the implications this relationship has with regard to the authorship of each. Part 2 (“The Church in the Johannine Epistles”) turns in a different direction, with two essays, one by Judith M. Lieu (“The Audience of the Johannine Epistles”) and the other by Peter Rhea Jones (“The Missional Role of ὁ πρεσβύτερος”). These contributions deliberately take more inductive approaches to the epistles, analyzing, respectively, the epistles’ audience and the role of the “Elder” with little to no reference to the relationship between the epistles and the Fourth Gospel (unlike the essays in part 1). [End Page 170] Part 3 (“The Theology and Ethics of the Epistles”) bears in mind both the socioreligious environment of the epistles and their relationship with the Fourth Gospel, while tackling a variety of theological and ethical issues. Andreas J. Köstenberger (“The Cosmic Trial Motif in John’s Letters”) uncovers in 1 John a motif already well known in the Gospel, while also providing the collection’s most direct engagement with Revelation, granting weight to the possibility that all five Johannine works originate from “one and the same author” (p. 178). Gary M. Burge (“Spirit-Inspired Theology and Ecclesial Correction: Charting One Shift in the Development of Johannine Ecclesiology and Pneumatology”), indebted to Brown’s basic thesis regarding the Epistles–Gospel relationship, deals especially with the “pastoral crisis” (p. 180) that originated in the pneumatology of the Gospel. Craig R. Koester (“The Antichrist Theme in the Johannine Epistles and Its Role in Christian Tradition”) considers a familiar and distinct feature of the epistles, with particular insight into the use of the term “Antichrist” as an internal community critique rather than an “us-versus-them” polemic. Jan G. van der Watt (“On Ethics in 1 John”) presents three “relational” bases of 1 John’s ethics (κοινωνία, familial imagery, and Jesus as model), while William R. G. Loader (“The Significance of 2:15–17 for Understanding the Ethics of 1 John”) highlights the significance of the “triad of vices” (p. 223) in 1...