The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, by Georg Strecker. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Pp. xliv + 319. $46.00. The late Georg Strecker's Meyer (KEK) commentary on the Johannine Letters (1989) now appeared in English translation. Like its predecessor in that series, Rudolf Bultmann's commentary (1967; ET 1973), it becomes the Hermeneia Commentary on these three letters. Strecker's work is more than twice as long as Bultmann's and is a fuller, richer commentary. In its demonstrations of genuine erudition and technical competence it is a worthy successor in the tradition of the Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar. Strecker's chief discussion partners, aside from Bultmann, are, appropriately, R. E. Brown and R. Schnackenburg; and there are frequent references to other twentieth-century commentators such as C. H. Dodd, S. Smalley, A. E. Brooke, and H. Windisch. Strecker expresses great respect for Bultmann, who was one of his first teachers of NT (p. xiii; but not his Doktorvater, as the editorial note on p. vi erroneously indicates), and refers frequently to his commentary. Yet he disagrees on major issues of criticism and interpretation. For example, he frequently indicates his disagreement with Bultmann's source and redaction theories, which parallel the latter's proposals about the Gospel of John (e.g., pp. 6-7, 39). Few exegetes have actually agreed with Bultmann in this matter, so Strecker's demurral is scarcely original, although I think it entirely warranted. Moreover, Strecker is also wisely reluctant to embrace a pre-Christian gnosticism as an important component of the milieu of the Johannine literature despite the antidocetic position of 1 John (pp. 26-27). The Letters' and the Gospel's sacramentalism and apocalypticism, which Bultmann sloughed off upon later ecclesiastical redaction, Strecker regards as quite important and original in both (p. 234 n. 7). In fact, apocalyptic eschatology was of fundamental importance at the beginning of the Johannine school. Sacramentalism was an important element in the opposition to docetic Christians, who, as Ignatius testifies, tied their deficient Christology to neglect of the Lord's Supper. In his depiction of the development of the Johannine school, Strecker again departs from Bultmann, who, with most commentators, takes the Letters to be later than, and dependent on, the Fourth Gospel. Rather, Strecker argues that 1 John and the Gospel are independent, presumably more or less contemporary, expressions of the Johannine school. In his view, the shorter letters, 2 and 3 John, are earlier. In fact, the earliest document of this school is 2 John, which according to Strecker was written at about the end of the first century by the same Elder John who is mentioned by Papias. The same author wrote 3 John soon thereafter. (The Gospel and 1 John are then dated, rather generally, in the first half of the second century.) That Papias was a chiliast supports the position that the Elder John was as well. This in turn fits and supports Strecker's interpretation of what is for him the crucial statement of 2 John 7 about Jesus' coming in the flesh (first put forward in his article Die Anfange der johanneischen Schule, NTS 32 [1986]: 31-47). The present participle erchomenon must, Strecker contends (pp. 233-34), have a present or future meaning; it cannot be translated has come. By way of contrast, the similar statement of 1 John 4:2, which insists on the confession that Jesus Christ come in the flesh, the perfect participle. Strecker argues that 2 John 7, unlike 1 John 4:2, should be construed as pointing to the future coming of Jesus, his parousia, not his incarnation. …