Raymond Brown Research Articles

Recent Theological Approaches to the Johannine Epistles

Abstract1 John has been rather roughly handled in recent exegesis, notably in Raymond Brown's Anchor Bible commentary, which sees the epistle as badly written, logically incoherent, full of nasty polemics and bereft of any claim to be considered a mystical text. The two books here reviewed mix exegesis and theology in a kind of pincer movement, which succeeds only partly in closing in on the treasures of Johannine contemplation. Despite their limits, the two books reveal a major desideratum of Johannine studies, namely, the need of a theological reading which will both do justice to the power of Johannine thought and connect it with the questions that occupy, or should occupy, theologians today.

I. “But Who Do YOU Say I Am?” (Mk 8:29a): Raymond Brown and New Testament Christology

Fifty years ago, Raymond Brown had already established his position as one of the world's leading Catholic New Testament scholars. His magisterial two-volume commentary on John's gospel remains an invaluable reference for scholars. At a time when American Catholics were still “minor leaguers” in contrast to British, German, and French exegetes, biblical theologians, Fr. Brown along with Joseph A. Fitzmyer, SJ, and Roland E. Murphy, OCarm. had produced the Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968) to provide a solid foothold for students in the best of historical-critical research into the books of the Bible, their history, religion, and theological concepts. Like his coeditors, Brown remained convinced that careful historical-critical study was our surest way of understanding what the Bible's authors sought to communicate. Where that analysis unseated naïve or literalist dogmatic “proof-texting,” it requires a correction in theological argument but will not require rejection of the foundational dogmas of the church.

A Response to the Responses

A Response to the Responses John T. Pawlikowski (bio) At the outset, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those who offered their incisive reflections on my article. They have written from the experience of many years of work on the issues raised by the long history of antisemitism in Christianity as well as in civil society. Each respondent brought vital questions and issues to the forefront in this complex discussion of the history and continued presence of antisemitism across the globe. They have added in different ways to an understanding of the wide contextual setting for this profound social disease, which has often reduced Jews to spiritual skeletons. All have constructively expanded our discussion of antisemitism. Let me make one important point at the beginning of this response. My original article was never intended to serve as a comprehensive introduction to the topic of antisemitism. Hence, my colleagues have expanded the parameters of my own article in important ways. My principal goal in writing my essay was to ask whether antisemitism has been successfully removed from Christian self-understanding in the almost 60 years that have passed since the issuance of Nostra Aetate at Vatican II. My personal answer is no, and I appreciate that all of the contributors to this forum, many of them with extensive experience in Christian-Jewish dialogue, [End Page 394] confirm my basic judgment and agree that considerable work still awaits the Christian community if antisemitism is finally to be removed from its basic proclamation. Readers will hopefully see that the cleansing process cannot be completed without a clear repudiation by Christian churches of the biblical texts and the widespread patristic teaching that laid the foundation for the theological gutting of the Jewish religious tradition and the social marginalization of Jews as a people throughout history. While today's patristic and biblical teachings about Jews and Judaism may not be overtly taught and preached as they were for centuries, the influence of this historic denigration on the consciousness of the Christian community will not be fully extricated without a clear repudiation of these texts. As I indicate in my article, the late Raymond Brown began such a process by unequivocally asserting that the passages in the Gospel of John in which Jews are described as under satanic influence can no longer be used in catechesis or liturgical celebration. Several contributors to this forum have rightly acknowledged certain Catholic documents, such as the statement on the Holocaust issued by the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews titled We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah1 and the controversial text released by the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) titled Dominus Iesus,2 caused dismay both within segments of the Catholic community as well as its ecumenical and interreligious partners, including Jews. Both documents created ambiguity regarding the Vatican's supposed new commitment to ecumenical and interreligious dialogue after centuries of promoting the notion of Catholic superiority. With regard to Dominus Iesus, several prominent Catholic leaders, such as Cardinals Walter Kasper and William Keeler, argued that the document did not pertain to the Jews but rather to certain situations in Asia. The logic of the document seems to include all who do not identify with Catholicism as their basic belief system. We Remember clearly refers to the Catholic-Jewish relationship. This document falsely claims that antisemitism was a marginal [End Page 395] Catholic outlook perpetuated by fringe and rogue elements in the Church. It also maintained that during the Shoah antisemitism was largely the work of pagans who attacked all religious belief, whether Christian or Jewish. Such statements are patently false in light of the historical record. There has been a persistent effort by some in the Church to say that antisemitism only took hold in deviant sectors of Catholicism. I recall a visit some years ago to Strasbourg, France, and its famous cathedral. The edifice is known for its face, which contains a depiction of the Christian-Jewish relationship through two women, one being young and vibrant representing Christianity and the other old and bedraggled holding a...

1 John 3.12, Early Judaism and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve

The seemingly sudden introduction of an allusion to Cain and Abel in 1 Jn 3.12 is puzzling. To explain this apparent intrusion, select scholars have turned to early Jewish interpretations of Gen. 4. The purpose of this study is to provide further grist for this mill. Beginning with an appraisal of the role Jewish texts play in the analyses of Ernst Lohmeyer, Raymond Brown and Judith Lieu, it continues with a detailed study of an ancient text that has been neglected in the interpretation of 1 Jn 3.12, the Greek Life of Adam and Eve (GLAE). A consideration of key features in the story of Cain and Abel in GLAE strengthens the possibility that 1 Jn 3.12 was part and parcel of an interpretive milieu that sharpened the divide between righteous and evil, between murderer and martyr.

Sonya Shetty Cronin. Raymond Brown, “The Jews,” and the Gospel of John: From Apologia to Apology

No abstract is available.

Cronin, Sonya Shetty. Raymond Brown, “The Jews,” and the Gospel of John: From Apologia to Apology. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. xiii+195 pp. $114.00 (cloth).

Cronin, Sonya Shetty. <i>Raymond Brown, “The Jews,” and the Gospel of John: From Apologia to Apology</i>. London: Bloomsbury T&amp;T Clark, 2015. xiii+195 pp. $114.00 (cloth).

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

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...

Raymond Brown, “The Jews”, and the Gospel of John: From Apologia to Apology By SonyaShetty Cronin. Library of New Testament Studies, 504. London: Bloomsbury T&amp;T Clark, 2015. Pp. xiii + 195. Cloth, $112.00; paper, $29.95.

Religious Studies ReviewVolume 42, Issue 3 p. 211-212 Short Reviews of Recent Publications: Christian Origins Raymond Brown, “The Jews”, and the Gospel of John: From Apologia to Apology By Sonya Shetty Cronin. Library of New Testament Studies, 504. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Pp. xiii + 195. Cloth, $112.00; paper, $29.95. R. Jackson Painter, R. Jackson Painter Simpson UniversitySearch for more papers by this author R. Jackson Painter, R. Jackson Painter Simpson UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 September 2016 https://doi.org/10.1111/rsr.12586Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume42, Issue3September 2016Pages 211-212 RelatedInformation

Book Review: Raymond Brown, “The Jews,” and the Gospel of John: From Apologia to Apology

Book Review: Raymond Brown, “The Jews,” and the Gospel of John: From Apologia to Apology

Text, Context and the Johannine Community: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Johannine Writings

1. The Rise and Fall of a Paradigm? The Johannine Community in Recent Scholarship 2. The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Development of Raymond Brown's Model of Community 3. Text and Context: The Contribution of Sociolinguistic Theories of Register 4. The Antilanguage Antisociety: The Contribution of Sociological Commentators 5. The Register of the Johannine Writings: Do They Reflect a Particular Community? 6.Conclusion: The Death of the Johannine Community? Bibliography

An Introduction to the Johannine Gospel and Letters. By Jan van der Watt

Pp. 168 , T&T Clark , London , 2008 , £14.99 . Here is a book that you can safely give to first year degree students starting out on the study of Johannine literature, or even their slightly senior siblings, looking to revise what they already know. The author presents the gospel and letters as an ‘adventurous challenge’, but adopts an admirably careful approach to the adventure. He takes the conventionally late (end of 1st century) dating of the four documents that he is considering, but warns against making hasty decisions on the matter. Very sensibly, he insists on starting with the text, and, in particular, with the texts of the prologues of the Gospel of John (GJ) and of 1 John, and offers some remarkably perceptive and fresh comments. He begins with a very complete account of the four documents and of their relationship to each other, accepting the Fourth Gospel as it stands, so including chapter 21, and not bothering too much about fashionable theories of redaction. The second chapter is the longest in the book, a theological analysis of the texts, in which he speaks, probably wisely, of the ‘contrasts’ in the Johannine literature, rather than their ‘dualism’. This chapter includes all that one would wish to see included in such a treatment, sometimes in an inevitably narrow compass; but he often has an angle on the material that one would not have predicted (no bad thing, in my view), and some helpful diagrams illustrating the relationship of the two ‘worlds’ in which GJ operates. Chapter 3 offers a useful account of the relation of these four documents to others in the NT, with a helpful excursus on their progress into the canon. The author deals with their links (or possible links) with the Synoptics primarily, looking at similarities and difference, and offering a sensible methodological note. He also mentions the (strikingly broad) range of possible solutions to the question, and, briefly, brings the OT into the matter. Then comes a good chapter on the gospel's literary characteristics, especially the frequent breaks in the logical flow of the narrative that have provided bread and butter for exegetes over many decades now; he also illustrates the variety of approaches that scholars have adopted towards the problem, including modern alternatives to the historical-critical method. There is a good chapter on the origins of the Fourth Gospel, touching on theories of authorship and J. L. Martyn's ‘two-level drama’, as well as Raymond Brown's theory/ies of the origin of the community; and all these are fairly represented. Chapter 6 is directed at the important question of where the gospel got its ideas. Van der Watt makes some illuminating points here, but it seems to me important not to exclude the possibility that the source for the burst of theological activity in the NT is the central event of the Resurrection. The author is sensible on possible Hellenistic and Jewish influences on the gospel, and he makes the important point that ‘the Jews’ in GJ represent one particular group in the gospel, and certainly not all those people whom one might identify as ‘Jews’, on religious or ethnic grounds. GJ is, after all, a thoroughly Jewish work; and the author is good on the implications of the discoveries at Qumran for the Jewish background of our text. Finally, a very sensible conclusion reminds us of the variety of approaches that are possible to GJ, including that of the ‘ordinary reader’, and, happily, asserts that it will continue to be read.

Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation. By Matthew Levering

Pp. xi, 310 , Notre Dame, IN : University of Notre Dame Press , 2008 , $25.00 . Levering teaches theology at Ave Maria University in Florida. In this volume he seeks to reorient biblical interpretation away from what he perceives as a certain theological inadequacy in its historical-critical manifestations, by dint of reconceiving the location of the exegete in ‘participatory’ terms, whereby the understanding of history at work in the process is grasped as ongoing participation in the providential activity of God. This makes for a highly theorised argument about the need to interpret the Bible in a theologically and ecclesially informed location, though the book does make an attempt at showing what it would look like in practice. The introduction rehearses some issues concerning the uneasy stand-off between biblical studies and systematic or historical theological concerns, looking at Brevard Childs' ‘canonical’ work as one well-intentioned possibility for bridging the gap which is ultimately judged to be insufficiently challenging of its critical framework. Chapter 1 explores the roots of the kind of disciplinary divide which Levering is seeking to challenge, looking at late-medieval nominalism and engaging with the debate about when providence faded from view, tracing it to a fourteenth-century metaphysical shift. Aquinas' interpretation of John 3:27–36 is then offered as a ‘benchmark’ for the kind of approach Levering has in mind. Chapter 2 then traces the perceived decline from Aquinas onwards by sampling ten different thinkers through to Raymond Brown. Chapter 3 (the best of the book perhaps) takes up Augustine and looks at what makes an ‘Augustinian reader of Scripture’, characterised in particular by a reading of De Doctrina Christiana with its dual focus on love for God and love for neighbour, all built into an understanding of God as teacher in biblical exegesis. Chapter 4 then complements this by looking at the human contexts and perspectives of ‘participatory biblical exegesis’, taking a lead from Jon Levenson's eloquent defence of Jewish particularity in reading Hebrew scriptures to argue that there must be a Christian particularity for reading the Bible, over against proposals for historical-critical neutrality. This leads to an analysis in chapter 5 of the dynamics of ecclesial authority, in dialogue with Stephen Fowl's Engaging Scripture, which argued for such a framework in the abstract. Levering, indebted to Fowl, nevertheless challenges him to say that his underdescribed ecclesiology needs supplementing with a robust notion of how exactly sacra doctrina functions. Readers may not be surprised to learn that the resolution to such a discussion, again indebted to Aquinas, brings us to some sort of taking up of the concerns of biblical exegesis within the context of the magisterium. Levering is alert throughout to the potential problems of eisegesis, and effectively is trying to outflank the historical critics by saying that history needs to be taken more seriously than historical-criticism does, by way of a theological reconception of history under God's providential ordering. Since the only examples he gives of the kind of practice he has in mind are basically from Aquinas, it is a little hard to see what this would mean in practice in the twenty-first century. (One must also note the extraordinary proportion of the book given over to notes – the main text ends on p.148, less than halfway through, and the interaction with others in the footnotes is vast but hard to harness to the main flow of the discussion.) I am not unsympathetic to the argument here, but conclude with some reservations. First, I was unclear as to the rationale for the various switches between ‘exegesis’ and ‘interpretation’ in the book (and indeed its title). On a formal level, exegetical endeavour is at some remove from a philosophy (or theology) of history. Secondly, given that Aquinas is reading John's gospel herein, I wanted to ask how one might read Numbers chapter 1, say, or 5, or 35, or indeed any such OT narrative, in this framework, and what would one need to know from a fairly traditional historical critic in order to make sense of it? Finally, I wondered how Levering's approach accounts for ecclesially well-rooted readings which have in fact (and might still in the future) wreak havoc with either the text or the community to which it is interpreted. Alertness to eisegesis aside, the real gains of (traditional) historical criticism seem either underplayed or perhaps simply not grasped, which can be said alongside recognising its flaws, limitations, and particular predilections for the less theological data of (and perspectives on) scripture. So overall, I judge this to be a slightly over-confident call for a return to earlier modes of reading, too strident in its claims for a model not sufficiently explored in practice herein.

Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen , and: Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust (review)

Reviewed by: Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen, and: Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust Eugene J. Fisher Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen. By Jeremy Cohen. (New York: Oxford University Press. 2007. Pp. x, 313. $29.95.) Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust. By Robert Michael. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2006. Pp. x, 254. $24.95.) Jeremy Cohen has contributed significantly to our understanding of the relationship between Christians and Jews over the centuries. Cohen traces the origins of the Christ killer charge in the New Testament, through the Fathers of the Church, especially Augustine, whose reasoning provided the basis for the religio licita status of Judaism within Christendom, and medieval thinkers such as Abelard and Aquinas, to the Second Vatican Council, which rejected it. The final section of the book (pp. 185–261) deals with the passion in religious art, Oberammergau and the changes made in the text of the 2000 version to ameliorate its traditionally negative portrayal of Jews and Judaism, and the Crucifixion as depicted in the movies. I highly recommend this book for the insightful survey it provides of Christian history over the centuries, but I do have a problem that goes to the understanding of Nostra Aetate, no. 4 (hereinafter NA). Cohen summarizes modern Catholic New Testament scholarship by contrasting Father Raymond Brown (who was a Sulpician, not a Jesuit as Cohen states on p. 181), opting for John Dominic Crossan's approach over that of Brown. In the process, however, he misreads Brown, claiming that Brown did not take into account the fact that the text of a given New Testament book reflects the time in which it was written as much as the time it is writing about. This is not true, of course, and it skews the discussion into further misunderstandings. For example, on the same page he states that Brown holds to "the official 'party line' of the Catholic Church . . . holding Jews, not Romans primarily responsible for Jesus' death." No, that is not the official line of the Church. NA holds that some, not necessarily all, Jewish leaders were involved. It does not exonerate or hint at exonerating Pilate, whose decision it was. Caiphas is considered in Jewish tradition to be the quisling puppet of Pilate, as indeed he was. Jesus did, the gospels agree, challenge the temple leadership, which thereafter began looking for a way to silence him. Pilate, harsh as he was, probably did not have the scruples about killing Jesus that the later gospels ascribe to him. But in any event, the gospels do not present the Crucifixion as merely a Jewish plot, but as an act agreed upon by the Roman and temple authorities. Michael intends his book, which is admirably concise and readable, to be a history of anti-Semitism over the centuries to its culmination in the Holocaust. To some extent he succeeds. But there are some very serious problems, such as his rejection of the validity of any real distinction between the ancient Christian teaching of contempt against Jews and Judaism, to use the telling phrase of historian Jules Isaac, and modern, racial anti-Semitism. Pushing this theory that nothing really significant happened in Christian Jewish relations, save for evil things done by Christians against Jews, moves [End Page 525] Michael to deny or slide over quite a number of key distinctions and historically complex realities. It is not adequate to Augustine's thought, for example, to state that he believed that "any injustice done to [the Jews], short of murder . . . was justified—and even murder was sometimes justified" (p.2). Augustine in fact laid the theological groundwork for the canon law, initiated by Pope St. Gregory the Great and reaffirmed by his successors throughout the centuries, that recognized Judaism, alone among non-Christian religions, as religio licita. Augustine argued that Jews, who witness to the validity of the Old Testament, should be able to worship freely as did their ancestors. They should not be forced to convert but should be attracted to Christ by the witness of Christian love. One of the promotional blurbs...

Raymond Brown and the sensus plenior interpretation of the Bible

In their exegesis of the sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments, Christian interpreters believed that they were uncovering other levels of meaning in the biblical text when read in the light of Jesus and of the church. In the last century, some Catholic scholars posited a distinct sense of scripture (the sensus plenior or "fuller sense") in order to explain this peculiar form of exegesis. Raymond E. Brown (1928-98) treated this subject several times during his impressive career, eventually rejecting it as too problematic. This article will discuss his definition of the theory and the difficulties he later identified with it. It will also offer some observations on the development of the idea in his thinking.

Why Historicity Still Matters: Raymond Brown and the Infancy Narratives

The infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke pose in an acute form the question of the historical value of the Gospels. Raymond Brown suggests that redaction criticism can bypass this question by spelling out the theological message intended by the evangelists. But his own exegesis suggests this is to misunderstand the genre of this literature. Brown's indifference to historicity would be justified only if the evangelists were writing something resembling allegory, a form of narrative in which the literal sense of the story is the (dispensable) clothing of a spiritual message. But Brown's exegesis suggests that the evangelists do not regard the literal sense of these stories as dispensable; they regard their theological message as resting on a foundation of historical fact. It follows that if interpreters focus on the intention of the evangelists, they cannot avoid addressing the question of historicity.

A consultant ophthalmologist

Raymond Brown gives up his own time and expertise to improve eye care in Paraguay. Mr Brown has set up an international link between University Hospital of North Staffordshire and Asuncion, Paraguay. He trains local surgeons, has started screening programmes for retinopathy of prematurity, and introduced the concept of orthoptic care to reduce the burden of childhood visual disability.

The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 volumes. By Craig S. Keener. Pp. xlviii + 1636. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003. isbn 1 56563 378 4. £57.95

This is a massive commentary on John's Gospel, in length rivalling Schnackenburg's magnum opus on this subject and outdoing Raymond Brown's. Its author, Craig S. Keener (Professor of New Testament at Eastern Seminary, Philadelphia), will be known to many readers for his work on Matthew, Revelation, and aspects of Pauline theology. He writes from a conservative viewpoint, while paying attention to other critical approaches and citing from a wide range of primary and secondary literature. At times I felt conservative views were overemphasized and radical ones too lightly dismissed. The Introduction (330 pp., with 424 footnotes) could have been a book in itself. It covers most of the standard critical issues, notably genre, sources, relationship of John to the Synoptics, historical value, form-critical matters (role of oral traditions, discourses, controversy forms), authorship, date, provenance, social context, relation to Judaism, Christology, and other select topics, including revelatory motifs, visions, miracles, and signs. History of interpretation, textual criticism, and feminist, liberationist, narrative-critical, postmodern, and reader-response criticisms are dealt with minimally, though the commentary makes use of some insights from rhetorical and narrative criticism. Language and style receive only a short discussion; patristic interpretation is rarely mentioned except on authorship.

Hearing 3 John 2 in the Voices of History

AbstractThe hermeneutical method of tracing the 'history of effects', pioneered by Ulrich Luz, has recently been appreciated by Pentecostal biblical scholars as holding much promise for moving beyond notions of 'flat text' to recog nize the word of God moving in and through life. As a case study in this method, this paper examines the interpretations of 3 Jn 2 as they surface in the works of Tertullian, Augustine, Bede, Le Maistre De Sacy, Ambrosius Catharinus, John Bird Sumner, Albert Barnes, Carrie Judd Montgomery, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin, Raymond Brown, Frederick Price, and Paul Yonggi Cho. After discussing each interpretation in relation to the life of its interpreter, the results are assessed in relation to a Pentecostal approach to Scripture. The history of the effects of 3 Jn 2 will remind academicians and the community of faith alike that the Bible is truly a living revelation.Beloved, concerning all thingsI wish you to prosper and be in health,Even as your soul prospers (author's own translation of 3 Jn 2).

The Ecclesial Hermeneutic of Raymond E. Brown

Against the background of some positions taken up in a recent document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the article studies Raymond Brown’s attempt to combine mainstream historical‐critical exegesis of the Bible with a Roman Catholic theological pre‐understanding. Particular reference is made to his handling of issues connected with the virginal conception of Jesus. Some of his religious presuppositions such as those concerning the relation between faith and reason, and the development of doctrine, are presented. Biblical criticism in Brown’s understanding is an essentially historical discipline which has as its principal object the literal sense of the text, that is, what the text meant when it was written. His religious presuppositions make the practice of the discipline ineliminable in an integral hermeneutic. From an analysis of his treatment of the virginal conception, it is argued that Catholic pre‐understanding and historical criticism, when combined, inevitably result in a two‐stage hermeneutic. In a first stage appeal is made to presuppostions common to all practitioners of historical criticism. In a second stage religious presuppostions come into play. The distinction between these two stages is seen as more fundamental than Brown’s better known distinction between the literal and more‐than‐literal senses of the text. It is argued that the relation between the two stages is to be understood in chalcedonian terms as exemplifying the dialectic of faith and reason: they must be distinguished, but cannot be separated. Brown’s grasp of an incarnational economy of salvation is presented in terms of David H. Kelsy’s concept of a discrimen, and emerges as fundamental for an ecclesial hermeneutic of the Bible. Questions about the place of the historical‐critical method, the promise of alternative approaches and the role of hermeneutical theory can only be adequately addressed in terms of it.

(Re)Mark(S) On the Cross

AbstractThis essay seeks to analyze tensions in historical criticism by reviewing Raymond Brown's treatment of "the cry of dereliction" in The Death of the Messiah. Brown navigates a three-tiered reading of Mark 15: the text/surface level, an intertext level, and a historical Jesus level. The historical Jesus level will presumably operate as an extra-linguistic control which enhances the objectivity of Brown's reading of the surface text. But this "history" in Brown's reading actually refers to a sub-text generated by proposed intertextual links which Brown's own language renders unstable. The deconstruction of Brown's reading is followed by an attempt to read Mark 15:34 in explicitly intertextual terms, using Michael Riffaterre's semiotic theory. While the conclusions reached by this method are basically identical to Brown's, they are hopefully based on a more careful approach to the question of intertextual relations.