The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John.

Brown, Raymond E.

I was not happy with the choice of Bultmann's slim volume for the first Hermeneia commentary on the Johannine Epistles (1973). Bultmann's attempt to carry his source theory from the Gospel to 1 John was a failure, and the editors should have chosen Schnackenburg's much superior commentary (the English translation of which did not appear until 1992). I have no such complaint about the present replacement. Over twice as long as Bultmann's study, the late Prof. Strecker's commentary (German original 1989) is a worthwhile volume to have in English. If I express disagreements below, that should not distract from my appreciation for the scholarship the book embodies. I found it a wonderful dialogue partner as I reflected on positions taken in my own commentary, of which S. showed generous cognizance.

S. draws on the first attestations of 2-3 John, which are somewhat different than for 1 John, to contend that the short letters were written around A.D. 100 by Presbyter John mentioned by Papias. The Gospel and 1 John were written later by other members of the Johannine School. It is very difficult to establish even probabilities about the authorship and relationship of the four Johannine works, but I have problems about some of S.'s reasoning. On the same page, he acknowledges that 1 John lacks the external marks of a letter and yet would designate 1 John as "a homily in the form of a letter' (3). Why "in the form of a letter" when it lacks all the characteristics of a letter? Why not simply a written homily or instruction? That is not a minor point since one of S.'s principal arguments for the thesis that 2-3 John were written by a different author from 1 John (a thesis I reject) is that the author of the latter does not call himself "the presbyter." However, 2-3 John are genuine letters, and the form of letters demands that the writer identify himself in some way; there is no such expectation in a homily.

Further ramifications of the basic position become apparent later in the volume. The attack on those who deny "Jesus Christ coming (erchomenon) in the flesh" in 2 John 7 cannot be interpreted from the chronologically later "has come in the flesh" of 1 John 4:2. Rather the presbyter-author of 2 John is insisting on a chiliast position: Jesus Christ will come again in the flesh to establish a messianic reign on earth. Diotrephes of 3 John who rejects the presbyter and his emissaries is not only a more structured ecclesiastic rejecting one whom he regards as a charismatic claimant of the Spirit but also a representative of emerging orthodoxy rejecting a heretically inclined chiliast. That is a fragile interpretation, for there is little in the rest of the Johannine corpus of Gospel and Epistles that would have oriented a Johannine writer towards eschatological exaggeration. The heretical interpretation would seem even more implausible if the presbyter of 2 John had already written 1 John which reflects a strongly orthodox orientation.

As for 1 John, I agree with S. that probably the same man did not write John and 1 John, but again I am puzzled by the argumentation, e.g., "Whereas 1 John is ecclesiologically oriented, the orientation of the Gospel is christological" (5). That difference, however, probably arises from composition at a different moment of community history, with the Gospel written just after struggles with the synagogue(s) over the identity of Jesus and 1 John during inner-community struggles. Similarly we learn little about authorship from the fact that "the author of 1 John betrays no knowledge of any traditions about the life of Jesus" (another of S.'s arguments) if the author had already written up such traditions in his Gospel. (This exemplifies a general difficulty with the volume: I would have preferred more emphatic exposition of the limitations of arguments even when the general thesis may be judged probable.)

Overall I would bring 1 John much closer to the Gospel than S. does, with the result that the theses of the opponents in 1 John may plausibly be related with some consistency to a (mis)reading of the emphases of the Gospel. For S., those criticized in 1 John are docetists who would distinguish the earthly Jesus from the heavenly Christ, whence the emphasis that Jesus Christ came by (dia) water and blood, i.e., by his baptism and by his sacrificial death (1 John 5:5). However, 1 John's emphasis on his coming in (en) water and spirit suggests that the author also did not agree with the opponents about the community sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, since docetists often did not accept eucharistic reality (182-84). Yet S. would see no polemics against the opponents in the equally strong emphases of the author on ethics and on claims to be sinless. For me, two factors, viz., the failure of the Gospel to present detailed ethical instructions (since that was not a point of dispute with the synagogue), and a logical connection between denying the full reality of the fleshly career of Jesus and neglecting the importance of believers' life in the flesh, would make a strong case for positing both a christological and an ethical aspect to the error being counteracted. Ethical affirmations in 1 John were meant to guide the community, but that does not dispense with a polemical thrust.

Despite these differences on some general approaches, I agree with much of S.'s detailed exegesis of passages. His judgments show a wide familiarity with the literature, including patristic comments (much more than one normally finds in a commentary); and he is insightful. All future discussions of 1 John will have to take his contributions into account.