Two Recent Commentaries on the Gospel of John: Introduction

Last updated on: April 11, 2013 at 11:33 am by James F. McGrath

Two Recent Commentaries on the Gospel of John: Introduction 2013-04-11T11:33:52-04:00 James F. McGrath

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I am grateful to Eerdmans for having sent me review copies of two commentaries on the Gospel of John which they recently published. As I am teaching my course on the Gospel of John this semester, I hoped to blog about both commentaries as I encountered points of note or interest. Alas, it has taken me until now to get around to blogging about the introductions!

The two commentaries are those by Urban von Wahlde in the Eerdmans Critical Commentary series, and J. Ramsey Michaels in the New International Commentaries on the New Testament (NICNT) series. Von Wahlde’s commentary spans three volumes, and so the first volume (which is more than 700 pages!), related to introductory matters, is the only one that will be focused on in this post: The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 1: Introduction, Analysis, and Reference (Eerdmans Critical Commentary). The approach adopted is the classic source-critical one, seeking to discern evidence of different editions of the Gospel, and to relate these to the history of the author and community that produced the work, and to other literature such as the Johannine Epistles. The evidence used to distinguish layers is discussed, such as the tendency to refer to Jewish leaders in terms of specific parties and constituencies, or to lump them together under the heading “the Jews” (pp.63ff). Von Wahlde seeks to avoid shoehorning the evidence to fit such theories, a criticism often leveled against source critics in the past. Instead he recognizes that the tendency to favor certain terminology does not mean that a different author, editor, or source, could not have also used the term on occasion. The theological outlook of the different editions, as pertaining to matters such as faith, is given an interesting treatment.

No matter how much there may today be a preference for literary critical approaches that discuss the meaning of the final form of the text, scholarly readers of this Gospel remain puzzled by the contrasting views of signs and the combination of awkward disjunctions and stylistic commonalities, which seem to cry out for an explanation in terms of sources and redaction or multiple editions. And von Wahlde offers precisely what he needs to in order to provide a source-critical and redaction-critical commentary: a detailed presentation of the outline of the various editions, their theology, and the “identity and social location of the community” at the time the edition was produced (p.116), and the author of that edition. Part 4 of this first volume offers a substantial tracing of the history of the community and its thought as reflected in the history of composition of the Gospel, in essence offering a history of Johannine theology. Part 5 provides the text of the Gospel with different typefaces indicating different redactional layers.

Michaels begins his commentary, The Gospel of John (New International Commentary on the New Testament), by referring to and quoting a poem by Emily Dickenson:

God is a distant — stately Lover —

Woos, as He states us — by His Son —

Verily, a Vicarious Courtship —

“Miles”, and “Priscilla”, were such an One —

But, lest the Soul — like fair “Priscilla”

Choose the Envoy — and spurn the Groom —

Vouches, with hyperbolic archness —

“Miles”, and “John Alden” were Synonym

This relates not only to Longfellow’s “The Courtship of Miles Standish,” but also equally directly to a major theme in the Gospel of John, that the one sent must be received like the one who sent him, and that the Son does nothing of himself. Given the Gospel’s opening prologue, starting with poetry seems particularly appropriate.

Michaels’ introduction to his commentary covers the ground one would expect if familiar with classic commentaries. The question of authorship is tackled, including an intriguing exploration of the possibility that the Gospel could have been written by one of Jesus’ brothers. Relationship to other Gospels, location, date, and other such topics are likewise broached, in a way that takes them seriously and yet acknowledges our inability to provide definitive answers to the key questions.

And so, when it comes to introducing the Gospel of John, these two commentaries provide very different approaches and perspectives. Both are needed – the brief but thoughtful overview that can introduce a student to the major questions, and the detailed exploration of layers and redaction that a scholar interested in such matters must wrestle with.

Previous Post

April 11, 2013

Wild Asses

Next Post

April 11, 2013 Creed

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 1 Corinthians 1 John 1 Peter 1 Samuel 1 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Corinthians 2 Kings 2 Peter 2 Samuel 2 Thessalonians 2 Timothy academia Acts of the Apostles afterlife Akhaten Alcatraz American Academy of Religion Amos Anglican Arabic Aramaic archaeology art artificial intelligence astronomy atheism atonement Babylon 5 Baptists Battlestar Galactica Bible Biblical Studies Carnival biblioblogging Black Mirror Blade Runner Book of Job book review Buddhism Call for Papers China Christianity Christmas Christology Chronicles Coptic creation Daniel Deuteronomy Doctor Who Dune Easter Ecclesiastes economics education Eldad Keynan Enoch Seminar Ephesians eschatology Esther Evangelicals evolution Exodus Expanse Ezekiel Ezra fantasy Fringe fundamentalism Galatians games Ge'ez genealogy Genesis Gnosticism Gospel of Jesus' Wife Gospel of John Gospel of Judas Gospel of Luke Gospel of Mark Gospel of Matthew Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thomas Greek Harry Potter Hebrew Hebrews Hinduism historical Jesus history Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Holidays horror Hosea humor incarnation India inerrancy information literacy inspirational Intelligent Design Ireland Isaiah Islam Israel Italy James Jeremiah John the Baptist Jonah Joshua Judaism Jude Judges Judith Lamentations languages Latin Leviticus libraries literature Lord of the Rings LOST Mandaeans Mandaic memes Methodism Micah monotheism morality Mormons movies music mythicism NASSCAL Nehemiah new perspective New Testament news Numbers Orthodox paganism panentheism pantheism Patheos Paul and his letters Pentecostals Philippians Philippians 2:6-11 philosophy physics Planet of the Apes podcast politics Progressive Christianity Protestantism Proverbs Psalms pseudoscience racism religion Revelation Roman Catholicism Romania Romans Ruth scams science science fiction Secret Gospel of Mark Society of Biblical Literature Song of Songs Star Trek Star Wars Stargate Swahili Syriac Taoism technology Terminator The Handmaid's Tale The Hobbit The Matrix theodicy theology theory Timeless Titus tomb Torchwood travel TRON Uncategorized United Kingdom Westworld X-Files young-earth creationism Zechariah

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 February 2007 January 2001

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz