Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Review of Urban von Wahlde’s Latest Book

Review of Urban von Wahlde’s Latest Book

Last updated on: February 11, 2017 at 4:00 pm by James F. McGrath

Review of Urban von Wahlde’s Latest Book 2017-02-10T09:21:45-05:00 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.

Urban C. von Wahlde, Gnosticism, Docetism, and the Judaisms of the First Century: The Search for the Wider Context of the Johannine Literature and Why It Matters. LNTS 512. London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2015.

What follows are thoughts by me prepared for a book review session at the Midwest Regional Society of Biblical Literature conference:

In this volume, Urban von Wahlde explores a number of key details that relate to and emerge from his long-term project of redaction critical analysis of the Johannine literature, and in particular his three-volume commentary on the Gospel and letters of John. That latter work makes in detail a case which has to be taken for granted rather than argued for in the much smaller volume under discussion today. Yet in another sense, that is not exactly true, because arguments about the composition history of a piece of literature (absent copies of variant forms of the work that provide clear evidence of that history), require the interpreter to make a two-pronged case for their reconstruction. On the one hand, there is a need for the lengthy and fine-toothed study that explains how each passage (and sometimes each individual verse) fits into the hypothetical layer to which it is assigned. On the other hand, studies like those in the volume we are discussing today are also essential to the case for the reconstruction. As von Wahlde zooms out to survey the bigger picture, or focuses in on one thematic thread that must be traced through multiple passages, his detailed exegetical work in the commentary is put to the test. And so it is not as though this volume simply depends upon and requires knowledge of the commentary – which would put at a serious disadvantage anyone who had not worked through those three volumes in their entirety. In equal measure, the commentary depends upon this volume, since what might seem to make good sense of one specific passage may seem implausible when considered in relation to the Gospel, or the history of ancient Judaism and early Christianity, as a whole.

Let me begin by offering some notes of appreciation. Scholarship in our time has shifted in the direction of a preference for simply setting aside tradition-, source-, and redaction-historical matters, in favor of focusing only on the final form of a text. Into that challenging setting, von Wahlde makes a strong and persuasive case for the need for those older kinds of explanations if we are to do justice to the Fourth Gospel. Even if one may not be persuaded by all the details of his reconstruction, the point about the value of such reconstructions stands. We cannot simply assume the unity or disunity of a work as interpreters. Instead, we must reflect on how we might determine whether material that seems to be in tension is evidence of the work of different authors, or of the inconsistency of a single author. We must also ask, even if we believe that we have correctly identified separate strands and layers, how we decide how to arrange and order them. These questions should not be sidestepped or set aside in favor of the presumption of a work’s unity.

Also to be greatly appreciated is the level of attention to detail that von Wahlde offers. Multi-volume commentaries have become the exception rather than the rule in our time, and the change of approach mentioned above (favoring the presumption of literary unity) probably correlates with this tendency. The question of whether one is persuaded by the reconstruction is once again a secondary one. If a plausible reconstruction of the formation of the Johannine tradition is ever to be offered, it will have to be at this level of detail in a multi-volume commentary, and with accompanying monographs of the sort we are reviewing today. It may be that someone may do a superior job to von Wahlde of reconstructing the tradition history of the Johannine literature. But they will have to do so in conversation with von Wahlde’s effort, and at a comparable level of detail.

The major questions and alternatives that I am most eager to focus on in my review lie precisely at the intersection of the classic synchronic approach of tracing Christological and literary development, and the insistence of some scholars in our time that we find an “early high Christology” consistently across our early sources. On the one hand, my sympathies lie strongly with von Wahlde, that there is significant development to be traced in early Christology, and that the Gospel of John provides crucial evidence of that development. On the other hand, I am increasingly persuaded that the extent of the development is somewhat less and different than many have tended to think, not because there is a uniform early high Christology of the sort posited by those who identify with that club (and yes, there really is an Early High Christology Club, and apparently they even have mugs with their logo on it),[1] but on the contrary, because John in fact stands closer to the Synoptics in certain key regards, despite its dramatic differences.

Let us, however, return to those possibilities later, after focusing in on the reconstruction of the context and influences on the Gospel of John. Here too I have great appreciation for von Wahlde’s work, and find his arguments persuasive. First, von Wahlde argues against the view that Gnosticism or Docetism – or opposition to those views – form the background to the Gospel of John. Methodically working through key characteristics of Gnosticism, von Wahlde rightly finds the similarities with John to be superficial, while the differences run deeper. Having spent much time lately working on Mandaean literature, I have become persuaded that it is time to revisit and reexamine its relationship to early Christianity and the New Testament – but it is not the background of the Gospel of John. There are some problematic aspects to von Wahlde’s case in a couple of places – such as when he characterizes the Mandaean sources as “recently discovered” in relation to Rudolf Bultmann’s time (p.27), or when he suggests that Gnosticism in general (as opposed to say Manichaeism more specifically) was characterized by an absolute dualism of two eternal opposing forces of good and evil. In many Gnostic sources, it was by a distancing and eventually a departure from the supreme goodness of the ultimate divine power that evil came about. This Gnostic view involving emanations is different from that of apocalyptic in significant ways. Nevertheless, it remains closer to that than to the absolute dualism of say Zoroastrianism, and so probably deserves to share the label “qualified dualism” togethe with apocalyptic (pp.131-132). Be that as it may, the view of God as creator, and many other details expressed in John, are simply not Gnostic. On the other hand, what von Wahlde rightly emphasizes in relation to Docetism, may equally be said about Gnosticism: the fact that John’s Gospel is not Docetic or Gnostic, and is incompatible with those viewpoints, does not mean that it is anti-Docetic or anti-Gnostic (p.98).

Although I found von Wahlde persuasive in both these areas, I do nonetheless feel that one argument he makes is problematic when considered within the context of his own work. On p.65, von Wahlde suggests that the best explanation must do justice to the full range of texts and other evidence. Yet surely his own approach provides a potential loophole for those who claim to find anti-Docetic arguments in the Gospel? Could scholars like Udo Schnelle not simply attribute evidence which seems incompatible with an anti-Docetic emphasis to some other layer in the tradition history? This point does not undermine von Wahlde’s multi-pronged and multi-faceted argument. It nevertheless seemed worth highlighting this point because of the broader methodological issues related to it: on the one hand, the issue of consistency in the application of the tradition-historical approach; and on the other hand, whether the potential of a reconstruction to eliminate all inconsistencies is in fact a strength or a flaw of the approach, given the fact that we all know as scholars that we do not always achieve consistency even when we eagerly strive for it.

Moving on from Docetism and Gnosticism to the third major section of the book, Von Wahlde sees the appropriate backgrounds to the Gospel of John in the diversity of Judaism that existed in the first century, and I agree strongly. Yet I find myself uncomfortable with his categories of “canonical,” “apocalyptic,” and “Hellenistic” Judaism. As Martin Hengel cogently argued (and subsequent studies have consistently confirmed), there was no Judaism in the Greco-Roman world that was “non-Hellenistic.” This should not lead us to neglect the genuine diversity in Judaism in this time. The point is rather that it needs to be characterized and labeled differently. Just as it would be problematic to speak in the present day context about “American” Christianity over against Episcopal or Mennonite, so too the views characterized as apocalyptic and classic or canonical were also Hellenistic, even in the moments when they may have consciously rejected or resisted certain aspects of the broader cultural trends in the Mediterranean world. And the other categories likewise overlap – as highlighted by the presence of apocalyptic in the canon, and of the canonical texts in apocalyptic groups. I will not here suggest alternative categories, except to say that even other terms that come to mind, such as “Pharisaic” or “Essene” or “Enochic,” probably equally represent overlapping circles. Also, then as now, people could be influenced by, or find their way to, a wide array of ideas, without identifying with the whole system of thought of which those ideas were characteristic.

In relation to the Gospel of John, it is not at all implausible to posit that the influence of different forms of Judaism over the decades may have played a role in shaping the developing tradition and literature of this community. However, I am less persuaded that it makes sense to view apocalypticism as a latecomer to their school of thought. This seems to me to face the same hurdles that the misuse of the criterion of double dissimilarity faces in the work of the Jesus Seminar. Many feel that it makes little historical sense to have an apocalyptic John the Baptist followed by a non-apocalyptic Jesus who gives rise to an apocalyptic church. What then are we to make of an apocalyptic historical Jesus giving rise to the apocalyptic Synoptic Gospels but also a non-apocalyptic early edition of John, whose community then encounters apocalypticism and incorporates it? For a tradition to embrace Jesus but not his apocalyptic worldview, would it not have to do so consciously and deliberately? Having done so, would quickly is it realistic to posit them embracing what they had previously rejected? Or was apocalypticism in the teaching of Jesus something that it was possible to miss? Indeed, does the evidence von Wahlde identifies for a non-apocalyptic early form of the Johannine tradition in fact support the possibility that Jesus himself did not hold an apocalyptic outlook, and thus was open to being interpreted in two or more very different ways? For now, I continue to find it more likely that a continuous apocalyptic thread ran from or through Jesus to the early church. The variations in Luke and John would then represent responses to the further passage of time and the correlating fact that expectations were not fulfilled in the time frame many hoped they would be.

As scholars we have sometimes tended to treat “background,” the various aspects of culture and context, as a smorgasbord from which one may freely choose some items but not others, rather than as the tangled web of assumptions and influences that we find it to be in our own lived experience (to the extent that things like cross-cultural interactions have made us aware of it). Any proposal that a piece of literature has not merely been influenced by different ideas, but been sequentially influenced at different times, needs to provide analogies for what is envisaged. For instance, we can imagine an individual moving from Roman Catholicism to agnosticism to Evangelicalism over the course of their life. But would we expect a single author who made such a journey to leave material written during each stage intact? And if, as von Wahlde proposes, we have different authors at work contributing successively to the Gospel of John, then how are we to imagine this aspect of the life and activity of this Johannine school? If we are to attempt a reconstruction of the phases in the composition of the Gospel, and the community experience that surrounded and shaped them, then we absolutely must also at least surmise something about the separate authors’ roles in relation to one another, sociologically and temporally. It is easy to imagine the second generation of a community, perhaps after having relocated to a different geographical location, editing and expanding the work of a key figure from the previous generation. But does such editing still seem as plausible if the time frame is much shorter? Had the original author of the first edition died? Was that individual expelled from the community? If the latter, why was their work nonetheless considered authoritative enough to merit redaction rather than replacement? Brown’s Community of the Beloved Disciple[2] may have suffered from not being correlated with a multi-volume redaction-critical reconstruction akin to von Wahlde’s – and if Brown had provided one, we can only speculate whether his proposal would have gained more widespread acceptance in the longer term. Conversely, von Wahlde’s scenario appears to need a narrative commentary that places the layers and their authors within the context of a plausible (if inevitably speculative) historical reconstruction. For historical reconstruction always involves the creative use of imagination to reconstruct and fill in our understanding of the past. Perhaps it is not less imagination that is needed to make a persuasive tradition-historical case, but more of it precisely in the form of narrative.

Finally, let me return as promised to focus in on the question of Christology. That the Gospel of John should be viewed as evidence of significant development in this area ought not to be seriously doubted. In no other Gospel is Jesus depicted as consciously aware of a prior existence in heaven. Yet what sort of pre-existence is the Gospel of John talking about? The prologue is often associated with the latest stage in the development of the Gospel. And yet the prologue seems to be seeking to maintain a high level of clarity and precision, using Logos for the pre-existent reality that, having become flesh, appears in human history to be referred to no longer as Word but as the human being Jesus. It seems that 1 John abandons that distinction, speaking instead of “Jesus Christ having come in the flesh.” So too von Wahlde writes at times of the “pre-existent Jesus” (p.85) and the “incarnate Jesus” (p.89). It is not impossible that there is an underlying substructure of thought that could reconcile the diverse statements – for instance, it may be that Jesus is thought of as being the pre-existent Messiah, who also embodies the divine Word, which would mean that one could speak both about the pre-existent Word, and the pre-existent Christ or Jesus, and have it be an accurate reflection of the Gospel’s portrait, when understood in a manner sympathetic with the assumptions behind it. But we do not have access to those assumptions, and this is what makes the task undertaken by von Wahlde particularly difficult. Can we be sufficiently confident about when 1 John is being faithful to the Gospel, and when it is transforming its ideas and perspective? There is obviously no way to definitively prove the case for hypotheses about editing and multiple authorship. And so the question is whether the interpretation of the evidence offered has better explanatory power than others.

Let us consider one other example of clear Christological development. Whereas in Philippians 2 the divine name is bestowed upon Jesus when he is exalted to the right hand of God, that name has been bestowed upon Jesus from time immemorial according to John. Yet in the context of the Gospel of John, as C. K. Barrett pointed out decades ago, it is intolerable to understand the “I am” sayings as meaning that Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh, and yet obediently to do as he is told.[3] And so the I am sayings must be understood as reflecting the exalted status of Jesus as God’s son and agent to whom the name has been given in order to elevate his authority. And so as John 17:3 puts it, the Father remains “the only true God,” and Jesus Christ the one that the only God has sent. I presume that if such language were unacceptable to the community by the time the Gospel reached its final stage, it would have been altered or removed. And so the Gospel of John, for all its lofty language, still presents Jesus as the agent of the one God, identified with but not as the one God, just as other early Christian literature did. And this makes it more challenging to use alleged differences between so-called “high” and “low” Christology as temporal signposts delineating phases in the history of Christianity in general, or of one Christian group or piece of literature in particular. The exaltation of Jesus to a status of authority second only to that of the one God is found in our very earliest Christian literature, and does not deserve to be denigrated as “low” Christology.[4] The Christology of the Gospel of John changes the timing and terminology of the bestowal of that status, but does not seem to ever move away from its Jewish monotheistic heritage. And so it seems possible at least in principle to read the language of Jesus as prophet, as son, as the pre-existent messianic Son of Man, and as Word-made-flesh, in a manner that results in a multifaceted but ultimately coherent portrait.

But should we do so? That seems to me the most pertinent question, and the one that is most likely to lead from these initial thoughts to fruitful continued discussion. Perhaps I am seeking and ultimately creating consistency and harmony in the Gospel of John, where I should be allowing for discord, smoothing over cracks when I should allow myself to see them as the fissures between different editions with different perspectives. Even for scholars who fully acknowledge the existence of tensions and disagreements between distinct works in the New Testament, it can be more difficult to acknowledge the same kind of tensions and disagreements within individual works which resulted from successive stages of activity by different authors. Yet we find examples throughout ancient literature of precisely that, works into which new material has been added, or within which multiple pre-existing texts have been combined and compiled, with a result that is confusing only until one notices the literary seams and pulls the work apart into its separate pieces. Urban von Wahlde challenges us to do precisely that with the Gospel of John. Irrespective of whether the specific details of his own reconstruction are found to be persuasive, it is my hope that von Wahlde’s work will challenge scholars who feel that it is justifiable to ignore redaction critical questions by focusing on the text in its “final” form, as well as scholars like myself who perhaps may flinch too soon, and not go far enough in doing justice to its composite character. If I have tried to raise questions about specific points of von Wahlde’s method and conclusions, I hope it is clear that this is done from a perspective of appreciation for his endeavor to clarify not only the place of the Johannine literature in the context of early Christianity, but also how the stages and subcomponents of the Johannine literature relate to one another.

[1] See David Capes, “The Early High Christology Club,” on his blog A Word In Edgewise. https://davidbcapes.com/2014/07/22/the-early-high-christology-club/

[2] Raymond E. Brown, Community of the Beloved Disciple (Paulist, 1979).

[3] C. K. Barrett, “Christocentric or Theocentric? Observations on the Theological Method of the Fourth Gospel,” in Essays on John (London: SPCK, 1982), 1–18 (here p.12).

[4] As Bart Ehrman emphasizes in How Jesus Became God (Harper Collins, 2014), pp.231-232.

book review

Gospel of John

Society of Biblical Literature

Society of Biblical Literature

sources

Urban von Wahlde

Previous Post

February 11, 2017

Fatal Terrorist Attacks in the United States Carried Out by Refugees

Next Post

February 12, 2017 Traditions of Eastern Late Antiquity #AARSBL17 Call for Papers

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