Customer Reviews

The Gospel of John: A Commentary

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In my studies of John, almost every major commentary refers to this title by Bultmann. Bultmann, Culpepper and others between 1950 and 1980 severely changed the points of view of theologians regarding John's Gospel. Bultmann's commentary leads the way in being one of the most important commentaries on John in the 20th century, because of this.

But, what of the theology? Bultmann assumes the Fourth Gospel was highly edited by someone other than the original author, and that the original author could not have been the Apostle John because Bultmann claims John died when his brother did in Acts. His argument for this is weak and does not list anything but the reference in Acts (12:2) as the reasoning, which seems like a major assumption. Much of the commentary does not interact with the text in great detail theologically, aside from the critical aspects of the text. This is not to say that this commentary lacks usefulness in gaining insight to John, but it does leave many questions unanswered, in the focus on critical aspects. Aside from this, Bultmann makes some statements which match the likely intention of the author of the Gospel with which many current well-respected theologians agree.

The commentary does not follow the order of verses as they are found in the Bible, but reorders them into what Bultmann thinks is the correct order. For instance, Bultmann's section on John 13-17 begins with the Last Supper (Jn 13:1-30), then jumps to the Farewell Prayer (Jn 17:1-26) before moving back to Jn 13:31-35, which he believes was followed by Jn 15:1-17. It becomes very difficult to find his thoughts on specific verses due to this reordering.

The 1971 version (first translated into English) includes an addendum after the indices, which is written by Hartwig Thyen. Here, he states that since the original writing, much evidence, including P66 and P75) has been found supporting the textual unity of John and an earlier dating than the one proposed by Bultmann.

Bultmann uses footnotes rather than endnotes, which is essential because a great deal of useful text is included in the footnote area. Many pages have 3-4 lines of primary text on the page which is followed by 60 lines of footnote data that must be mined to get Bultmann's ideas on many subjects regarding John.

Overall, the commentary should be owned by those interested in deeper theological pursuits in John's Gospel, but should not be bothered with by laymen, because the information within is restricted almost completely to theological discussion and criticism that has been supplanted by much modern scholarship. After purchasing Carson's contribution to Pillar, Morris' contribution to NICNT, and Ridderbos' stand-alone commentary, this one should be thought of as a good backdrop with which to understand much of the recent focus on John's Gospel.

God bless you in your studies!

This standard work of 20th century NT theology still defends its position with brilliance in a new milleniumThe Gospel of John: A Commentary