Customer Reviews

Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John

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

 

 

Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh show that the Christian community of John's Gospel was an "anti-society", that is, a consciously alternative society consisting of exiles, rebels, or ostracized deviants. (They note parallel examples of anti-societies, such as reform-school students in Poland, members of the underworld in India, and vagabonds in Elizabethan England.) As such, it had developed its own "anti-language", that is, a resistance language used to maintain its highly sectarian religious reality. This accounts for many of the strange expressions found in the gospel. For instance, the Christians of this community referred to all outsiders as people of "this world". They believed that all members of wider society -- especially "the Jews" -- lay outside the scope of redemption and were completely beyond the pale. Like all anti-societies, they overlexicalized their language, which basically means that they used redundant euphemisms. Thus, "believing into Jesus", "abiding in him", "loving him", "keeping his word", "receiving him", "having him", and "seeing him" all meant the same thing. Likewise, "bread", "light", "door", life", "way", and "vine" were all redundant metaphors for Jesus himself. This anti-language served to maintain inner solidarity in the face of pressures (or perhaps even persecutions) from wider society. Unlike the religious language found in the Synoptic Gospels or Paul's letters, John's language would have been meaningless in the context of wider Judeo-Christian society ("this world").

Understanding this social background is crucial for interpreting the gospel as a whole and controversial passages in particular.........................

As I said on the review of the Synoptics: I enjoyed the book that, with its companion "on the synoptic gospels", form a source of "inside" information that otherwise I woudln't have access to. The book is structure according to a regular commentary with additional "notes" or "reading scenarious." Unfortunately, there are no footnotes; therefore, when they tell you abuot a particular custom of that time, there is no direct reference to a primary source. Therefore, you have to take their words for it. There is a bibliography, which can help a bit, but still you're left with no way to further a specific point.

Dr. Malina's commentary on the Johanine gospel is indispensable. Face it, nobody is engaging the New Testament in this way, his commentaries are powerful and are ushering in a new era of Biblical scholarship. As to not engaging text criticism, Malina explicitly states in the introduction that the commentary will not do it and that the commentary is supplemental to other good commentaries that do engage the technicalities of the text. As for original meaning of the text, look no farther, you have found your commentary. I have one complaint about this book: the characterization of the Johanine writer as a community astral seer is dubious. I don't think Malina makes any attempt to explain or elaborate why this is the case, however it taints the commentary very little as it is only important to the prologue of John.

Months after reading this, I am still challenged by the ways this commentary puts John into a setting and focus far from the traditional, or received view. More specifically is Malina's view that John's language and audience is Israelite anti-society: a people close to Jesus (a minority) who were in society (the world) but wanting to change it (not of the world). In some ways it makes more sense, but still begs many questions about where, then, in the NT (if at all) should I be seeing Jesus' affinity for the gentiles?

I fought against this for weeks, but their case is reasonable and deserves attention. Traditional scholarship holds that the personal and inviting language is because John was written for Gentiles - those outside of God's knowledge. But if Gentiles weren't in mind, John's gospel is no less relevant or impressive. It only shifts the focus from Gentile vs. Jew to True Jew vs. Non-Jew. (as we know from Paul, this has to do with accepting Jesus' message spiritually, rather than a racial/national dimension) So by extension their theory still holds positive for Gentiles - at least those who agreed with Jesus' standards. Considering many Gentiles already had exposure to the OT when Jesus arrived, this seems to fit better with God's way of thinking in terms of holy/unholy.

This also makes sense of why John appears to use many different terms for the same concepts - something I wondered about many times. Instead of seeing his language as flowery, emotional or poetic, it is seen as personal - shared with a small group of people using language that would only confuse outsiders. (who, though hearing, did not really hear - as Jesus taught)

Even if you can't grasp that aspect of their theory, other reviewers fail to mention how much insight is still shared on the passages themselves. For instance, understanding why so many crowds were trying to threaten Jesus (they ran out of arguments to use against him) gives their part in history more depth and plausibility than seeing them as barbarians who wanted Jesus dead. Understanding the passion narratives as Jesus rejecting the world's standards and leaders does more for my faith than seeing him as a willing pacifist. Jesus truly remains king throughout this view of the gospels, even if people failed to acknowledge it publicly.

This was definitely a lengthy piece, but it gave me tremendous interest to look at their take on the Synoptics. What could possibly be my only criticism is that the authors tend sometimes towards liberal positions that do not always bear up to scrutiny. But these instances are small in this particular volume.

Dr. Malina asked me to read and review an early form of this book a few years back, of which I did not realize at the time was the first reading of this fine work. As a personal friend and past student of Dr. Malina, I can say with full sincerity that Dr. Malina's work is some of the most under-acknowledged scholarly writing of our time in this area of study. This fine volume carries on the Malina tradition of scholarly excellence in chasing down and capturing with pure mind-blowing enlightenment the multi-dimensional, historical truth behind the creation and content of John. This volume is an absolute necessity for anyone even halfway attempting to respectfully comprehend John in its rightful, historical context. This book is so wonderfully researched and executed that I can hardly recommend it enough. I urge anyone who has reached this review to order this book and all others by Dr. Malina for an extremely interesting and educational look at the world of Jesus, and furthermore, a look at how much the modern Church has distorted and twisted hardcore Biblical truth (for one of thousands of examples, check out Dr. Malina's 1995 book on Revelation and compare it to the feeble and cheap trash put out by jokesters and ill-educated fundamentalists such as Hal Lindsey). You will never look at John the same after reading this book, but I promise your life will be changed through the deep and meaningful questioning this and other Malina volumes will bring about. Do yourself and Biblical scholarship a favor and read this great book and pass the word on.

This commentary on the fourth gospel by Malina & Rohrbaugh could by used by the critical reader for some insights into the author's social setting. Yet this method should be allowed only so much of a foothold on a commentary and should not dominate the landscape. Into this trap have Molina & Rohrbaugh fallen into.

Moreover, there is virtually no Textual critical questions addressed at all. No interaction with opposing commentaries. Narrative and theology are barely given weight. And finally, the historio-religious method permeates Malina & Rohrbaugh's conclusions time and again.

Malina & Rohrbaugh's all to frequent reconstructions are torturous and hard to follow. Somehow it seems that as the commentary progresses verse-by-verse M&R get farther and farther from John's intended meaning.

A much better critical read of the fourth gospel remains Herman Ridderbos, or Rudolf Schnackenburg.

R.E Aguirre <><