Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel on John

Rating:
Summary: Excellent, but...
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent, but...
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Indespensible tool for studying the Gospel of John
Review: 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.........................

Rating:
Summary: Indespensible tool for studying the Gospel of John
Review: 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.........................

Rating:
Summary: Less than Standard.
Review: 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 <><

Rating:
Summary: Less than Standard.
Review: 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 <><