Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | November/2020 |
Spalte: | 1082–1083 |
Kategorie: | Neues Testament |
Autor/Hrsg.: | Shin, Sookgoo |
Titel/Untertitel: | Ethics in the Gospel of John. Discipleship as Moral Progress. |
Verlag: | Leiden u. a.: Brill 2018. XII, 241 S. = Biblical Interpretation Series, 168. Geb. EUR 115,50. ISBN 978-90-04-38741-6. |
Rezensent: | Cornelis Bennema |
This monograph is a revised version of Sookgoo Shin’s PhD dissertation, supervised by Prof. Judith Lieu at Cambridge. S.’s aim is to find ›the undergirding ethical dynamic that shapes John’s moral structure‹ (25).
Chapter 1: Introduction. The book starts with a survey of schol-arship on Johannine ethics, organized under four categories: (1.) law; (2.) backgrounds to John’s ethics; (3.) particular terms; (4.) liter-ary devices. However, I found these categories and how S. assigned the various studies to these categories somewhat confusing. For example, studies on imitation (which is an important concept for S.) turn up in categories 1 (7–8, n. 23), 3 (19–21) and 4 (22.24). Perhaps, a better organizing principle for studies on Johannine ethics would have been their ethical focus. In addition, S.’s critique of categories 2–3 (featuring 4–5 scholars in each category), in a few sentences (12.21) is too generic and non-specific.
Chapter 2: Exploring Ancient Moral Landscapes. In this chapter, S. seeks a suitable Graeco-Roman model for understanding John’s ethics. Avoiding ancient philosophical traditions such as Stoicism, Epicureanism and Scepticism, he focuses on ›popular morality‹ (in non-philosophical literature), especially seen in the ancient biography. S. eventually selects Plutarch because (I.) Plutarch was a contemporary of John, and (II.) Plutarch’s Lives and John’s Gospel both belong to the biographical genre. S. argues that, in Graeco-Roman antiquity, ›conversion‹ (the transfer of allegiance and membership to a particular group) starts the journey of moral progress and involves two stages: (I.) the study of philosophy to ground the person in the convictions and beliefs of the group; (II.) the imitation of virtuous deeds. S. sees these stages of moral progress also in John’s Gospel, as part of discipleship: (I.) John 1–12 promotes coming to faith in Jesus; (II.) John 13–17 invites readers to the next level of discipleship by imitating Jesus. I am a bit puzzled that although S. is aware that Trozzo ( Exploring Johannine Ethics [Mohr Siebeck 2017]) and Burridge (Imitating Jesus [Eerdmans 2007]) also take a genre approach to Johannine ethics, recognizing that ancient biographies present paradigms for virtue and vice (and Plutarch is also important for Trozzo), he does not interact with them.
Chapters 3–5: Reading the Stories of Nicodemus, the Samaritan Woman and the Man Born Blind Ethically. To demonstrate the first stage of his model of moral progress, S. examines the episodes of Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman and the man born blind. While S. regularly uses Plutarch to read these Johannine stories ethically, the result was often a narrative-critical reading sprinkled with ethical flavour. S. does identify various ethical connotations in these Johannine stories, they are not (yet) sustained ethical readings. What is needed, in my view, is a more robust ethical reading of John based on a stronger rationale that the Johannine worldview is ethical and that his stated aim for writing the Gospel in 20:31 has an ethical dimension. But perhaps we are asking too much from the Johannine narrative. Besides, S. hardly interacts with German schol-ars such as Löhr, Zimmermann, Drews and Weyer-Menkhoff, who have done substantial work on the important ethical term ergon (›work‹) and its cognates.
Chapter 6: Embodying Christlikeness. This is by far the longest chapter of the book and seeks to demonstrate the second stage of moral progress, namely imitating Jesus. S. starts by examining the notion of imitation in the footwashing episode in John 13, arguing that this episode sets the tone for the idea of imitation as instrumental for moral progress. He then focuses on the use of the comparative conjunction kathōs (›just as‹) to identify traits of Jesus that disciples should imitate, namely love (13:34; 15:12), unity (17:11.21–22), mission (17:18; 20:21) and ekstatus or ›otherworldliness‹ (17:14. 16). A few issues occurred to me. First, S. does not identify that the content of the intended imitation in the footwashing episode is humble service, so this is missing from S.’s set of imitable traits. Second, S. does not always accurately explain how there is imita-tion in a certain passage. For example, regarding mission (17:18; 20:21), the kath ōs construction indicates that Jesus imitates the Father (just as the Father has sent Jesus into the world, Jesus also has sent the disciples into the world), so how exactly do the dis-ciples imitate Jesus if they are just the object of Jesus’s action? Third, Plutarch no longer features in this chapter (except for one reference). I wonder if this is because Plutarch’s Lives and its characters are more suitable for a comparison with the various characters in John 1–12. This raises the issue whether Plutarch really is a useful guide to read the whole of John ethically.
I am slightly uncomfortable with S.’s understanding of imita-tion as the ›next level‹ (49), ›culmination‹ (192), or ›second phase‹ (194) of discipleship. I contend that imitation is central and fun-damental to discipleship. The foundational Johannine ethical injunctions of humble service and loving one another, both actualized through imitation (see 13:15 and 13:34), can hardly be labelled the ›next level‹ of discipleship. In fact, imitation takes one to the ›next level‹ in that a Jesus follower gradually becomes more Christlike (cf. 1 John 3:2). This coheres with S.’s eloquent conclusion that ›readers are not simply called to believe in Jesus but to be Jesus-like‹ (196).
That there is ethics in John seems now established. Whether the whole of John’s Gospel can be read ethically, as S. claims, still needs more work in my estimation. For those who will take up this challenge, S. should be a fruitful conversation partner.