by

Rob Barrett

April 12, 2000

In this paper, I compare the approach and content of two New Testament (NT) introductions in light of their treatments of Ephesians and the Gospel of John. Though it exaggerates it, the above quotation from The Little Prince elucidates the difference between the two. An Introduction to the New Testament by D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris is aimed at the ‘grown-up’ while The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation by Luke Timothy Johnson will delight the ‘child.’ For CMM, the reader is satisfactorily acquainted with a document when he/she knows a certain constellation of facts that surround a document: its author, provenance, date, etc. Therefore, he methodically addresses each of these topics for each NT document, identifying the scholarly issues and positions, and providing an evaluation of the possible conclusions. LTJ, on the other hand, seeks to make the NT "writings intelligible and alive for the contemporary reader who wants to meet and understand them more than scholarly discussions of them" (LTJ, xi, emphasis added). The authors are both aware of the tensions. LTJ feels obligated to subtitle his text "An Interpretation" rather than an ‘introduction’ (LTJ, xi) and CMM almost apologises for including a brief outline of each book (CMM, 9) as a supplement to the technical material. Arguably, LTJ more properly ‘introduces’ the texts in the plain sense of ‘making acquaintance,’ but CMM is more in accord with the technical definition of ‘special introduction’ (cf. CMM, 9). The result is two very different descriptions of the NT documents, LTJ for those fascinated with the documents themselves and CMM for those fascinated with facts about the documents.

In this paper, I compare and contrast the two introductions, first in light of Ephesians and then in light of the Gospel of John. For each NT document I highlight differences in approach and content. I then conclude with an overall assessment of their contributions as NT introductions.

For both CMM and LTJ, the central historical issue for Ephesians is authorship. The main points of dispute are (1) the consistency of the theology of Ephesians with the undisputed Pauline corpus, (2) the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians, and (3) the intertwined issue of the letter’s destination. I consider each of these in turn.

Both CMM and LTJ discuss the theology in Ephesians—whether it is within Paul’s range. They confront the common arguments about changes in usage, such as "God’s kingdom" becoming "the kingdom of Christ and God" (LTJ, 410) and the content of Paul’s "mystery" (LTJ, 410; CMM, 308) changing. CMM quickly dismisses these arguments: "Clearly all of this is subjective. What appears to some as impossible for one mind is for others quite a possibility for such a wide-ranging and inventive mind as Paul’s" (CMM, 307). Though CMM usually covers such topics with more depth, in this case LTJ extends the authorship/theology discussion considerably when he discusses the contents of the letter. He compares Ephesians with Romans and successfully shows that they contain many of the same themes. Ephesians has expanded some elements (such as the celebration of God’s work; Rm 8:28-30 and Eph 1:3-14) and condensed others (such as the condemned state of both Gentiles and Jews; Rm 1:18-3:20 and Eph 2:1-2; Rm 3:21-5:21 and Eph 2:3). He also points out that the perceived tension between Ephesians’ celebration of marriage and Paul’s lukewarm attitude in 1 Cor 7 is resolved by the term "mystery." Paul may be ambivalent about marriage as a lifestyle choice, but he glories when the gospel joins people together, whether they are Jew and Gentile or husband and wife. These larger-grained arguments concerning Paul’s theology are much more compelling than comparisons between the usage of simple words and phrases. Unfortunately, because of LTJ’s less-structured presentation, the reader may miss the strength of his dispersed argument.

When considering authorship, CMM and LTJ both confront the issue of the relationship between Ephesians and Colossians: they are both too similar and too different. Both authors resolve the problem by concluding that they were written at a similar time, but with different goals. Colossians addresses a particular problem while Ephesians is a more general teaching (LTJ, 385; CMM, 308).

The third major challenge to Pauline authorship is how he could write such an impersonal letter to his beloved church in Ephesus. Both LTJ and CMM confront the textual problem of whether "in Ephesus" should be included in 1:1 (CMM, 309-312; LTJ, 385, 407). Here is an example of where CMM’s more encyclopaedic approach is valuable. While LTJ addresses the basic problem and the option of Ephesians being a circular letter, CMM also notes the appearance of "To the Ephesians" in the superscript of ancient MSS, even those that do not contain "in Ephesus" in 1:1. This detail helps CMM to be ambivalent about the issue while LTJ endorses the circular letter theory. Interestingly, CMM is almost self-contradictory about whether the letter is personal or not. He writes both "there are many personal notes" (CMM, 305) and "the tone of the letter is impersonal" (CMM, 309). This apparent contradiction is an example of CMM failing to criticise a conservative viewpoint. CMM attempts to be unbiased, yet consistently disputes liberal arguments point-by-point while simply listing conservative arguments, possibly raising concerns in a summary.

When I weigh the evidence, I conclude that Ephesians is probably a circular letter written by Paul to the churches of Asia Minor. LTJ’s case for Ephesians containing Pauline theology is strong. If it is a letter specifically for Ephesus, the lack of personal warmth is difficult to explain in light of the tears of Ac 20:37-38. One fact that neither book mentions is that five to seven years have passed since Paul met with the Ephesian elders. The lack of personal familiarity could then be a result of significant changes in the church since Paul was there. In any case, the circular letter theory explains the lack of personal references, the textual problem and suits this "summary of Paul’s gospel" (LTJ, 412).

Both LTJ and CMM contain significant quantities of material that are not in the other. These reflect the distinctive purposes of the books. LTJ uses nearly half of his chapter to walk the reader through the actual contents of Ephesians. In contrast, CMM dispenses with the contents in the briefest of outlines. CMM’s explanation for omitting this seemingly central material is that it is "better given extended treatment in courses on exegesis, especially the exegesis of particular books." He fears that "too much focus on these topics at the expense of the traditional questions of introduction tends to divorce the New Testament books from their historical settings, and students from some important debates…." (CMM, 9). As a result of this approach, CMM can dedicate more space to arguments and counter-arguments, both historical and contemporary. CMM also dedicates a significant section to the most important recent studies on each NT document, which conveniently introduces the young scholar to the literature. Finally, as a substitute for an exegetical treatment of the text, CMM lists the special contributions of Ephesians in a manner that is useful for reference. This material is not very inspiring by itself but provides a helpful launching point for further, deeper studies, which is where the excitement awaits the student.

In his effort to acquaint students with the text itself, LTJ pushes through the traditional introductory topics in order to get to his real focus: what the text says and how it says it. Referring to the above quotation from The Little Prince, LTJ prefers to paint a picture of the house than to discuss its $20,000 price tag. He writes, "In Ephesians we find a masterly statement on the work of God in the world and church, expressed not by the passion of polemic or the logic of argumentation but by prayerful meditation" (LTJ, 412). LTJ then briefly touches topics that would normally be, as CMM anticipates, in an exegesis course: the relationship of the opening blessing to a Jewish berakah (LTJ, 414), the reworking of temple symbolism through "daring haggadic midrash" (a favourite topic of LTJ) (LTJ, 415), and the Spirit’s role in making the church fitting for Christ (LTJ, 417). CMM is correct that efficiency would call for removing this overview material and putting it in a more complete commentary. But realistically a seminary student is only going to study a handful of NT documents to that depth during his/her schooling and it would be a shame to miss this overview of the contents of the rest of the NT.

We find that CMM and LTJ continue their distinctive emphases when they present the Gospel of John. CMM devotes most of his discussion to the issue of authorship and conceptual provenance, particular John’s relationship to the synoptic gospels. LTJ acknowledges the importance of these issues, but explicitly chooses to read the Johannine documents "as witnesses to the life of God in Jesus. This is the real subject of the writings and is our subject as well" (LTJ, 521). Here we see again that LTJ treats ‘introduction’ as connecting the reader to the material in the documents while CMM continues to focus on the issues surrounding the documents. Note that CMM treats the actual message of John’s gospel with somewhat more appreciation than he did with Ephesians, possibly because this chapter is a condensation of Carson’s commentary (CMM, 135). Note also that CMM presents a more complete discussion of the structure of the gospel than LTJ, pointing out that Jesus’ seventh sign, the raising of Lazarus, acts as a transition from the Book of Signs to the Book of Glory (CMM, 137). He also explains the wide variety of proposed structures for the book as coming from the fact that John repeatedly treats a few themes, which makes all sorts of patterns plausible (CMM, 136).

Concerning authorship, LTJ dispenses with the issue in one page while CMM devotes nineteen. LTJ presents the simple, traditional understanding of the gospel being written by "the disciple Jesus loved" and then identifies that disciple as John. He supports this with brief points concerning geographic details and archaeology and then comments on the compositional issues concerning the appendix and textual uncertain of the story of the adulterous woman. He then discredits the search for many layers of compositional complexity and redaction within the gospel. CMM includes all of LTJ’s material but expands it tremendously. His section on external evidence for John’s authorship is particularly interesting for the information it gives on the relationships between the apostles and church fathers as well as the introduction it gives to the patristic texts. CMM also teases apart the question of identifying the beloved disciple with John son of Zebedee from the question of whether the beloved disciple actually wrote the gospel. Both LTJ and CMM consider the issue of the gospel being written by a ‘community’ and raise the necessary questions about what this even means: what kind of community? How did they compose documents? CMM considers this issue with greater depth, especially noting the problem raised by the similarity between Jesus’ words and the writer’s. Both LTJ and CMM eventually agree that the evidence points to Johannine authorship. As I consider the issues, it seems that the most consistent arguments against this position are (1) the erroneous conclusion that the gospel’s symbols are Hellenistic (LTJ, 526), (2) that it differs too much from the synoptics to be an eyewitness account, and (3) its theology is too advanced to be written within the lifetime of an apostle. The first argument can be ignored. Though issues still remain, such as the date of the Last Supper, the second argument is adequately addressed by CMM’s description of ‘interlocking’ between John’s gospel and the synoptics (CMM, 161). (Note that LTJ describes such interlocking by example rather than in a formal way, e.g. the footwashing scene, LTJ, 547). The third argument concerning the gospel’s ‘high Christology’ is often spoken loudly, however CMM addresses this by saying, "the New Testament passages closest in theology to John 1:1-18 are probably the so-called Christ-hymns (e.g., Phil 2:5-11; Col 1:15-20; see Rom. 9:5), which were doubtless already circulating in the mid-fifties" (CMM, 167). Based on all of the arguments, I see no sufficient reason to deviate from the traditional view on authorship.

LTJ and CMM also discuss the purpose of the gospel and land on opposite sides of the issue. They both dismiss failed attempts to discern its purpose by over-exaggerating a single theme (LTJ, 527; CMM, 169), and CMM lists other failed enterprises such as contrasting it with the synoptics and reconstructing the Johannine ‘community’ (CMM, 168). They both then turn to the stated purpose: "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name" (20:31, NASB). They also both point out that a textual variant makes the Greek tense of the word for "believing" unclear as to whether it is present or aorist. LTJ then says, "If it is aorist, then the phrase would read, ‘that you might believe,’ and the purpose would be conversion. But if it is present tense, then the phrase would read, ‘that you might go on believing,’ and the purpose would be reinforcement and encouragement’" (LTJ, 527-528). CMM cites this argument but then says, "It can easily be shown that both tenses are used in John for both initial faith and continuing in faith, so that nothing can be resolved by the appeal to one textual variant or the other" (CMM, 170). LTJ must either be unaware of or unconvinced by CMM’s easy proof, for he favours the present variant and concludes that the purpose of the document is pastoral concern. From this argument about Greek grammar, they both move on to consider the purpose of the gospel as a whole. LTJ continues to agree with pastoral concern and CMM decides for evangelism. CMM bases his argument on the contrasting purpose statement in 1 John ("that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 Jn 5:13, NASB)) and the syntactic case for the gospel’s purpose statement being to identify Jesus as the Christ (CMM, 170-171). I see more strength in LTJ’s argument that the entire gospel is presented as if to an existing Christian community. It is full of irony as it relates issues to insiders and outsiders (LTJ, 532), which points to a central pastoral purpose of reinforcing the message that they have believed. However, it is also clear that much evangelistic fruit has resulted from outsiders realising that there is an inside of which they are not part! Undoubtedly this gospel has been used for both purposes and John was surely aware that his presentation of Jesus would be used by the Spirit in both ways.

Both LTJ and CMM consider the textual problem of the story of the adulterous woman and conclude that it was not originally part of the gospel (CMM, 172-3; LTJ, 544-5). The next question concerns its authority. Without warrant, LTJ accounts it "like the longer ending of Mark, part of the canonical collection" (LTJ, 544), even if not Johannine. CMM calls the position that the story is authoritative "plausible" (CMM, 173) but does not go further. It is difficult to decide what to do with a story that so epitomises Jesus’ forgiveness, yet is devoid of pedigree. Arguments for canonicity are based on (1) matching the ‘rule of faith’, (2) apostolicity, and (3) widespread and continuous acceptance and usage by churches everywhere (CMM, 494-5). This pericope passes (1) but fails (2) and (3), given its unknown author (though Luke is suspected) and CMM’s statement that the church fathers omit it when commenting on John. Therefore I tentatively (and painfully) think that it should not be considered canonical. Of course, such an approach might lead to discarding Hebrews as well, so this is a hazardous line of thinking.

Finally, LTJ and CMM both maintain their independent emphases. CMM offers a brief view of recent work on John and then summarises its contribution with an appreciative comment about the gospel being a wonderful integration that defies summarisation (CMM, 174). I appreciate that CMM treats John with considerably more sensitivity than he did Ephesians. LTJ devotes two-thirds of his chapter to the actual contents of John, interweaving his textual and authorial arguments throughout. He often responds to scholarly debates indirectly by inserting pointed comments. For example, when describing the gospel’s prologue he inserts a comment that is nearly a non-sequitor: "The literary antecedents of the prologue are less likely gnostic hymns than biblical traditions associated with Wisdom" (LTJ, 534). This statement is clearly in response to someone’s unreferenced claim that the prologue is descended from a gnostic hymn. For the student who is aware of the debate, LTJ’s statement may be helpful, but following up on that debate is difficult because of LTJ’s choice not to footnote such comments with references to counter-arguments (LTJ, xi). He relegates this information to a dense annotated bibliography. CMM, on the other hand, has more than one hundred footnotes on the arguments surrounding the gospel of John for the student who wishes to dig deeper. This notwithstanding, LTJ’s handling of John’s material is both informative and deeply inspiring for the student. He presents the gospel as "narrative theology" (LTJ, 532) that weaves historical accounts of Jesus’ life together with almost allegorical power. Jesus continually reinterprets Israel’s symbols and places himself directly in the centre of each one.

CMM and LTJ both introduce a reader to the NT. They both engage the scholarly dialogue that has been examining these documents for almost 2,000 years. They both do so from a conservative point-of-view but without ignoring other opinions. But neither book is complete by itself. LTJ lacks the organisation, depth and scholarly attitude of CMM. For example, if one needed to determine the date of a NT document, CMM is the book to use. The information is easy to find, introduces the dominant arguments, and provides references for further inquiry. LTJ leaves the student to read through the entire chapter to extract the information he gives on the topic and then to struggle through the bibliography for the necessary supplemental information. CMM also provides concise summaries of the current scholarly topics for each NT document. Therefore, CMM is well suited as a reference and for preparing a scholar to contribute to the debate.

On the other hand, CMM (the book, not the authors) lacks heart. Greek rhetoricians wished that rational argument could stand alone, but understood that there is more to humanity than rationality. LTJ thinks this way and seeks to introduce the reader personally to the biblical texts. This limits his structure and depth but keeps Jesus in his rightful place at the centre of the NT. If one were to read one book as a starting point for NT study, I would choose LTJ over CMM. I would be concerned if scholars were prepared for their work through texts like CMM alone. It is risky to become an academic critic of the NT without facing the central fact that the biblical authors are communicating a stunning reality that stops even the mouths of scholars and forces them to see that they are unworthy to examine the One of whom they write.