Abstract
Michael W. Martin argues for two related points in this revision of his Baylor University doctoral dissertation. First, he defends the legitimacy of a two-level reading of the Gospel of John (the Martyn-Brown hypothesis and adaptations) whereby individuals in the Gospel's narrative represent various communities in the real-world experience of the evangelist. Second, he seeks to advance Johannine scholarship by arguing (contra Martyn-Brown) that the Johannine epistles were written before the Gospel of John and that Judas is intentionally presented in the Gospel as a representative of the secessionists known from the epistles. He argues for both these points by means of the common ancient rhetorical practice of genus syncrisis (comparison of types) known from the progymnasmata (a rhetorical curriculum for teenage students) whereby writers and speakers compared groups of people by means of outstanding representatives.
In Chapter 1, Martin reviews previous scholarship on the relationship between the epistles and the Gospel. He proceeds to respond (pp. 15–28) to recent critiques of reading the Gospel as a two-level drama leveled by Bauckham and others in The Gospels for All Christians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), and closes the chapter by introducing the rhetorical practice of genus syncrisis as evidence for the legitimacy of a two-level reading of the Gospel. Martin wisely favors Talbert's cautious adaptation of the Martyn-Brown hypothesis, which reads the Gospel primarily as an ancient Mediterranean biography of Jesus and only secondarily expects to find “echoes” of the life situations of the community (pp. 13, 23).
In chapter 2, Martin provides a deeper discussion of genus syncrisis with multiple examples from the Mediterranean milieu including Homer, Aristophanes, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Livy, Plutarch, Appian, the Torah, Philo, Josephus, Paul, Hebrews, Mark, Matthew, Luke, Revelation, Apocalypse of Peter, (First) Apocalypse of James, Acts of John, Acts of Peter, Homilies, Recognitions, and John Chrysostom.
In Chapter 3, Martin examines two triple comparisons (Jesus, John and Moses, and the Beloved Disciple, Peter, and Judas) through the topics of syncrisis as set forth in the progymnasmata: origins, birth, nurture and training, body, mind, deeds, externals, friendship, reputation, and death, events after death, etc. He concludes that the evangelist intentionally employed genus syncrisis in order to argue for the Johannine community's superiority over the Jews, the followers of John the Baptist, Petrine churches, and the secessionists by showing Jesus' superiority to John and Moses and the Beloved Disciple's superiority to Peter and Judas.
In Chapter 4, Martin examines the secessionists in the epistles and finds four points of comparison with the Gospel's portrait of Judas. The four points of contact are departure, separationist Christology, an unloving ethic, and rejection of the Eucharist. He uses these points of contact to argue that the epistles were written first and that later the evangelist intentionally presented Judas through the practice of genus syncrisis as an outstanding representative of the secessionists.
Martin has provided a well-researched, accessible introduction to the rhetorical technique of genus syncrisis from the progymnasmata and other ancient sources, but his conclusion that the fourth evangelist intentionally employed genus syncrisis to critique or praise different competing or allied communities in the first century remains in the realm of possibility and not probability. First, his discussion of the topics of syncrisis within the Gospel often seems forced and too subtle to be intentional. Second, the background examples cited in chapter 2 are not close comparisons. In the case of Greco-Roman bios and histories, the historical context is clear from external evidence (Homer and Plutarch wrote to promote Greeks, Josephus to defend Jews, etc.) while the historical situation surrounding the purported Johannine community is shrouded in mystery and only accessible through hints in the text itself. Furthermore, the use of Mathew, Mark, and Luke as examples of genus syncrisis (a two-level reading) seems to beg the question concerning the genre and nature of the Gospels, while the examples from Christian apocrypha, particularly the Gnostic texts, are not generically equivalent.
Martin's argument that the evangelist intentionally employed genus syncrisis will likely convince only those who already support some version of the Martyn-Brown hypothesis, but will not likely win over any opponents. Either way, he has produced a fine and enriching study that will prove valuable to any scholar or student interested in the current state of Johannine studies.