John the Theologian and His Paschal Gospel by John Behr (review)

In John the Theologian and His Paschal Gospel, John Behr offers an often novel approach to the Gospel of John as a theological text. Behr's stated goal is to guide the reader away from a "mythology of doctrines" (p. 6) (a phrase borrowed from Quentin Skinner, referring to ingrained theological assumptions), especially the notion that for John, the incarnation of Christ constitutes an "episode in the biography of the Word" (p. 3) (language coined by Rowan Williams). Instead, for Behr, the theological meaning of John flows entirely from Christ's Passion, death, and Resurrection, which constitute a single event serving as a prism through which the light of theological truth is refracted throughout the rest of John (Behr's own analogy). At its best, John the Theologian is a refreshing and even exciting take on Johannine exegesis and theology. Behr's book, however, also suffers from a number of flaws that unfortunately weaken his contribution.

After chapter 1, a summary of modern historical-critical approaches to John that non-experts will find useful, Behr gets into his theological analysis of the gospel. Behr's methodology is highly fluid. He combines discussions of modern historical- critical research with readings of ancient exegetes, brings in analysis of pre-Johannine literature (especially the Old Testament) and other New Testament literature, and ultimately places the gospel in deep conversation with modern philosophy, especially phenomenology. Behr's mixed approach produces much of the best content of the book, especially in chapters 2 and 3, which first connect John's gospel to apocalyptic literature (drawing from N.T. Wright and J. Louis Martyn) and go on to elucidate key Johannine imagery (such as the Old Testament temple and the Eucharist) by reading texts like the book of Daniel directly alongside other materials from various ancient and modern thinkers. Behr's mixed method, however, also presents challenges at times, as the variety of approaches and the sheer volume of ideas involved often makes his book challenging to read and his arguments hard to follow—on a few occasions to the point of apparent inconsistency.

More problematically, Behr shows a tendency to interpolate his ideas into the thought of other readers of John. This problem is seen frequently in Behr's work with ancient theologians. Behr often presents an overly selective reading of authors like Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and others. Their thought does indeed align well with Behr's reading of John in many places, and Behr succeeds in demonstrating this, but these same authors also quite often present precisely the kind of approach to the gospel that Behr is explicitly seeking to reject. Behr does little to wrangle with those many texts from his chosen authors that are less helpful to his reading.

Similarly, Behr's work with French phenomenologist Michel Henry (a summary of whose ideas takes up most of part 3) is often compelling, yet Henry's reading of John (even as Behr presents it) is at times resistant to Behr's thesis. Behr's moves to find his own views in Henry are less than satisfactory—as, for instance, when Behr must himself acknowledge that the Passion plays little role in Henry's thought (whereas, for Behr, it is the essential heart of John's gospel). Rather than taking this as a potential signal that he and Henry read John differently (though in complementary and fruitful ways), Behr will end up claiming that "while rarely speaking of it, the one whom [Henry] is concerned to present … is always and only the one who is known through the Passion, the Paschal Christ" (p. 311). Behr's habit of interpolating his ideas or reading around difficulties in other thinkers is by no means limited to the above examples and makes itself felt in nearly every chapter of John the Theologian.

All told, approaching the theology of the Gospel of John primarily through the lens of Christ's Passion...