Toan Do

In the history of reception of the Epistles of John, no scholar has yet to propose any universally accepted tradition of authorship or date of composition. The writing of 2 John (and credibly, 1 John), I argue, was the product of the last decade of the second-century work of proto-orthodox Christian apologists who campaigned not only to offset the rising influences of their opponents but to expunge them from Christianity. The process extended over decades of intra-Christian tensions and christological debates. The anti-heretical movement in the second half of the second and early third centuries targets Marcion and Montanus whose ideas are directly countered by a number of theological statements in 2 John and 1 John. Yet, there is no trace of reception of 3 John in extant records until the first half of the fourth century when the Epistle is suddenly and mysteriously collated in א and B.

Keywords: Reception History, authorship, date of composition, early Christianity.
This article is forthcoming in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

Johannine scholars often take the conditional sentence (v. 10a and v. 10b) in 2 John 10 and construe it as the author’s endorsement of the exclusion of travelers. They argue that one should exercise inhospitality to those who violate Jesus’ teaching. However, a close investigation of the author’s overall argument and syntax seems to indicate otherwise. It is true that 2 John 10 signals some measure of inhospitality, but the passage also warrants specific criteria of personal discretion that may be taken into consideration before excluding hospitality. The interplay between inhospitality and personal discretion is key to reading 2 John 10. Furthermore, the uses of the two personal pronouns are more particular than generic; they refer to a specific group of people who deny the teaching about Jesus.

The history of reception of the Epistles of John has not yet proposed any alternative tradition of authorship or a different date of composition. To counter the hypothesis of an early date of composition, I should like to offer the following argument. The writing of 2 John (and credibly, 1 John) was the product of the last decade of the second-century operations of mainstream Christian apologists who campaigned not only to offset the rising influences but to expunge the remnants of their opponents. The process takes years and decades of many intra-Christian tensions and christological debates. The apologists called any opponents “antichrist” and “the firstborn of Satan”—those who were once Christians but have now been castigated. Those branded “antichrist” and their followers had no choice but to secede from the churches of mainstream Christianity. In the eyes of the apologists, the antichrists are without doubt considered to be heretics. They are the ones who are defeated. Marcion and Montanus stand out as individuals quashed in debates and their writings and oracles obliterated. The decades-long anti-heretical movement in the second half of the second to early third centuries targets Marcion and Montanus whose ideas are directly countered by a number of theological statements in 2 John and 1 John. On the other hand, there is no trace of reception of 3 John in extant records until the first half of the fourth century when the Epistle is suddenly and mysteriously collated in א and B (cf. Eusebius, Hist 2.23.25).

This article appears in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 81 (2019): 252-276

In his 1941 commentary on the Gospel of John, Rudolf Bultmann argued that John’s account of the Samaritan woman in John 4:4-42 serves only as catalyst in bringing the Samaritans to Jesus. Her strange question μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός (v. 29) arouses the townspeople’s curiosity and they come to Jesus (v. 30). John’s profound sense of irony and ambiguity illustrates that the woman may not have come to belief in Jesus, but the townspeople do (πιστεύομεν in v. 42). Bultmann’s reading is no longer accepted but replaced instead by the nowadays widely welcomed view that the woman has come to faith in Jesus – a conversion story. Revisiting John 4:4-42, this article offers a semantic argument and suggests that it would be beneficial to current scholarship on John 4 to also consider the ambiguity, in which the woman may not have arrived at faith in Jesus.

Keywords: Samaritan woman; (present-aorist) imperatives; ambiguity of faith.

For 1 John 2:29a, the eighth-revised-1998 NA27 lists no variants while the 2012 NA28 cites eleven manuscripts for ἴδητε in place of εἰδῆτε.  The 2013 ECM provides seventy-nine manuscripts for ἴδητε (compared to fifty-four for εἰδῆτε).  Besides, several witnesses read οἴδατε.  These variants reflect the scribal activities in the text; they alter the aspectual types of action in the conditional clause.  These variants lend significant insight to the Aktionsarten perceived through the aspects of the perfect and aorist subjunctives.  This paper evaluates the different readings of v. 29a in the textual tradition to see which reading is the most reliable.
Keywords: εἰδῆτε, ἴδητε, οἴδατε, subjunctives, scribal activities.

This volume looks carefully at the peculiar Johannine usage of the noun hilasmos in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10. Outside of 1 John, hilasmos is not used elsewhere in the NT. Moreover, other issues in and around the immediate contexts of the hilasmos-concept in 1 John have not been the subject of thorough discussion among NT scholars. As a result, many important issues in 1 John often stand in the shadow of the Fourth Gospel, and thus have been neglected and become secondary to those in the Gospel. Precisely, 1 John 2:1-2 and 4:7-10 have hitherto received neither close attention nor an in-depth study. To shed some light onto the shadow under the umbrella of the Johannine literature, this study will undertake an exegetical investigation of 1 John 2:1-2 and 4:7-10. " The death of any human being is unique, complex, and multi-valent. If this can be said about the death of any human, how much more can it be said of the death of Jesus? In this probing and carefully articulated study, Toan Do explores a facet of the understanding of Jesus' death that has not yet been sufficiently examined. He demonstrates that the author of 1 John roots the death of Jesus in God's salvific love for all humanity (1 John 4:7-11) and proclaims that the death of Jesus is the expiatory means of the salvation of all humankind (1 John 2:1-2). " –Raymond F. Collins, Visiting Scholar, Department of Religious Studies, Brown University " Toan Do explores the meaning and function of the notoriously difficult concept of " expiation " in the First Letter of John in its connection with that of divine love. This is a thorough analysis and a fine monograph by a promising young scholar. " –Joseph Verheyden, University of Leuven

In the wake of the humanism in the early sixteenth cen-tury, Erasmus of Rotterdam was often taxed with the “sin of journalism” as having little to contribute to the then--current obsolete Latinism.  Despite much of the false accusation against his scholarship and erudition, one of Erasmus’ inaugural works, whose impact rever-berates to this day, was the Novum Instrumentum (1516).  Many of Erasmus’ contemporaries misunder-stood this “new” Latin edition to be just “another” Greek edition of the New Testament.  This article seeks to explore the background of Erasmus’ desire and struggle which led to the composition and publication of this Novum Instrumentum, on the one hand, and caused much confusion among his contemporaries, on the other.

Romans 6:1-11 is often considered Paul’s primary discussion of baptism.  Pauline readers sometimes wonder about the origin of Paul’s teaching on baptism.  Using the theory of sacrificial death as spiritualization proposed by Stephen Finlan, this paper explores the historical milieu of Paul’s phrases “baptism into his death” and “raised from the dead” (Rom 6:3-4) and demonstrates that Paul’s language is a dominant metaphorical model regarding the rebirth imagery in the pre-70s CE.  In Romans 6:3-4, particularly, Paul considers the baptismal practice of the Roman Christians as both utilization of ancient cult and incorporation into Christian theology.

For 1 John 2:2 the eighth corrected printing of Nestle-Aland27 (1994) lists three variants of μονῶν in place of μόνον. Since then more manuscripts have been added to the list. The 2003 Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior (ECM
and NA28) provides nineteen variants, plus lacunae, for μονῶν. Moreover, the presence of δέ and καί occurs in some  manuscripts but not in others. The difference between these variants has the potential to affect their theological interpretation: it questions the authorship or editorship of the text; it alters the syntax and/or grammar of (v. 2c) οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον (v. 2d) ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. The variants suggest a plurality of grammatical and theological
interpretations of 1 John 2:2. Applying the criteria in the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) in the ECM, this paper evaluates the different readings of v. 2c in the textual tradition to see whether μόνον or μονῶν (with or without
δέ–καί) is likely to be the initial text.

The ἱλάσκομαι word-group in the NT has been disputed for some time.  Differing theological interpretations have yet to agree on the intended meaning of ἱλάσκεσθαι in Hebrews 2:17.  In this regard syntax and grammar will have to be considered.  This article argues that different theological positions are insufficient in explaining the distinctiveness of this articular infinitive ἱλάσκεσθαι in the NT.  Instead a syntactic analysis of the context will provide better implications for interpreting ἱλάσκεσθαι in Hebrews 2:17.
Keywords: ἱλάσκεσθαι, articular infinitive, expiation, propitiation, purpose clause, sacrifice of atonement, and voice in Hebrews 2:17.

Background: In 1 John 2:2, the phrases (a) peri tōn hamartiōn hēmōn, (b) peri tōn hēmeterōn, and (c) peri holou tou kosmou obscure interpretations.  Alfred Plummer (1886) observes: “The supposed ellipse [i.e., tēs hamartias or tōn hamartiōn in 2:2c] is neither necessary nor very probable.”  Raymond E. Brown (1982) notes: “If there is a grammatical irregularity in these two peri phrases of 2:2[bc], it is that the object of the first is ‘our sins’, while the object of the second is ‘the whole world’ – a seeming mixture of things and people.”
Objectives: The construction ou monon . . . alla kai explains the sequence of 2:2b and 2:2c, following the peri-clause in 2:2a.  However, this does not explain to what peri holou tou kosmou in 2:2c refers.  Utilizing the interpretative issues raised by Plummer and Brown, this paper evaluates the grammar and syntax of these prepositional phrases.  Several questions will be raised and examined respectively.  First, the ellipse (tēs hamartias or tōn hamartiōn) in 2:2bc questions its theological implications.  Second, does peri holou tou kosmou imply the “sinfulness” or “sins” of the world, as tōn hamartiōn in 2:2a means?  Third, what purpose does peri holou tou kosmou (literally – concerning the whole world) have in the midst of the author’s discussion about sin in the Johannine community (cf. 1:5-10; 2:1-2, 3-6)?  Finally, there is a problem with modern translations, in which the words “the sins” are often inserted into the text (cf. NIV-1984; NAS-1977; EIN-1980; LUO-1912; and LUT-1984).
Conclusions: A context-linguistic analysis, supported by the grammar and syntax of 1 John 2:2, suggests that peri holou tou kosmou does not mean the “sin(s)” of the world per se.  Rather the phrase must be interpreted against the use of the hilasmos-concept in the contexts of 1 John 2:1-2; 4:10.

Background: For 1 John 2:1b, the eight-revised edition of Nestle-Aland27 (1994) lists three variants for ἁμαρτάνητε in place of ἁμάρτητε.  Since then more manuscripts have been added to the list.  The 2003 Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior (ECM and recently NA28) provides twenty-three variants, plus lacunae, for ἁμαρτάνητε.  Since the difference between these subjunctive moods occurs in the purpose clause (here the ἵνα-clause), the meaning of each variant has little to do with the tense (the factual time) of the verb, but rather with its aspect.  Each variant has the potential to affect and nuance its theological interpretation: It questions the authorship or editorship of the text; it alters the aspectual types of action in the purpose clause.  These variants obviously call for different interpretations of the entire verse 2:1, in that the grammatical and theological distinctions between ἁμάρτητε and ἁμαρτάνητε can only be fully appreciated through a careful examination of the contexts of the text.  This distinction, while subtle, calls significant attention to the kinds of action or Aktionsarten perceived through the aspect of the present and aorist subjunctives.
Method: Applying the criteria in the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) in the ECM, this paper evaluates the different readings of 2:1b in the textual tradition to see whether ἁμάρτητε or ἁμαρτάνητε is most likely to be the initial text.
Conclusion: A text-critical analysis, backed by the CBGM, suggests that ἁμάρτητε is the better reading in accordance with the textual tradition for 2:1b.  Thus, the variant ἁμαρτάνητε (in 614 1832 and rell) is probably due to scribal error.

Among the last seven documents of the twenty-seven books compiled in the two fourth-century Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (known in the manuscript tradition as ‫א‬ and B, respectively), the books traditionally designated the Epistles of John are listed as ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΠΡΩΤΗ, ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΑ, and ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΤΡΙΤΗ. In English, they are often translated as the First Epistle of John, the Second Epistle of John, and Third Epistle of John. But these Greek letters are superscriptions that were inserted at the beginning of each document by the compilers of the codices. Prior to their appearance in ‫א‬ and B, the three epistles cannot with confidence be said to have been known by any Christian writers in the second and third centuries. One of the reasons, perhaps, can be due to the designation John, whose identity is not the actual author of the epistles. They each were composed by anonymous writers. That is, the individual and collective existence of these epistles is known to us only when each appeared in ‫א‬ ‫א‬ and B. Shortly after the circulation of ‫א‬ and B, Eusebius is the first to use the plural "the seven catholic epistles" (Hist. eccl. 2.23.25), the number of which most likely includes the three Epistles of John and the letters of James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude.

The ancients have different approaches to life, culture, society, and family than we moderns do. While one lives, when one dies, or in one's posthumous posterity-whether with repute or of shame, whether with longevity or of untimeliness-every aspect of one's holistic existence resonates the qualities of upbringing that the person of origin has received. During the first third of the first century of the Common Era, Jesus, who is generally recounted as commencing his public ministry from Nazareth in Israel-Palestine, can be rightly considered the person of origin. For example, Luke, commonly known as the author of the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, portrays this Jesus from Nazareth as the adopted son of Joseph, who was himself a descendant of a long Jewish ancestry, and the only son of a woman who was called Mary. According to Luke, this Jesus was never married, lived only to his early thirties, and died childless. At first glance, the reader of Luke has the impression that this Jesus began and ended his own origin and family lineage. Jesus's existence was short. However, the way in which the storyteller depicts the person of origin matters. The holistic approach to this Jesus from Nazareth was radically different from that of other known figures in his time. No one before and no one after this Jesus was narrated in such respect to the influence that he had made on the lives of countless people. After he was wrongly arrested and unjustly put to death by the Romans, this Jesus is said to be raised from the dead (Luke 22:47-23:56). Then the risen Jesus is reported to appear to a number of his disciples (Luke 24:1-49). From word of mouth based on scores of stories about this Jesus's resurrection, a new religious experience began among some followers (Luke 24:50-53). Those who took the events to heart and pondered. . .