1-3 John – Recommended reading

At the moment, I’m reading through the Greek text of, and doing a personal translation, of 1 John. After working through Ephesians, and often feeling at sea with the vocabulary and syntax of it, reading 1 John has built up my confidence again, because it’s relatively easy to read and translate.

The Greek text I am using is:

The Greek New Testament Fifth revised ed. Stuttgart Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/American Bible Society/United Bible Societies, 2014.

For a Greek lexicon, I find Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament really helpful for the fact that it doesn’t just provide glosses, but extended definitions that are linguistically informed and contextually relevant.

I use the Revised English Bible and New International Version to spot check my translations and understanding where I’m uncertain.

The range of recently published and scholarly commentaries on 1-3 John is not as extensive with other biblical books (e.g. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians), but there are many fine studies and commentaries.

A note about the recent history of interpretation: many of the modern commentaries available don’t get out of the shadow of J. Louis Martyn’s and Raymond Brown’s influential thesis that behind John’s letters and Gospel was a highly sectarian community that was rent by internal schism over the meaning of John’s Gospel.

In the article on ‘John, Letters of’ in the Dictionary of the later New Testament and its Development you will find an article that mirror-reads a similar hypothesis into every part of 1-3 John. But the evidence for such reconstructions is not as strong as the confidence with which they are articulated.

I favour commentaries and studies that question and move beyond such hypotheses. This is because 1 John lacks the sort of elements in Paul’s writings that enable us to place it in a historical setting with confidence, and even view it as written to a particular group of people.

1 John seems to be written for Christians everywhere. Commentaries that focus on 1 John as speech that has the aim of celebrating, reinforcing and reaffirming values, convictions and beliefs already held by an audience is a more promising approach.

A good introductory study that takes this approach is Barnabas Lindars, Ruth B. Edwards and John M. Court, The Johannine Literature (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000). This line of interpretation, articulated by Ruth Edwards, is developed in-depth by Lieu and Bennett (see below).

Top 3 commentaries

I have consistently used the following commentators for further deeper dives:

Judith M. Lieu, M. I, II, & III John: A Commentary (New Testament Library). Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. This is probably the best scholarly commentary in English right now. Lieu shows how little evidence there is for the kind of reconstructions proposed by Martyn and Brown. This means Lieu focuses on the text before us, its ideological role in creating a shared world of meaning between the author and readers, and the interpretive, theological and pastoral questions 1-3 John raises. I don’t always understand (or agree with) what Lieu says. But I feel I always learn from her; and she never dodges the difficult questions that you want a commentary to raise and answer.

Thomas Andrew Bennett, 1-3 John (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021. Between Bennet and Lieu, I find it difficult to rank one over the other. Bennett goes further than Lieu in minimising the role of historical reconstruction and focuses on 1-3 John as rhetoric to reinforce values and make readers more committed to the way of Jesus the Messiah. He believes that both John’s Gospel and letters were written by an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry. This commentary is fully conversant with recent literature and focuses on exploring the difficult and engaging theological questions the text raises, while not ignoring issues of Greek language and translation where important.

For pastors, readers and students who want a readable high-level overview, but which only gets into the details as required, I suggest Alicia D. Myers’ Reading John and 1, 2, 3 John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, (Reading the New Testament: Second Series). Atlanta: Georgia, 2019. The introductions are worth the price of the book alone for mediating current scholarship and debates clearly; the commentary sections are good too, but can be too concentrated to digest without rereading once or twice.

Honourable mentions

Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary). Second edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. I have both the first and second editions of this commentary. I recommend either (there’s not much difference between the two) for their clarity and good sense in explaining the letters of John, and the help they provide for students, and pastors and general readers in expounding God’s word. If I have one criticism, the commentary’s scholarship is not as up-to-date as would be expected from the publication date.

If you want a high quality commentary for free, you can download William Loader, The Johannine Epistles (Epworth Commentaries). London: Epworth, 1995. This is a non-technical commentary based on the Revised English Bible aimed at Methodist preachers. It’s excellent at highlighting the right interpretive questions and coming to reasonable conclusions.

I also highly recommend David Rensberger, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John (Abingdon New Testament Commentary). Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. This is still a leading work. This commentary is accessible for all kinds of readers, incisive, and demonstrates wide reading across scholars in other languages and Christian traditions. Rensberger provides clear summaries that help us to understand and apply the text today.

A commentary that is very helpful for in-depth research and exegetical problem-solving is Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters (Hermeneia). Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). This is an exhaustive scholarly commentary on the Greek text that’s full of parallels to ancient Greek and and Jewish primary sources. It’s highly speculative in many places, but this commentary full of thought-provoking theological reflection and sensible analysis. In some cases, it’s been persuasive enough to cause me to correct my translations and understanding. Available for borrowing at Internet Archive.

So my top picks are Lieu, Bennett, and Myers (for her up-to-date discussion).