Book Review: Dialogue Not Dogma: Many Voices in the Gospel of Luke
Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture, 2013
54 “eschatological hour.” There is a brief concluding chapter on the hermeneutical and theologica... more 54 “eschatological hour.” There is a brief concluding chapter on the hermeneutical and theological payoff of the book’s findings. The first chapter sets forth the criteria by which Mihalios judges an allusion. The criteria are six-fold: verbal parallelism; the eschatological nature of “hour” in both Daniel and John; a large cluster of words or phrases; parallel “themes” in both the OT and NT contexts; the presence of other verified quotations from the same OT book (Daniel); and the presence of similar Danielic allusions in the larger Jewish literature of the period indicating that other ancients understood Daniel similar to John and Jesus (pp. 9–10). Mihalios’s work succeeds or fails to the degree that these criteria are met. I conclude that the book largely succeeds. The thesis of the work (that John consciously alludes to Daniel) is rigorously argued on a case-by-case basis looking primarily at the following texts: John 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28; 12:23, 27; 16:16–33; and 1 John 2:18. Mihalios frequently sets the passages under scrutiny side-by-side with the texts to which they arguably allude— a practice I find helpful even if the parallelisms occasionally fail to persuade me (for example, p. 157). And while I find the larger thesis persuasive, I often wished for more clarity in the argumentation. For example, it would be helpful were the author to return to the criteria mentioned above to show explicitly how each Johannine reference meets the criteria. A more lucid argument would help the reader make these connections. If there is a striking omission in the book, it is any discussion about the legitimacy of appealing to the Old Greek or Theodotian’s Greek translation of Daniel rather than the Hebrew and Aramaic. Mihalios’s argument depends largely on the shared Greek word “hora” (a word not used in an eschatological sense outside of Daniel in the Greek OT), but he nowhere argues for John’s use of the Greek translation. If John indeed uses a Greek translation of the Old Testament, one would expect other clues to help make this case. Mihalios, however, does not choose to use any. One other weakness of Mihalios’s work is his appeal to what he calls “Danielic themes” to support his claims of allusion (see p. 79). In particular he emphasizes judgment and resurrection as Danielic themes closely associated with the eschatological hour (p. 78, 123), but judgment and resurrection are surely not relegated to a Danielic eschatology; they are found widely in early Jewish and Christian literature. How a reference to judgment and resurrection is supportive of an allusion to Daniel is unclear. Despite the above criticisms, the book is a worthy addition to the growing literature on intertextuality. The rigor and thoroughness with which the author shows connections between John and Daniel is commendable. And while Mihalios’s study has focused primarily on the shared significance of Daniel’s and John’s eschatological time, one wonders what else might surface in other studies between John and Daniel. Mihalios’s work is a good starting point for such future studies. Eric J. Gilchrest Baylor University Waco, TX, 76706
Uploads
Papers by Aaron Kuecker