Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo, and Qumran.

Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo, and Qumran. By Kare Sigvald Fuglseth. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005. Pp. xiv + 450. Cloth, $139.00.

Fuglseth successfully challenges the notion that the Johannine community was a "sect" and effectively employs modern sociological methods in his study of Judaism in the Greco-Roman period. Ever since Wayne A. Meeks's defense of the idea ("The Man From Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism," JBL 91 [1972]: 44-72), many scholars have agreed with or modified the notion that the Johannine community was segregated from its Jewish environment and was exclusive in a sectarian way. Fuglseth argues that this hypothesis is based upon an imprecise definition of "sect" or "sectarian" in sociological terms, and scholarly critiques of applying these categories to John have been insufficient. As correctives, he presents a thorough definition of "sect" and then applies it to his analysis of the social groups represented by the Gospel of John and the writings of Philo and the Qumran community.

After reviewing the "'sect' debate" in Johannine studies (chapter 1), Fuglseth provides his working definition of this term (chapter 2). He presents three types of social groups that the sociologists, particularly Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge, define in their work: the parent body, cult, and sect. Cults represent social groups that begin a new religion and "claim to be different and justify the difference by a new revelation or new insight that change the original tradition," and sects represent social groups that "left the parent body not to form a new faith, but to re-establish or regenerate the old one ... [they] claim to be the authentic, purged, and refurbished religion" (Stark & Bainbridge, The Future of Religion. Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985] 23ff; quoted in Fuglseth, p. 55). Both cults and sects experience social tension by deviating from the parent body, but cults tend to emphasize their similarities with the greater environment and sects tend to emphasize their differences. Based on these models, Fuglseth proceeds to investigate the Gospel of John and the writings of Philo and the Qumran community with the following questions in mind: (1) What kind of social tension do these texts portray? (2) What kind of relationship to temple Judaism (the parent body) do these texts convey? And (3) Do these texts stress similarities with or differences from their greater environment?

In chapter 3, Fuglseth outlines his construction of the social groups represented in these texts, and then he explores the attitudes this literature expresses about the Jerusalem temple (chapters 4-6) and "others" (chapters 7-8). He chooses these topics because they relate fundamentally to the identification of the Johannine community as sectarian (i.e., that the community replaced temple-related worship with the following of Jesus, and it set itself apart from its greater environment). Concerning the former point, Fuglseth argues that John does not explicitly reject temple-related worship, and for this reason, it is not evident that the community replaced these traditions with Jesus. John 2 and 4 express the superiority of Jesus over the temple institution but do not necessarily indicate rejection of temple practices. John exhibits an attitude that is similar to that of Philo, who expresses a break from the temple in theoretical terms, but does not abandon it in practice. This more complex approach reflects the likely social experience of the Johannine community. John's metaphorical comparisons between Jesus and temple-related practices claim that such practices are inferior or redundant, but they do not declare a replacement of these traditions.

Fuglseth agrees that John expresses social conflict, but many passages in John yield a more open picture of social relations with "outsiders" than a sectarian model implies. John displays low tension with several social groups and high tension with a particular group (i.e., "the Jews," who are related to the community's expulsion from its synagogue). By far, the Qumran literature is the most antagonistic; it delineates its social boundary more sharply than Philo and John do, and it emphasizes the differences between its members and the outside world. The Qumran community, then, is best understood as "sectarian," whereas the Johannine community better fits a "cultic" model. The Gospel of John neither explicitly rejects, nor claims to purge or refurbish, the parent body. It displays accommodations with the culture at large, produces new claims in the tradition, and by virtue of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, it provided an innovation that led to a new religious movement.

Fuglseth's application of sociological models in this study is outstanding, and he provides effective parameters in his comparative analysis of the literature. Some readers may find chapters 4-6 difficult to follow, and it would have been helpful had he outlined his argument at the start of this section. I also wish he had applied the same kind of careful social analysis to Egyptian Judaism (in chapter 3) as he does to his overall study. These criticisms notwithstanding, Fuglseth offers a provocative book that presents a more complex picture, and likely a more realistic one, of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world.

Patricia Ahearne-Kroll

Ohio Wesleyan University 

Columbus, OH 43214