Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Social Function of the Use of Scripture in the Fourth Gospel.

SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN: THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF THE USE OF SCRIPTURE IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. By Jaime Clark-Soles. Leiden; Brill Academic Publishers, 2003. Pp. xii + 361, Cloth, $139.00.

The aim of this book is to examine the social effect that John's use of scripture has on his 1st century community. The author uses a comparative method of social history, putting the Gospel of John beside selected manuscripts from Qumran (IQpHab, 4QMMT, CD) and recorded Bible study sessions from the Branch Davidian community. Clark-Soles argues that by comparing the use of scripture in John to its use in better known sectarian communities (one ancient, one modern), we may learn more about the lesser known Johannine community.

Methodologically, the study proceeds on the basis on a taxonomy that posits a range of categories with which to analyze the function of scripture within sectarian groups. These categories also reflect the author's definition of sects in general. Categories such as "formation of sect," "creating a distinct way of life," and "growing the sect" analyze the ways in which sects work to "produce culture." Other categories ("breaking away: creating and degrading them," opposition to and from the parent tradition," "opposition to and from without") focus on the degree of tension between the group and its parent tradition as well as the broader secular culture.

Given this taxonomical approach, it is difficult to summarize in brief the findings of the analysis. Most significant to this reviewer was an observation regarding the distinctiveness of John's use of scripture. Whereas in both the Qumran texts and the teachings of David Koresh, scripture functioned at the center of the group's understanding of itself, this is not the case with the Fourth Gospel. Instead, as with nearly everything in the Fourth Gospel, scripture functions primarily as a signpost to Jesus. In the end, the most distinctive aspect in John's use of scripture is its lack of distinction from other features of the Gospel. As Clark-Soles puts it, "For the [Johannine] sectarians, Scripture corroborates what Jesus said and did, nothing more, nothing less. It is a tool in the repertoire, but Jesus is key" (324).

That said, it is at times unclear how this is a study primarily about the Fourth Gospel, since equal attention is given to Qumran, the Branch Davidians, and the Gospel. Clark-Soles devotes a separate chapter to each of these communities and draws comparisons with all three groups throughout the work, as well as in the concluding chapter. In this sense, one might consider the work a study on the function of scripture in three different sectarian communities. This, of course, is assuming that one accepts J. Louis Martyn's and Wayne Meeks's assessments of the community behind the Fourth Gospel. Not everyone understands the gospel in this way, however, and this brings me to my main concern about the work.

Precisely because not everyone assumes the Johannine community was a sect (indeed some are now questioning whether we should speak of gospel "communities" at all), the author might have done well to situate her work as evidence for the sectarian nature of a Johannine community, rather than simply assuming it on the basis of one line of scholarship. She might have shown how the links between the function of scripture in the Fourth Gospel and in other sectarian communities places this theory on ever firmer ground. Part of this analysis would involve ways that the gospel stands apart from other arguably non-sectarian uses of scripture. In this case, the taxonomy would need to include other potential uses of scripture aside from uses within a sectarian setting. In places, there are hints of this line of inquiry. For example, Clark-Soles points out how unlike "many NT writers" John does not use scripture as a basis for ethical behavior, but instead uses Jesus' own words toward this end (321). But could more be said about what is distinctive about the sectarian use of scripture in the Fourth Gospel as opposed to Synoptic Gospels?

Overall, this is a potentially very helpful line of inquiry, and Clark-Soles has contributed a great deal in raising the question of the sociological function of scripture in these texts. I would suggest that to take the study further, one need not posit "sect" in order to examine the productive use of scripture in the text. In other words, one could just as readily argue that "texts" rather than (or as well as) "sects" produce culture. In general, the New Testament writers used scripture in ways that might produce a particular kind of reader, and perhaps, a particular kind of community. Thus, there is room for more work to be done, perhaps in slightly different directions. This, however, is a sign of a useful and productive piece of scholarship.

Colleen M. Conway

Seton Hall University 

South Orange, NJ 07079