Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology

http://btb.sagepub.com/ Book Reviews: Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel: the Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977). $9.95
John P. Meier Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1978 8: 133 DOI: 10.1177/014610797800800308 The online version of this article can be found at: http://btb.sagepub.com/content/8/3/133.2.citation

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jul 1, 1978 What is This?

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

the whole canon, including the so-called democratization of the Davidic covenant in Is 55. The beauty of the Bible is that it registers failures as well as successes. Israel had, therefore, to learn how to be Israel without a Davidic covenant. While this reviewer hesitates about the conclusions reached by Bright, he frankly admits that Bright has done a singular service in posing the question in
a

striking way. His book cannot but hlep those interested in this perplexing
JOHN F. CRAGHAN,C.SS.R. Mount Saint Alphonsus Seminary Esopus, New York

question.
.

Lucien Deiss,

Supper: The

Its the Lords Eucharist of Christians (New

C.S.Sp.,

York: Paulist Press, 1976). $4.95 This is a good book, even an excellent one. Although it is small in size, it is rich in insights. Deiss describes his purpose and methodology in this way: &dquo;I have simply tried to underline a few themes which strike me as essential if we are to believe and understand today: The Eucharist is thanksgiving (c. 3), sacrifice (c. 4) and presence (c. 5). Such a procedure was made possible only by examining what Scripture tells us about the last supper (c. 2) and integrating that information into the whole body of revelation (c. 1).&dquo; In a sixth chapter, in an imaginary dialogue, Deiss ingeniously deals with objections to, and criticisms of, contemporary eucharistic
a reverent expression of traditional eucharistic theology with pertinent criticisms of its present inadequacies. His insights into contemporary theology are expressed in a manner which clearly manifegts how they contribute to a fuller appreciation of the Eucharist and enhance its celebration with joy. This is what Deiss had sought to achieve and he has succeeded. He always provides sufficient historical information to facilitate this understanding. Deisss com-

and concerns as a liturgist pervade the book. Especially commendable is Deisss integration of Scripture, tradition and theology in a narrative which is interesting and never pedantic. His emphasis on the Eucharist as the body of the glorified Christ moderates the &dquo;dolefulness&dquo; of Trents theology of sacrifice and also frees the notion of presence from the too narrow bounds of place. Transubstantiation and transignification/transfinalization are clearly and simply treated. Without faulting the author for staying within the ambit of his purpose, what he has done he has done so well that one could desire a fuller development of his thought. One might have anticipated a more explicit consideration of memorial and, in these says, mention of epiclesis. Deiss advances or implies some views which may jar sensibilities, e.g., the frequency of eucharistic celebration, eucharistic hospitality, the possibility of eucharistic elements other than bread and wine. But he is neither doctrinaire nor abrasive. The book will help almost everybody: educated laity, religious educators, those in pastoral ministry. Even professional theologians have in it a model of presentation. The book has been well translated by Edward Bonin.

petence

JOSEPH P. McCLAIN, C.M.

St. Vincents

Seminary Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

practice. Deiss joins

Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel: the Genre of the Canonical Gospels

(Philadelphia:
$9.95.
In this

Fortress

Press, 1977).

volume,

deceptively short (147 pages) Professor Talbert challenges

the &dquo;critical consensus&dquo; concerning the literary genre to which our four canonical gospels belong. By maintaining that the gospels do belong to the genre of certain ancient Graeco-Roman biographies, Talbert contradicts the common view that the gospels are un133

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

of the Christian kerygma and therefore cannot belong to the genre of biographies. This consensus was especially fostered by R. Bultmann, and T. discerns in Bultmanns position three basic reasons for denying the gospels the label of biography: (1) the gospels are mythical, Graeco-Roman biographies are not; (2) the gospels are cultic, Graeco-Roman biographies are not; (3) the gospels emerge from a community with a world-negating (eschatological) attitude, while biographies are produced by and for a world-negating outlook. Talbert grants Bultmann that these three criteria (myth, cult, and attitude towards the world) are pivotal for determining the genre of gospel and its relation to biography. But he turns the tables on Bultmann by claiming that some Graeco-Roman biographies, judged by these criteria, belong to the same genre as do the gospels. First of all, Talbert states that some ancient biographies are controlled by the same myth that controls the synoptic gospels, the myth of the &dquo;immortals&dquo; (human beings who at the end of their lives are taken up to heaven and are given divine status). Talbert grants that Johns gospel is controlled by another myth, that of the descending-ascending redeemer, but he holds that the difference in the precise myth used does not prevent Johns gospel from being included in the genre of biography. Secondly, Talbert claims that certain Graeco-Roman biographies had cultic connections and proceeded from a worshipping community, as did our gospels. Thirdly, Talbert shows that our gospels should not be labeled worldnegating ; they show a tendency towards inclusive reinterpretation of various traditions, not a purist spirit of exclusivism. This tendency towards reinterpreting earlier, even troublesome traditions by placing them in a new, wider framework, is also seen in Graeco-Roman biographies which seek to defend a great man from a false im-

ique products

age foisted upon him and to provide a true picture of him, to be followed by others. Talbert then concludes by assigning the four gospels to various sub-categories of Graeco-Roman

biographies.
What Talbert sets out to do, he does a work that is admirably clear and orderly. Perhaps the major area for ongoing discussion is touched upon in Talberts statement: &dquo;This volume has granted Bultmann his three criteria ...&dquo; ( p. 133). But do those three criteria properly sum up the distinguishing characteristics of the genre to which our gospels belong? The present reviewer thinks not, but to demonstrate what is the proper definition of the genre of canonical gospel would take a lengthy article. As for individual points in Talberts argument, I found his argument about the cultic nature of some Graeco-Roman biographies rather weak, and his argument about the gospels attitude towards the world to be somewhat circuitous and not exactly to the point. All things considered, however, Talbert is to be congratulated for an original and thought-provoking work. While not for the average reader, it will provide real stimulus for anyone who teaches a course on the gospels.

well, in

JOHN P. MEIER

St. Joseph Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers,

NY 10704
en

Synopse des Quatre Erangiles

francais,

tome III: LEVANGILE DE JEAN, commentaire par m.-E. Boismard et A. Lamouille, Editions du Cerf, Paris 1977, 562 pp., bound 135 fr. P. Benoit and M.-E. Boismard had published in 1964, .~~n~~.~ I, which contained the Synoptic texts, most of Jn, and many useful parallels from the apocrypha and the Fathers. ~!/w;~ II appeared in 1972, the commentary of ,Slitiol),4e I, to which Benoit contributed little outside the Preface. In ~y~w p.s~ II
134

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013