Today I ran across Susan Hylen‘s review of my book, John and Thomas: Gospels in Conflict? in the most recent fascicle of Interpretation (65 : 311). Susan teaches at Vanderbilt and I got a chance to meet and hang out with her a little bit at last year’s SBL in Atlanta. She wrote an excellent little book (which I highly recommend) called Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John, that was published right around the same time as my book. I am also pleased to note that she is contributing to a book on Johanine characterization I’m editing with the Library of New Testament Studies (slated for Fall 2012).
Anyway, in her review, which is generally quite positive, she writes:
Skinner’s work is a useful reminder that scholar’s who engage in constructing a history of the early church often neglect complex literary questions. . . .For those interested in characterization, Skinner’s interpretations of Thomas and Peter are the most developed of the characters he treats. He suggests that Peter and Thomas are characterized similarly: both characters show significant misunderstandin, but are rehabilitated in the end. . . . The book’s strengths are Skinner’s reading of Thomas’ character, and the resulting contribution to the question of conflict between the Gospels.
Hylen does take me to task for spending too much time on traditional exegetical questions while not attending as carefully to issues of characterization. I have two responses to her critique. First, it was a dissertation and that’s what my committee wanted to see. Second, since I was trying to enter a historical-critical debate using narrative-critical exegesis, I wanted to spend as much space possible examining the entire text.
Overall, I am appreciative of Hylen’s careful reading of my book. I’m also glad that she seems to have understood what I was trying to do (unlike, I believe, Stevan Davies, who gave me a less than flattering review in CBQ).
Since the last time I sat down to think seriously about my blog I have read three critical reviews of my book, John and Thomas: Gospels in Conflict?, and I wanted to interact briefly with those reviews here on the blog.
The first review appeared in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society and was reviewed by Timothy Wiarda of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. Wiarda was generally sympathetic to my thesis, commenting that my exegesis is judicious and that my attempt to refute “one of the main pillars of the community-conflict hypothesis must be judged a success” (p. 652). He seems to get what I’m trying to do, though there are times when his presuppositions lead him to question a particular exegetical assertion I have made. This happens to us all, doesn’t it? I tell my students that often, what we bring to a text is more determinative in the interpretive process than what the text presents to us. Still, Wiarda’s review is positive and it was good to see that the first reviewer received the book without deciding to use it as a doorstop!
The second review appeared in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly and was reviewed by Stevan Davies of Misericordia University. I have interacted some with Steve on this blog and have always appreciated his work. In fact, in my forthcoming book on Thomas, the first extended quotation belongs to him. I read his review with some excitement and was surprised by the largely dismissive tone Steve takes throughout the review. Not only has he (apparently) failed to grasp the narrative method I’m seeking to employ (which is spelled out at great length in Chapter Two), his review makes it sound as if he did not even read that chapter. As a specialist in Thomasine studies, he understandably agreed to review the book with the hopes that it would shed more light on the Gospel of Thomas than it actually does. Though you should never judge a book by its cover, the subtitle of the book, Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question, does shed some light on the dominant emphasis of the book. Inexplicably, Steve also left the subtitle of the book out of the review’s citation(?). To me, that would have been helpful for any reader of the review to understand a little more about my purpose in the book. Again, I’m not sure Steve really understood what I was trying to do. He closes the review by commenting that while “this book may be a contribution to Johannine studies, it is not very much of a contribution to Thomasine studies” (p. 175). This is a fair criticism, but it’s a criticism that speaks more to his expectations of the book prior to reading it than it does to my stated purpose for the book. My main goal was to examine Johannine characters with a view to shedding light on the Thomas issue. That is explicitly stated in the book’s introductory chapter!
The third review was written by Susan Hylen of Vanderbilt University for the journal Interpretation. The review has not yet been published but Susan was kind enough to send me a copy in advance. Like Wiarda, Hylen is sympathetic to my thesis and complementary of my exegesis, though she comments that she would like to see more of a specific focus on issues of Johannine characterization and less emphasis on narrative exegesis. She writes: “Skinner’s work is a useful reminder that scholars who engage in constructing a history of the early church often neglect complex literary questions,” but then expresses some concern that I have not provided an alternative theory for the relationship between John and Thomas.
These reviews point out limitations that are probably to be expected of most published dissertations. They also raise prospects for future explorations. I am very thankful for all three reviews. Each reviewer spent time interacting with my thesis and providing critical reflections. It is certainly better to be critiqued than to be ignored altogether. Overall this was a positive first experience with peer review. I found it interesting that two journals sent my book to individuals with interests in questions of Johannine exegesis and characterization, while the third sent it to a scholar who specializes in Gospel of Thomas research. It’s even more interesting that the Johannine specialists found it helpful while the Thomasine specialist found it lacking.
I await further review and more opportunities for reflection. . . .