BOOK REVIEWS JOHANNES-KOMMENTARE AUS DER GRIECHISCHEN KIRCHE. Edited by Joseph Reuss. Texte und Untersuchungen 89. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966. From time to time our knowledge of patristic literature is augmented by the discovery of previously unpublished texts, as, e.g., the recent publication of Didymus the Blind's Commentary on Zechariah. There is a less dramatic side to the editing of patristic texts and that is the slow, tedious work of examining the catenae to discover fragments of works of the Fathers. In the case of the exegetical works these fragments frequently provide the only clues we have to the exegetical writings of some Fathers. In the 1930's K. Staab published a large collection of fragments from the commentaries on Paul by the Greek Fathers, other scholars have published fragments of individual exegetical works, and several years ago J. Reuss published the fragments of the commentaries on Matthew of the Greek Fathers. In this present volume he complements the edition of fragments on Matthew by the fragments on the Gospel of John. This work, like the work on Matthew, is a superb piece of scholarship and an outstanding example of how fragments should be edited. The volume includes the following authors: Apollinaris of Laodicea, Theodore of Heraclea, Didymus the Blind, Theophilus of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Ammonius of Alexandria, and Photius of Costantinople. The bulk of the fragments come from Apollinaris, Theodore, Ammonius, and Photius. From Didymus we have only twenty-one, from Theophilus only one, and twenty-one from Cyril. Cyril is included, though we have almost the full text of his Commentary on John (ed. P. Pusey), because Books 7 and 8 of the Commentary are in fragmentary condition. Thus Reuss includes fragments from these two books, though his hope that the examination of the catenae would turn up the complete text of the two lost books was not realized. R.'s chief aim is to provide a critical text of the fragments of the lost commentaries on the Gospel of John. Therefore he does not include frag­ ments from those commentaries which are preserved relatively intact (e.g., Chrysostom on John), except for the two books of Cyril on John. He also excluded fragments of an exegetical nature which come from the polemi­ cal and dogmatic writings, even though the author may have been expound­ ing a verse from John. Finally, R. excluded those authors for which the catenae did not provide any new material beyond that which had already been edited, as, e.g., Theodore of Mopsuestia. So far the rationale and scope of the work. 763 764 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES On the basis of his study of the catenae and by comparison of fragments with the commentaries we do possess, e.g., Chrysostom, R. came to the con­ clusion that the compilators are generally quite faithful to the original text and that in many cases they had before them the original text and not another catena. He admits, however, that it is frequently impossible to decide whether the compilata: had the original text before him. When two compilators present the same comment on a given text by the same author, R. presents both texts in parallel columns to facilitate critical evaluation of the text and to illustrate the method of some compilators. At times the compilator would abbreviate or otherwise alter the text before him. By comparing the fragments with extant commentaries, R. was able to reassign certain fragments to their proper author. The texts themselves are highly interesting and give us a better sense of what these Fathers were up to in their exegesis. The over-all impression created by reading these fragments is that, though the theology of the exegete does shape his interpretation, the Fathers were quite careful and diligent in their approach to the exegetical task and they are not simply running the biblical text through their own particular theological mill. This is true of Apollinaris, whose peculiar Christological veiws are seldom repre­ sented in the fragments. R. cautions the reader, however, that the compilator may have purposely avoided copying such passages from the commentaries. The fragments do show, however, that, if a commentator's own particular theology stays in the background, the major theological themes of a genera­ tion or an epoch do provide the backdrop for the interpretation of the text. Thus, the fourth-century writers regularly interpret the Gospel of John in light of the Trinitarian question of the relation of the Father to the Son. In this case theology and exegesis serve to complement each another. Among the authors included, Theodore of Heraclea is of particular interest, since he has affinity with the Antiochene school and we have so little of his exegetical or thelogical work outside of these fragments. R. includes no less than 430 fragments from his commentary. Theodore is another witness to a non-Eucharistic interpretation of Jn 6. It is noteworthy that not only Theodore, but most of the other commentators, seldom use allegory in their interpretation of John, and this applies to Apollinaris and Cyril as well as Theodore. Ammonius, whom R. identifies as the presbyter Ammonius of the first half of the sixth century, contributes the largest number (649) of fragments. Ammonius is important because he apparently had many of the earlier commentaries before him as he went about his interpretation. Photius, writing at a much later date, appears not so much the perceptive interpreter as a highly gifted and accomplished prose writer. Photius frequently follows Chrysostom closely. BOOK REVIEWS 765 The edition also includes an index of verses from John which are com­ mented on by the authors, a biblical index, an index of parallels and citations from other writers (largely ecclesiastical), an index of names, and a list of Greek words (prepared by Albert Heitlinger). This list is quite lengthy (58 pp.) and serves as a supplement to the Lampe Patristic Greek Lexicon by documenting words and other meanings not in Lampe. However, it should be said that a comparison of sections of this list with Lampe gave me new appreciation for the Lampe lexicon. Fordham University ROBERT L. WILKEN LE VIN NOUVEAU DU ROYAUME. By Paul Lebeau. Museum Lessianum, Section biblique 5. Paris-Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1966. Pp. 319. L.'s volume is devoted to the exegesis of Jesus' saying at the Last Supper: "I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew (with you) in my Father's kingdom." In Mt 26:29 and Mk 14:25 the verse occurs immediately after the institution of the Eucha­ ristie cup. The Lucan form (22:18), "I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes," is in reference to the first cup that Luke mentions at the Last Supper and precedes the institution of the Eucharistie cup (22:20, if genuine). Moreover, the Lucan account of the Last Supper opens with a related announcement, "I shall not eat it [the Passover meal] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (22:16). Luke may be giving two forms of the same statement, derived from different sources. However, J. Jeremías and H. Schürmann attribute a certain priority to the Lucan doubling. L. begins with a survey of pertinent background material. Among the items that appear in the OT and Jewish apocrypha are: an eschatological meal that Yahweh or Lady Wisdom will eat with men; an association of a plenitude of wine with the days to come; iconography of the vine as the tree of life; a tradition that the Messiah would make his appearance during Passover. Of particular importance is the Qumran document (lQSa) that describes an eschatological meal of bread and wine, and makes provision for the presence of the Priest (Messiah of Aaron) and the Messiah of Israel. Seemingly, at Qumran this meal was eaten or associated with daily meals in an anticipatory atmosphere: the end-times had already been inaugurated by the Teacher of Righteousness. The exegesis of the Gospel verse is centered around two problems. First, what is the significance of Jesus' vow to abstain from wine (or from the Passover meal)? L. relates it to the Nazirite abstention from wine, which he places in an eschatological context. The abstention will cease when the Father's kingdom has come, and the vow is uttered in light of the imminent 766 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES effective realization of the messianic era. In a context where the Jews looked for the coming of the Messiah at Passover, Jesus says that henceforth the sacral use of wine will be the sign that the kingdom has come. But—and this is the second problem—what is meant by the kingdom? If it is purely an eschatological or heavenly reality, Jesus would seem to be im­ plying that His parousia and the ultimate triumph of God would im­ mediately follow His death. L. avoids the difficulty by showing that the king­ dom is the Church and that Jesus is speaking about the Eucharist in the Church. Thus, on the occasion of His intimate table-union with His disciples in the Eucharist instituted at the Last Supper, Jesus looks forward to the Eucharist to be shared in the Church ("that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom"). Such Eucharistie celebrations in the Church will themselves anticipate the ultimate table-union of Christians with the Son of Man on the last day. After his exegesis of the text, L.