"WHAT
Is JOHN?"
READERS AND READINGS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
JC8Z SYMPOSIUM SERIES Gail R. O'Day, Editor
Number 3 "WHAT IS JOHN?" READERS AND READINGS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
edited Fernando F.
'''~n'Y.II'_l
Fernando F. Segovia editor
"What IS John?" READERS AND READINGS
OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
Scholars Press Atlanta, Georgia
"WHAT
Is JOHN?"
READERS AND READINGS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
edited by Fernando F. Segovia ]996 The Society of Biblical Literature
Ubr....ry of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data What is John? readers and readings of the fourth Gospel Fernando E Segovia, editor. p. em. (SBt symposium series no. 3) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-7885-0239-5 (cloth alII:. paper).-ISBN 0-7885-0240-9 (pbk. alk. paper) I. Bible. N.T. John-Criticism. interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. N. John-Criticism, interpretation, etc.-History-20tn century. L Segovia, Fernando E II. Series: Symposium series (Society of Biblical Literature) : no. BS2615.2.W47 1996 226.5'06- dc20 96-2495 CIP
Contents Preface Contributors Abbreviations PART
I.:
READERS AND READINGS OF THI<: FOURTH GOSPEl,
Literary Approaches I. The Spectrum of lohannine Readers (~RAIG H. KOESTER ........................................................................................ 5
2. The Making of Metaphor: Another Reading of. John 3: 1-15 RC)BERT KySAR ............................................................................................ 21
3. Toward a
Reading of the Fourth
MICHAEL WILLf:TT NEWHEART .................................................................... 43
Reading Myself, Reading the Text: The 10hannine Passion Narrative in Postmodem Perspective JEFFREY 1... STALEY ......................................................................................59 Theological Approaches of John as a Document of Faith in a Pluralistic Culture .................................................................................. 107
5.
6. WERNER
and in John H. KELBER .................................................................................. 129
7. John 20: J J-18: The Encounter of the Easter Jesus with Mary Magda1ene- A Transformative Feminist Reading SANI)RA M. SCHNEIDERS ........................................................................... 155
8.
to a Canonical Reading of the Fourth Gospel I). MO()DY SMITH ...................................................................................... 169
PART
II: THE
9.
GOSPEL OF JOHN AT THE
Hermeneutical ROBERT
l:"'..armQua.~e
Cl. OSE
OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
in lohannine Interpretation 185
10. The Gospel of John as a Kinder, Gentler Apocalypse for the 20th J. I~amsey Michaels .................................................................................. 191 II. Johannine Gail. R.
ne()loJ~!laJt1S
as Sectarians ....................................,. ........................................................ 199 for the Future
13. The
Engagement 10 .......................................................................................
~11
14. What Have I Learned about the of John D. Moody Smith ....................................................................................... 217
Conclusion J''''............. Readers of the Fourth Gospel and Their Readings: An Exercise in Intercultural Criticism Fernando F. ;:-,eJ;OVIa ............ ..
Index of Citations ........................................................................................... 279 Index of Authors ............................................................................................. 289
Preface The idea behind the
volume goes back to an issue of the journal
Semeia for which I served as editor Fourth
with R. Alan Culpepper entitled The Atlanta: Scholars Press,
Cl
1991), As the title mdicates. this issue \vas devoted to an analysis of the Fourth
Gospel from the
of literary criticism, with a focus on both narrative
criticism (the narrative features of the text as (the interaction between text and
and reader-response criticism
The volume also contained two critical
responses to the collection as a
both of \vhich
and critiqued
the highly formalist character of the entire enterprise. Thus, Johannes Beutler of the
Hochschule
observed
from an
from a hermeneutical point of
that,
the
on the "literary" dimensions
of the text had resulted not only in a neglect of the social conditions of authors and readers of the GospeJ but also in the lack of any of the authors with
of reflection on the
to themselves as "' ....JI"-""''''' of interpretation. Similarly,
Ann Tolbert. then of Vanderbilt of Religion, pointed out
and now at the Pacific School from a Literary
that in its
use of "literary criticism" the collection had remained quite formalist in tone and mode, so that even when calling upon articles had
the "readers" in
criticism, as many of the is to say, the real readers
behind the different reader constructs invoked- had remained largely in hiding. She went on to point out that, despite the excellent tenor and value of the collection as a
there was a lot more to COlt1tem[)or:arv
criticism
"than it is preseIlte
correct: the collection had remained, for the
most part. an exercise in artistic or esthetic formalism, whether from the point of view of the text as text or of the interaction between reader and text.
In my introductory essay to the volume 10hannine
a Ne\v Direction in
I responded that these comments were not only very
much to the point but also called for immediate and systematic attention. In real readers of the Gospel had a twofold task ahead of them: not only did
viii
"What is John?
they have to become critically aware of the different stn:tte~~Jes
employed in their
they also had to be forthcoming as weB with as
but
to their own social location
of the text and hence with regard to themselves as real readers. I
Int,,,rn,r,,,t .. rc
concluded
constructs and
to and interpretations of the
stating my own
in my position as incoming chair of
the SSL Johannine Literature Section, to take up this twofold challenge in the section
launching an VUJ;:;Vl"~,
rrlHIIT\IP!Olr
series under the title of "Readers and
Readings of the Fourth Gospel." with the 1991 Annual Meeting
This series lasted three years in all, in Kansas City and and
\\'ith the 1993 Annual
in Washington, D.C.,
enormously successfuL I called upon a broad
of leading
Johannine scholars in the country to offer papers on the Gospel, with a specific focus on literary criticism, broadly self-conscious attention to be
but above all with explicit and to reader constructs and
stn:tte~~JCs
as well as
to the real readers behind such strategies and constructs. The result was a splendid series of position papers of different
the Fourth Gospel from a number
but with a common focus on reading as such. The
present volume gathers together these papers in revised form in a first section ('"Part I: Readers and
of the Fourth
Given the nature of the papers, moreover, an overall division suggested itself. While some papers could be readily classified as primarily literary in nature, that
as following certain established lines of inquiry within
literary criticism seen as more
others could be
Willett in nature (Culpepper;
Schneiders; Smith),
Consequently, I availed myself of those two
"LHerary
" for the division of the papers. To be sure, this
and
dls:tmc1I1on, like all distinctions, is artificial and porous; is helpful as a heuristic
as a \vay of
om~nt:mg
np\iPrlhplp ....
I believe it
readers of and within the
collection itself. As a proper climax to the
I further organized a symposium on the
Gospel around the theme of "The Fourth Gospel at the Close of the Twentieth " which was held as a featured session of the Section at the 1994 Annual Meeting in Johannine scholars to Fourth
Once again, I caJled upon a number of leading as real
on the
as the century drew to a close. The result was
and role of the a splendid
ix series of reflection papers on the Gospel from a The present volume also brings together these papers in revised form in a Two: The Fourth Gospe] at the Close of the
second major section Twentieth
Finally, the volume also contains a conclusion from me as editor, in which I proceed to analyze in of view of
fashion the entire collection from the point
constructs and stfl:lte:gles, with particular emphasis on the
question of rea] readers. A word about the title for the volume is in order. This collection of position papers and reflection papers on John reveals the enormous diversity of contemporary approaches to the
as we1I as the enormous range of opinion
regarding not only its meaning and interpretation but also its significance and relevance. The title reflects,
a bit of intertextual play with the Gospe]
itself via a "'''M,hr''." •."" of Pilate's own question of Jesus in the tria] narrative This serious play, with its substitution of "John" for "truth,
is meant to convey this slippery nature of the text's
and
Johannine Studies. In the narrative of
significance in
contemporary Johannine scholarship, there
I am
no authoritative
Jesus-character and no omniscient and reliab]e narrator to
us the proper
ans\ver to the \"lU,","L' ..Jlr-"What is John? ; what we fInd instead is a host of answers from a variety of different npl~.,np"f,v'~" methodological as well as theoretical- Readers and Ke4'lat,nes
'-..IV ..>
I would only add that,
at the end of this fIrst series of "Readers and Readings of the Fourth
and
its enormous success both in terms of the papers and reflections presented and the public in attendance at the different
a second series \vas
launched, under the same which would include papers not only from a broad literary nPf,.,n,"'f't,vP but also from a similarly broad sociocultural would involve Johannine scholars from abroad as \vell as from the United and would conclude \vith a similar symposium on the
and role of the
Gospel at the turn of the century. At the conclusion of the word of thanks.
a number of people deserve a very special
all the scholars whose work is represented in these pages
for their kind willingness to form part of the project. Second, Professor Gail R. O'Day, of the Candler School of Theology at as editor of the SSt. Symposium
for her
"What is John?
x
volume published as lJ . . . . .
"'y·..,.
of the series. Given the
of the
the fit, I
is an ideal one. First, the volume is a col1ection of ""'''''.HI.,,'''nn. studies,
contri buted
various
which address a
topic related to
biblical literature and/or its cultural environment. Second, it consists of studies that have
from collabt1rative work within the
own program
units. Finally, it is a collection that is best published together rather than Indeed, its value for students and scholars alike should be clear in these days of focused and critical attention on the
process as such.
Third, the staff of Scholars Press for their invaluable help throughout the process of publication.
Mr. W.
Department of Religion at Vanderbilt assistant for this project and whose editorial evident throughout these pages.
of the Graduate 'rvho served as my research and
are
xi
Contributors Michael Willett Newheart The Sch(x)1 of Divinity Howard Washington, D.C. Gail R O'Day Candler School of
Sandra M. Schneiders The J esui t School of
Werner H. Kelber Department of Religious Studies Rice Houston, Texas
Fernando E The Divinity Vanderbilt Nashville, Tennessee
Craig H. Koester Luther Seminary St Paul, Minnesota
Luise Schottroff Gesamthochschule Kassel Universitat Germany
Robert Kysar Candler School of
J. '"'''''V\C''''' Michaels Professor l::'.ITlentus Southwest Missouri State . . . jOi.U"'.'.... ,
Missouri
D. Moody Smith The Divinity School Duke University Durham, North Carolina Jeffrey L. Department of Religious Studies Lewis & Clark College
xii
"What is John?
Abbreviations AB
Anchor Bible Justin
BA
Biblical AT(~fWeOlOJllSl
BE'TL
Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
Bib
Biblic'a
BTB
Biblical
CR
Critical Review
Eccl. Hs.
EWieblius, Ecclesiastical
HTR
Harvard
JAAR
Journal
JBL
Journal
JSNT
JSNTSup
hOf'/fHn,
Bulletin
American AC1Ul{~'mv .... v'H".,H
Literature
the
New Testament
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series
NovTSup
Novum
NTS
New Testament Studies Review & l!x,f}m'iUClr
SBLDS SBLMS
of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Litemture
MCm02IT1lDn
Series
SBL.SP
of Biblical Literature Seminar
SNTSMS
for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
TS
ne(n(),j~/Ct'll
Studies
PART) READI<:RS AND READINGS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
LITERARY APPROACHES
n~r... rD
One
The Spectrum of lohannine Readers CRAIG
1/i,:'nf111'H"-'"
R
KOESTER
the readers of the Fourth
is not a new question. Scholars
have long understood that knowing something about the readers of the text was to
the message of the text. The persistent interest in the stems, in part, from the
that the material
presented in the narrative was selected and recounted with readers in mind. The evangelist addressed them
at the conclusion of chap. 20,
"These
things have been written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the the Son of God, and that
you may have life in his name"
the pronoun
When
it becomes clear that the Fourth Gospel is
an exercise in communication; it is a
of a message intended
to shape the stance of its readers. But to whom does the
at the end of chap. 20 refer? At one end of the
reading spectrum are the
that eclectic group comprised
of all who read the
Those who belong to this group usually turn
to the Fourth Gospel in the
of
something
pages, and the perennial popularity of John's do find it to be an cOIt1tem~,on:lry
in its
indicates that many readers
and meaningful text. The problem is that
readers do not
understand John's
in the same
and extended discussions of the Gospel at both the scholarly
"vay. The and popular levels readers.
that there are about as many
.vu.'u""o;;.,'
as there are
would want to say that the text simply means whatever a
reader wants it to mean, that aJ) readers are equally competent, or that all readings of the text are equally valid. Most
readers
need to distinguish readings that are more or less
aCl(~qulate
the
from those that are
simply mistaken.
Historical and Implied Readers Scholars have attempted to establish some "the quest for the historical
by
" that is, by attempting to
6
"What is John?
reconstmct the historical context of the readers to \vhom the addressed.
attention has been
was first
to evidence within the text that could
be compared with material from other sources that might the events and intellectual currents
into
Johannine Christianity.
Attempts also have been made to delineate levels of sources and redaction within the text, in order to discern connections between particular passages and the cmmgmg circumstances of a community of faith. Behind this conviction that the Fourth a discrete group of
lies the
was intended to speak to the issues confronting to shape their
and to influence their
commitments. The hope is that if \ve, as modern into the circle of those \vho read the
can
in the first
enter and if we can read
the Gospel with their eyes and listen to it with their ears, we will better be able to understand the
in his own terms, rather than "in words \vhich \ve
moderns merely want to hear from his mouth," as Louis Martyn has put it. ' Attention to the differences between our own situation and outlook and those nrst-cjemurv readers has helped .... "'."l~H ...'" many to read the text
of the
Historical research is an invaluable means of self-criticism that cautions readers to
a
absolutizing their own
and it must continue
role in our attempts to assess whether or not a way of
John's
Gospel is viable. Yet it also can or should make us profoundly aware of the limits of our ability to reconstruct and enter into the life of Christianity. Martyn community
Johannine
one of his own valuable studies of the Johannine that when
up each
a historian would
do well to say three times slowly and with emphasis, HI do not know. cannot gu;;lralltel~s
a
of the historical reader that is so
the meaning of the text, and even as we
f'~"''-''''''
context we are still confronted with
We that it
some clarity about the
fHH~"".n"'''
about how the text
can speak to its twentieth-century readers in a compelling way. Studies of the "implied reader" have provided a helpful means of ap~)rOI1cnmg
J. L Martyn, and in the Fourth Nashville: Press, 1979) 18. J. L Martyn, The in Christian York: Paulist Press, 1979) 92.
(2nd ed. rev. and enL; Int,>pnl'ptpp\'
(New
Koester: The this problem.
'n~>r·t'·1Ln1
.JoJ'lOfitrlUle
Readers
7
lser, for ...""'..... ,,,". has stressed that when COIlsHlenmg a
literary work one must take into account "not only the actual text, but
and If a text
in equal measure, the actions involved in responding to that text." imparts information, it also presupposes I~~
it also demands
information~
if it
from readers-not
to the original
but all readers. The text informs the reader selectively, stimulating the reader to supply what is not stated. 4 The expression "implied reader" ,1£~<''''','''''~'''C one who possesses what is necessary for the text to exercise its effect. The
reader
is a literary construct, not a historical one, and a portrait of such a reader is not formulated by
realities outside the text, but by looking at the network
of structures within the text that invite a response from the reader. At a basic level, we can identify the kind of reader implied by a text by
what the
text assumes the reader knows and what it takes the trouble to explain,s Further refinement
entail distinguishing the impJied reader from that
known as the narrator at selected The
" that
the reader who is addressed by the
in the Gospel
6
"historical" readers of John's
died centuries ago and were
buried under the rubble of a culture that remains quite distant for most people who read the Gospel today. The implied reader
to some extent, more
lmjmeawlte. since it is a literary construct and therefore can "only 'die' when the texts in which they exist are Nevertheless, at a fundamental level the a
to
" as Jeffrey Staley has
out.
reader of John's Gospel is also
readers, because the most essential thing that the
implied reader knows is Koine Greek. Those who
at the Greek text of the
Gospel wiII see a sequence of curved lines on the page, an
sequence
W. Iser, The to Beckett (Baltimore: The John I-inlnl<11"c Press, 1974) 274. Ibid,,282. R. Alan Anatomy the Fourth A in Literary Phlladlelplrua: Fortress Press, 1983) 212. Ibid., 221. L (The Print:'i First Kiss: A Rhetorical fnvestlRatwn 82; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 19881 47) Reader in the Fourth attempts to maintain careful distinction between the reader and the narratee, but recogllIZ(!S that there is considerable overlap between the two in John's 7 The Print's First Kiss. 30.
8
"What is John?
of ~-._.. ,..,,.~._~ that fall into patterns too
to be accidental,
to
too
be understood. Similarly, those "vho listen to the Greek text wiJJ hear a rushing babble of
fuB of sound and
the uninitiated-
For the text to make sense, readers must be able to connect the sounds or an lines with known realities, and those realities are, in a fundamental way, firstcentury Mediterranean realities. Readers must learn, for
that the word
artos refers to a baked mixture of flour and water, something usually called "bread" in English. The text can be translated of course, but translations are at best
For many nl~CIII~_u:r~I"'","rlloaves
V~CtlIPI!V
the word "bread" refers to an
that crowd the
bread that only
resembles the coarse barley loaves baked over charcoal fires in eastern
Mediterranean
Bread also has a different function in different cultures, is understood. In the Greco-Roman
and this too influences an way its bread was a staple
but in many
of tropical Asia rice is the
staple and bread is a luxury, a substance often associated \vith
from
Europe. Jesus' claim to be "the bread of life" must be understood in an <;:lnl... r ....nri~tp
but
cultural context: he was not claiming to be an imported luxury item essential for life. and historical
to the
of the Gospel's readers
should be used in tandem. Studies of the implied reader drive us to consider the context in which the Gospel was
Although we may want to
say that the implied reader lives solely within the text, it is a text that was composed in a particular social and cultural context. At the same time, an must acknmvledge the Fourth Gospel's readers who know
ability to evoke responses from
nothing about the Greco-Roman
readers who
live in cultures as different from each other as they are from the culture of John's earliest readers. We must also keep in mind that the scholars \vho pursue historical
presumably do so because
and found it to be significant and engaging.
On this see Bruce 1. Malina, Luke-Acts, in The Social World P,"'nh"rhl MA: Hendrickson, 1991
have
read the text
Koester: The
'n~>r·t'·1Ln1
.JoJ'lOfitrlUle
Readers
9
Spectrum of Readers and Readings Although it is common to historical studies
.:lUfi;'fi>"".:l~
when considering John's
of "the reader" of the text. literary and
that it may be better to envision a spectrum of readers There are import.:'lnt indications that the Gospel
was written for readers who did not all share the same the
, - ! " •..."HIIVU
Consider
of the implied reader. In his pioneering
of the
Gospel. Alan Culpepper observed that the discourses in the Gospel would have made most sense for readers familiar with the \;:l\'UJl~JI\;:,
the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 is set
the Passover season
and develops Jesus' identity in light of traditions concerning the manna eaten by Israel's ancestors in the wilderness. of Booths in
the messianic debates at the feast
7 and 8 invoke
of water and light that were
to the festival celebration. The comments made by the narrator, that readers have little
of these festivals. The tension between the
highly informed reader presupposed
the discourses and the more uninformed
reader reflected in the narrator's comments Gospel envisions a
assume
that the final form of the
readership. We do
a spectrum of implied readers, rather than a
to think of
monochrome implied reader.
Recent attempts to sketch a profile of the early readers of the Gospel also .:lU}i;fi>,"",n
that the Johannine community
the time the
various sorts of people
"vas completed. It seems clear that the
and the
community developed over a period of time, although neither the literary of the text nor the social history of the community can be reconstructed with certainty at each juncture. The tlnaJ form of the
probably addressed a
community of Christians from different backgrounds.1O A number of studies have suggested,
that the nucleus of the community consisted of Christians
of Jewish background,
some who had apparently been
from
the synagogue, like the blind beggar of chap. 9 (cf. 16:2). The use of the Old Testament and Jewish traditions to demonstrate that Jesus was a rabbi, prophet, Messiah, and Son of God would have been
Fourth 221,225. to See a"'f'IPr:;llhl Ka 1vm(}nd E. Brown, The COI'nmunity York: Paulist Press, 1979).
important for such
(New
10
"What is John?
readers. Second, the community
came to include some Samaritan
Christians. Unlike the other
John 4 says that a Samaritan village came
to believe in Jesus, and the text intimates that the
presaged the future
missionary successes of Jesus' disciples. The attention to Samaritan ..,h<1 and traditions, es()eCIaIi traditions concerning Moses, sUJ~ge~s[s that
f,,,.,,,,,,, ..o
the Johannine communities did include at least some Samaritan members. Third, there were probably some Gentile Greeks among the Johannine Christians. Just before the
a group of Greeks came to see
and their arrival
the coming of the hour when Jesus would be lifted up in death to draw all people to himself (I
The Greeks did not see Jesus during his nr£V'I~Hrr,,"'£l in the trilingual the universal signiHcance of his
cross, was eventually made known to the Greeks
above the
Jesus' disciples, and it seems
likely that some of these Greeks \vere among the readers envisioned form of the
but
the final
text.
If this scenario is correct, we cannot assume that all members of the Johannine community read the Gospel from the same perspective. A common Christian faith would have
to foster a
sense of
within Johannine
Christianity, but we cannot assume that it expunged all the variations in outlook that
of Jewish, Samaritan, and Greek background would have brought
\vith them into the
of faith. The likelihood of such
increases
when we recognize that there were almost certainly a number of Johannine COltlgJ'eg;aw)ns rather than a
community with all members
itself is
same place. The
who were scattered abroad (ii in \vhich Johannine
concerned about the children of God and the Johannine Epistles reveal a situation were geographically separated from each
other and were comprised of Christians who did not members of their sister
know the
cO!lgreg;:l1JCms. lI came to incl ude an
As the Johannine spectrum of
in the
the
diverse
could continue to be an important vehicle for its
tradition because it conveyed a message that could be levels. The text offered something for the
at different informed reader and
emph,lslS on wellcOlmHlg fellow Christians who were strangers in "py,p",tlhl see 1{a1vm()nd E. Brown, The (AB 30~
Garden
Koester: The
'n~>r·t'·1Ln1
.JoJ'lOfitrlUle
Readers
II
for the minimaIIy informed reader. Readers did not need to comprehend the text
in order to understand it in part. Some have argued, to
be sure, that the meaning of the the uninitiated and Martha and
would be clear to insiders but opaque to distinctions between truth and
what is "from above" and what is "from
distinction between the two types of readers. passages
to the
Yet the Gospel also contains
that truth is multidimensional and can be the
"""'''.U'.'J'''',
encountered spt~al(Jnlg,
in
of the Samaritan woman. When she first
"How is it that you, a
woman of Samaria?" she was
light
ask a drink of me, a
the "V oman did not fully realize with whom
but her perception of Jesus was true up to a point. Jesus was
in fact a Jew, and in the course of their conversation he would speak as a Jew, by that the Samaritans
what they did not know and by
affirming that salvation would come from the Jews rightly
Later, the woman
that Jesus was more than an ordinary Jew, that he was a
prophet, who knew her life and in truth.
and
the
of
in
the woman even wondered if Jesus might be the Messiah,
and with that
she brought her tt)\vnspeopIe to Jesus.
soon
recognized that he was not only the deliverer of their nation but also the Savior of the World. At each
a new facet of Jesus' identity wa'i recognized,
without negating the
that had been previously identified: Jesus was
simultaneously a Jew, a prophet, Messiah, and Savior of the world. There is a similar
in the
of the blind beggar. Jesus placed
mud on the man's eyes and commanded him to wash in the pool of Siloam. The man did so and
his
Afterward, he returned to his usuaJ haunts
where the neighbors asked him what had happened. The
replied, "The
man caJIed Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, 'Go to Siloam and wash'; so I went and washed and received my
11
What the man
said was accurate as far as it went, though it scarcely exhausted the meaning of his
Later, the depth of his
Pharisees that Jesus must be a prophet
so that he told the 17) who had come from God
12 See, e.g., A. Meeks, 'The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism, J 8L 91 (1972) 4472, esp. 68.
12
"What is John?
and finally worshiped Jesus as the divine Son of man
"""&'r1c'Tn"nn
said was true and no single statement captured the fuJI
fY\'~,"'f'\,'nH
the
of what
had happened. Jesus was a man, but not only a man; Jesus was divine, but not only divine. Each of the 'rvithout
statements revealed a new facet of meaning
what had been said before.
The story of the blind
also shows that the healing can be understood in
ways that are not true. As the man born blind meam,ng of his heaJing and the
unpacked the
of his
voiced their own erroneous understandings of the event. Jesus had healed the man on the sabbath
making
and using it to anoint the man's eyes, actions
that violated Jewish sabbath
The Jewish law did make eX(;eptlOJ1S
when an illness was life-threatening, but this was not the case with congenital blindness. Therefore, within this frame of maintained that Jesus was not from and they concluded that the
some of the authorities
since he did not
the sabbath
proved Jesus was a sinner
context makes clear that these interpretations of the stem from lorln,"Clf'\('(" not insight.
The literary
are patently false and
Readillg the Good Shepherd Discourse The way the man born blind "read" his own important ways,
to the way
level of the text, we find that a reader, like the perceptions, while the
The
of healing
in
read the text of the Gospel. At the has to reject cert.:'lin false
toward a more complete
of
narrative contains much that is as ambiguous as the
experience of healing, but it also guides readers toward a more complete understanding of its message aOt)relClwLed at various levels. Those who
attention on
that can be
wind their way through the
Gospel's discourses may find themselves in a thick haze, engulfed by peculiar thought patterns, subtle allusions to the Old Testament and Jewish traditions, and apparent breaks in the logical sequence. Yet, through the
hJ"\l!11/'i,:.r'l n 0
mist certain
images recur, like flashes of a beacon helping readers to maintain their bearings as they make their way forward.
Meeks (ibid., 48), the off::drnund Leach, has noted how the communicates a basic message in different ways. On the the Good Sh<~nherd
Koester: The An interesting
'n~>r·t'·1Ln1
is the Good
.JoJ'lOfitrlUle
Readers
discourse in John 10, which
after the Jewish authorities cast out the blind "IJ\"unu,F,
when Jesus abruptly
about a sheepfold and sheep, a doorkeeper, shepherd, thieves,
robbers, and modern
13
Like the
Int.'''rn,r.:.t.''rc
depicted in the narrative
have sometimes been confused about the
of these
but Jesus if anything exacerbates the problem by adding a hireling, a wolf, and the mysterious "other sheep" to complicate the Nevertheless, ..,:.n,,,,,,.irH. "I am the door"r} am the door" (10:7, 9) and "I am the shepherd"1"1 am the shepherd" (10: 11, Jesus establishes himself as the center of this ".H .....'... '~ array of and enables readers to maKH1lg sense of the passage in terms of these
ideas. Readers may not know the
identity of the doorkeeper or the hireling, but they do know that Jesus is the door and the shepherd and that helps readers
must focus their attention on him. The text also
pointing to certain
identified as the sole
The door is
means of entry to the flock, and the shepherd as
the one \vho enters the sheepfold them out to
functions of each
the door, calls the
name, and leads
The text also adds that Jesus is the
shepherd, who
knows the sheep intimately and lays down his life for them, so that the shepherd and h ...,,~ ..... n \vho do is sharply distinguished from the not care for the sheep. The
remains
there is much that is not defined and
Johannine Christians may have understood the text somewhat differently delJendll'lg on the kinds of associations
brought to the text.
we
must now consider what sorts of associations people
the
might have brought to the text. We
the minimal kinds of
information early readers of the text would probably have
spectrum then, we will turn
to readers who were better informed. At the broadest level, some of the associations would have come from the cultural milieu of the eastern Mediterranean. Those who knew Greek would have understood that the word A
referred to someone who tended sheep.
or shepherd \vas a common
throughout the Greek-speaking
discourse, see also Robert Case of John 10: 1-18, (Semeia 53; ed. R. Alan and Fernando F. .,,,-,,,,,uv.u.Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1(91) 81-111.
14
"What is John?
world in the first century, and most readers probably would have connected the word with a feHow who had a weather-beaten face and was dressed in coarse homespun clothing, with a wooden staff in one hand, as he led a flock of sheep out to pasture. Moving a
further, a
shepherd was
understood to be one
who led and provided for the flock and who considered the welfare of the sheep instead of
them. Because of this
of shepherding were used
throughout the ancient 'rvorld for kings and other leaders. According to the Jewish Scriptures, some of the leading shepherds at some
in Israel's history actually had been
in their lives. God appeared to Moses while he \vas
tending sheep (Exod 3: 1-6) and David learned the arts of war flock
predators (1 Sam
defending his
In other passages, the teon "shepherd"
was extended to Israel's leaders
and the
those who governed
Ezekiel and Jeremiah them shepherds who fed
themselves instead of feeding their flocks
34: 1-10; Jer 23:
connection between good shepherding and Greeks. The Greek which were the
leadership was common among of education U ....,r... '£·.h," .. t
A similar
the Greco-Roman world, used the term "shepherd" for leaders like Agamemnon the
In Plato's
Socrates discussed ruling in teons
of shepherding, insisting that the ruler or shepherd must seek out what is best for the people or the flock. Later, the philosopher Epictetus compared kings who mourned the misfortunes of their "uUCI""""'" to shepherds who wailed \vhen a wolf carried away a sheep The discourse could appropriate all these connotations of good leadership by .... ..,.c,... ,vU"f
how the good shepherd leads the sheep out of the
before them (John 1
and goes
The discourse also redetines what it means to be a
shepherd or an ideal leader in light of the cross. Within the brief span of verses, Jesus speaks of laying down his life no less than five times (10: 1
This
sacri fke is the premier trait of Jesus the shepherd.
Jews and Greeks alike would have expected shepherds, to seek what is best for the for the
but
like good
and perhaps even to risk their lives
the good shepherd, laid down his life for the sheep. By
his crucifixion, Jesus showed that he was willing to
himself completely for
the sake of the flock. Readers \vho had even minimal familiarity \vith eastern Mediterranean cultural
would be able to
the text in this way.
Koester: The
'n~>r·t'·1Ln1
Readers
.JoJ'lOfitrlUle
15
Nmv we can move a step further. Readers with more extensive knowledge of the Old Testament "vould discern other dimensions of meaning within the text what has been said thus far. 14 In the Good Shepherd
without Jesus
"I have other sheep that are not of this
I must bring them
and they will heed my voice. So there shaH be one The emphasis on "one
one shepherd" (10:
one shepherd" may well have prompted many
readers to recall the extended discussion of shepherding in Ezekiel God
where
those who have failed to care for the flock of Israel and promised,
"I will set up over them
shepherd, my servant
he shall feed them and be their shepherd" to messianic
and he shall feed them: This text
lends itself
and the connection between shepherding and
messiahship is found implicitly or explicitly in other Jewish texts as well
23:
Jer
Ps. Sol. I Readers who knew the Old Testament also may have detected divine
overtones in Jesus' claim to be the good shepherd. The book of Ezekiel promised that David would shepherd
but also said that the
and tended by God himself. According to Ezekiel
v{(mld be gathered
God compared himself to
a shepherd who gathers the sheep when they have been for his flock, my
'"I myself
promising to \\'iJl
be the shepherd of
The connotations of divinity would have been
reinforced by other Old Testament references to God as the shepherd of Israel and to Israel as God's flock The way the
Pss 23:1;
100:3).
the reactions of listeners to Jesus' claims
helps readers identify the range of meanings found in the
of the shepherd.
In the scene immediately following the Good Shepherd discourse, people surrounded Jesus in the portico of Solomon and demanded to know if he was the Christ He not
"I told you, and you do not believe" ( called himself the
but he had
Jesus had
called himself "the
On the Old Testament and other materials useful for with John 10, see Johannes Beutler, "Der Hintergrund der Hirtenrede in Johannes 10, and J. D. Turner, "The of John 10, in The ;}IUmll",era Discourse Johannes Beutler and Robert Fortna; SNTSMS 67; LaInl1f'loge: Lamomlge Inlvpr<;:lhl Press, 1991 14
16
"What is John? which su~~ge:sts that the shepherd
Irn~:H],pl,",!
should be understood
in messianic terms. But Jesus also went on to say, "I and the Father are one" (10:30), which
should also be understood in
that the shepherd
terms of divinity. The message of the text is multidimensional and can be approached at different levels
different
of readers. The more minimally informed
readers \vould have been able to grasp that Jesus, as the surpassed, and redefined the leadership by
shepherd, realized,
ideals of
and
n .."',""'.... "
himself up to death for the sake of the sheep. Readers who
knew more could also see that he was ClaJmlmg to be the messianic chll'nh,prd promised in the 'rl~inji"r';)c and that he was the one in "V hom God himself had come to
and care for his people. What is significant is that all of these
perceptions are true and no single dimension exhausts the The narrative also
to rule out certain
of the text. of the text. Returning
to the broad level of cultural associations, we must ask how the text would to readers whose some people, the
of
varied in certain
For
of a shepherd may have evoked a sense of
"~"~~'l'O'-
for the idyllic life of those who "lie there at ease under the awning of a spreading beech and practise country songs on a light shepherd's pipe. reference to shepherding may have aroused a sense of
For others, a since sn<mnercls
were often perceived as rough, unscrupulous characters, who pastured their animals on other people's land and
wool, milk, and kids from the tlock. 16
The text would mute the suspicion often leveled at shepherds by
<;lrl.i~nnU!I':'floln()
that those who came before Jesus were indeed "thieves and robbers" ( while
that Jesus was the
the more
The
'"good" evokes
attitudes toward shepherding, but the context tempers
sentimentality by presenting a pastoral landscape that echoes with the
15
~Cj~OK,ues L 1-5. See also the works in J. M. Edmonds, The Greek Bucolic London and New York: Heinemann and Putnam's sons, 1923). lnvestlgalflOn into Economic Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in Time and Social Conditions the New Testament Period nmtOelpnla: Fortress Press, 1969) 305; idem, ktl., TDNT 6:488-489; Relations 50 B. C. to A.D284 (New Haven and London: Yale Jni,,'er'~itv Press, I
Poets
(LCL~
Koester: The cry of a wolf, not the At another
'n~>r·t'·1Ln1
.JoJ'lOfitrlUle
Readers
17
airs of a shepherd's flute. most Jewish listeners would have considered messianic
claims and divine claims to be mutually exclusive. Jewish people generally eXIJected the Messiah to be a human being, and many assumed that he would be a leader of Israel on the order of David or n."r·h<:lr...~ Moses.17 Within a a Jewish frame of ...,.t-,,,...,.,,>','" however, the idea that a human being could be identified with God \vould have been considered blasphemous. This becomes clear in the crowds's
to stone Jesus after he According to the Fourth
'JV'~IJ"",
"I and the Father hjDWleve:r. Jesus is both
Messiah and God. Jesus was the Messiah, but he would not simply replicate the "''''l-'''''h>
of David or Moses. Jesus was also aid, but he was not a blasphemous
usurper of divine
By using the image of the good shepherd, which
could refer to the Messiah and to God simultaneously, the evangelist helps create a new frame of refere:noe. in which the human and divine facets of Jesus' are brought
in a new
Modem readers will come to the text with their own frames of reference. Some may know
about shepherds from their own
but
many will not; some may be familiar with an image of shepherding like that found in Psalm
but many may not. The Johannine Good Shepherd discourse
assumes that readers will
the brief sketch of shepherding presented in the
text and will be able to apply the traits of the good shepherd to Jesus. The imagery in the text offers enough for even minimally informed readers to gain some sense of Jesus'
but it remains evocative enough to stimulate the
kind of further reflection that can lead to recognition of other dimensions of of the other the
in the text is left unspecified. The thieves and
and the wolf are never named. Their common feature is the
threat they
to the flock. The discourse is set in a literary context that
suggests that these
should be identifled with the Pharisees who opposed
the man born blind in chap. 9 and who presented a threat to all who would confess that Jesus was the Christ. Recent research has shown that it is quite likely that the Johannine
included Christians who had experienced
such threats from the Jewish authorities of their own time. Yet the imagery is
See,
John 6: ]4-15~ 12: 13.
18
"What is John?
so supple that the adversaries mentioned could who
be identified '\'ith various
Jesus and his followers or who could have been perceived
as Jesus' competitors. IS The ambiguity invites engagement with the text. The Good
discourse is clear
to allow readers with only a little
background information to appreciate its message at a basic
but the
imagery is evocative enough to prompt readers to continue exploring its cHjio, . . . . . ..,'"'. . .""'".
The
and historical contexts
dimensions of
clues to additional
and help to exclude certain
of the text
without unduly restricting the meaning.
Concillsion Some years ago, Robert observing that the Fourth
introduced a survey of Johannine research "is a book in which a child can wade and an
elephant can swim.
What he meant was that those who first read the
often tlnd its
to be rather obvious and
study it more
while those who
may wrestle with its nuances for a lifetime. Although
scholars have sometimes insiders but opaque to the
that the
of John's Gospel is clear to
the reverse is true in many cases: the
Gospel's complexity and richness become increasingly apparent with rereading. A text that was accessible at a basic level to less-informed sophisticated
to engage better-informed
yet
would have been an
important means of communication within the Johannine community as its membership became would have been most
diverse. Some
of the text probably
to the Jewish Christjans who formed the
nucleus of the Johannine community, but many of the characters also would have been en~~agmg to other
and
of Christians, including
Samaritans and Greeks. The Fourth Gospel was written in order that
Helpful on this Rudolf SClmaCK(mburg The New York: Crossroad 1982) 2:287.
R.
might believe. In Greek,
Ac(~orutifUl to John
An Examination
(3 vols.;
at (~'Ollftel1rlP(lfaJrv
an anonymous source IWlln!:,ellsten (Hamburg: Furche,
297.
Koester: The the
'n~>r·t'·1Ln1
is plural and \ve should
.JoJ'lOfitrlUle
Both
that the final form of the
was shaped for a
whom were better informed than others. By mind. we can better
19
this plurality in mind as we ask about the
author's communicative
and shape the
Readers
how the
and historical approaches of
':H'!,;'F,~"~
some of
this spectrum of readers in can continue to engage attention
of the most difficult and diverse audience of all: those
who read the Fourth Gospel today.
The Making of Metaphor: Another Reading of John 3:] 15 ROBERT KYSAR
Commentaries on John 3: 1-15 have become nearly tiresome. The passage has and reinterpreted until one would almost wish for a moratorium
been
on the wearisome rehash of the Jesus-Nicodemus discussion with the standard repertoire of insights and observations. So, why still another
reamIlIi!
of the
For one thing, the passage merits further discussion from the perspective of the author's
that
from a
perspective.
A number of recent publications have moved passage in that
of the
especially those of Francis Moloney and Mark Stibbe. l
More importantly, little attention has been paid to the way in which the metaphors in the passage are developed in the process of the dlaJoj;~ue-dl~;;course. While it is commonplace to
out the use of puns and double entendre in the
passage, less effort has been made to words function
how the surplus
of those
and what result they have in the reader's
experience of the passage. How are they metaphorical and in what way does the author create their metaphorical quality,!
Methodology: First-Time Reader This
of John 3:1-15 attempts a first
However, the method of my
at such an examination.
is not formal reader response. I am not
interested in using these formal methods, although I am indebted to them in ways that will be obvious. What I shaH do employs a far less fonnal
E J. in the W)rd. the Fourth MJlnneapC)HS; Fortress Press, 1992). M. W. G. Stibbe, John as ."Tnlr'vrPIIPr Criticism and the Fourth 73; carnO{"Joge: Press, 1992); John A New Biblical COlnment~!lry; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); and Jolm:., 1994).
22
"What is John?
method. I \vant to contemporary
best I can-an
virginal
em;olJlnttmI1lg the passage for the first time and to
it
from that perspective. I shall ask what this hypothetical reader might experience the passage and how that reader might ""H'f"~",,a the \vork of
in
the author. Naturally this effort is at best
Who of us can successl
put
aside all we think we know about this passage and take on the role of a first-time reader? Risky as it may
I should like to attempt it with the belief that some
fresh understanding might be
for the most part I shall
with
the standard categories of "implied" reader and "implied" author. Hmvever, for methodological clarity two descriptions are necessary at the of the the interpreter
of the text and another of the
A first reader methodology requires description of the
one \vho attempts such an Inflc·rnrl,.t~,.fi,u,.
encounter with the text. As with any
process, the social location of the
is possible without a "P\"'''''''''' peculiar shaped situation.
4
is crucial. No reading
and no reader's endeavor is without a her or his ethnic,
and economic
The location of the reader
an indispensable
methodological presupposition and all the more first
reader
,ur-,,,u.,,,,u,u
if some imaginative
of the text is undertaken. This particular
is an affluent,
white male who works as a full, tenured
within an
academic setting in the service of the church. My way of social or cultural disenfranchisement
little in the
I know social and hence am
and blind to the possible
meanings a passage might render for those who know first-hand virtue of gender, race,
or economic condition.
by I assume that
the passage functions \vithin the context of the Christian community
2
See S. D. Moore,
(New Haven: Yale
Criticism and the
'_"""1''''''''
78-8J. "K'~ader-JKes,OOlnse Criticism:
The Theoretical Lh(WeJn{!e
Mark's Reader, Mark and Method: New to Biblical Studies (ed. J. C Anderson and S. D. Moore; Ml1nneapc)lts: Fortress Press, 1992) 54-55) See E E and M. A. Tolbert, ed., From This Place. Volume 1- Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States (MmnleaI)o!IIS: Fortress Press,
The
3: 1-1 5
MQt/Wi/$!
(specifically \\'ithin the Lutheran
U,"'".U'-.'UJ
23
as a source of authority and that
academic inquiry is a servant of the faith
Moreover, I have in the
past served the scholarly and confessing communities primarily through the traditional historical critical methods of biblical study.
use of a synchronic,
literary methodology reflects a new commitment and hermeneutical
,:.nl,:.r"r",,"
My imagined first reader will reflect my own social and ethnic experiences, as well as my
convictions. Hence, the first reader I
will be
predisposed to questions of faith. As a 11rst reader motivated
concerns of a
religious nature, I will read the text with a personal intensity, se,irc,hll1lQ for resolutions to the issues surrounding the
central character. But the
fictitious reader is also astute and remembers what he has read earHer in the story, and he tries to use his earlier reading as a framework of comprehension for the present passage. I
a careful and sensitive reader, responsive to the
nuances of the text. Moreover, my method
a 11rst-time reader who
becomes vulnerable to the text. Immersed in the movement of the passage, this reader allows himself to be drmvn into the text and to be subjected to its influence. Such an Im::tglinatlve first reading ':>Ylr\,:'r'.,:'rlr-,:> is a productive ."nl'."rl'n'~':> only in terms of this sort of understanding of the invented participant in the procedure. To passage,
the sort of reading I have in mind. I will first move SUl~g(~Snng
the
the possible experiences of the first-time reader. Then, the
second part of the essay will retlect on what this .'-''''..... "... terms of our understanding of the author's ,:.nl,-.r.,r",," consider the way in which the author has fashioned the metaphors of the passage, \vhat sort of metaphors they are, and what role they purposes of this paper, I have arbitrarily defined the
For the
of the text as vv.
1-15. No clear closures (however partial) are detectable before 3:21. Indeed, 3: 1-21 functions, I think, as a literary \vhole. 5 I confess then that the division after v. 15 is irregular, made simply because vv. 1-15 offers a workable unit for the sake of this essay and includes the four major metaphors I wish to examine.
5 division 106) is more He suggests that vv. 1-10 and 11-21 constitute separate units. He is, of course, correct that in the latter Jesus to the reader and Nicodemus is in the bac:kglfollnd.
24
I
"What is John?
\\'iII
conclude,
hmNC'lcr_
even though the
that the reader eXIJeriences a climatic
in v.
unit continues through v, 21
A First Reader Examination of John 3:1 -IS Our imaginary first reader approaches the passage \vith a naive ooltimisnn, The prologue of the narrative rings in
ear, and the reader COll1pretlen:dS,
however vaguely, the identity of the
hero. Nothing in the succeeding
passages has diminished the bright image of the Word now made flesh. I have heard the
"vatched Jesus calJ disciples, marveled at his insight,
wondered at the transformation of water into wine, and heard with awe his malestlc--lt puzzling-pronouncements. True, the
of the
that the hero would suffer rejection still haunts me (1: 10-] ]
But. that troubling
promise remains
verses
with the one exception of a mention of the hero's death
Nearly everything has worked toward encouraging a
optimism and
excitement in our reader. that
the
preceding verses
one hand, the excited anticipation is enhanced
On the
the declaration that
believed in his name." On the other hand, the narrator's insistence that Jesus would not trust himself to these believers begins to temper our reader's enthusiasm. I can only wonder what dreadful evil lurks in the human heart that would necessitate Jesus' reserve. Nonetheless, the first two verses of our passage rekindle my optimism.
Anticipation is piqued
the possibilities of a
conversation between Jesus and a ..£~.'''~''''." leader. Nicodemus takes the initiative to come to Jesus and
that Jesus must be a teacher from God
because of the quality of his wondrous works. He immediately attracts me, for I share his view of Jesus. Now a prclminellt Pharisee \vill come to understand Jesus and believe in him, and the
will continue to unfold the pattern of Jesus'
glorious success.
In that hopeful expectation, v. 3 shocks me! After the teB you," Jesus
opaquely
tndy, I
This is his chance to win over a
(ibid., 108) suggests that, unlike my reader, the Nicodemus' out of the darkness into the the basis of 1:5) in his view the reader is even more about this of the two
The
3: 1-1 5
MQt/Wi/$!
25
powerful leader. Why confuse the process with such a stern pronouncement? I me "born anothen.
am utterly
What possible
could it have?
and anothen creates an ambiguity. It crosses two
The juxtaposition of
with a shocking result: To be born and from above or again. I am forced to consider how one might be born but born either from above or born once
I suddenly feel distanced from Jesus-alienated from this one with
whose cause I have become identified. I cannot understand his words and feel threatened
that sense of confusion.
Moreover, Jesus redefines the issue of the conversation around entering "the kingdom of God. I hear that such an entrance depends on an anothen birth. But the dominion of God itself has its own ambiguities. It conjures up a whole series of different
them God's power, the ideal human
political transformation.
I am faced with one vague
used along with another
kingdom of
7
a
(born anot/i!en
One metaphor refers the reader
to another. I am forced me ask how it is that an anothen birth empowers one to God's dominion. Does one illumine the other? If so, how? Nicodemus' question in v. 4
several different responses in me. First,
his query somewhat calms my anxiety and puts me at ease. He, too, is puzzled by Jesus' \\lords. l-ike Nicodemus, I wonder, "how is it therefore, drawn to him,
with him in his confusion, and become hopeful
that with his help the obscurity of the now feel a
,""v.u ...,o'-l"-''::>''''I-'
I am,
will be clarified. In one sense, I
\\lith this character as a co-inquirer with me. But,
second, Nicodemus' question ridiculously narrows the meaning of born
anothen. How is a second physical birth possible? At Nicodemus' expense, I that born anothen cannot refer to a second physical birth. The reference of the
is narrowed, and its literal
now I feel superior to Nicodemus. Like him I am puzzled I would not suppose that they refer me to a second alienation from Jesus is eased
a bit
eliminated. Jesus' birth.
the failure of Jesus' dialogue
7 See the seminal and still discussion of the meltaplt10rllCal "ki:ngdom of God" in N. Perrin, Jesus and the Lallgu~~ge Fortress Press, of the
but sense of
26
"What is John?
Hence, while I feel distanced from
I do not
feel abandoned
the
discussion. The intent of Jesus' words in the next verses
at first seems to confirm
my rene\ved sense of cornp'Um)fls.hlp with Jesus. That new affirmation is however. Once
"Very truly, I te1l you:' and
myself
for difficulty. Born arwthen is paralleled with birth out of water and spirit. The metaphor is now
but the reader is confused and again pushed away
from the speake:r. Little more is accomplished than to replace the
anothen with that of
and spirit"). To be sure, I
kai pneumatos
remember John the Baptist's distinction between his Jesus'
with the Spirit (1
But
of
with water and
as I was 11rst forced to ask what
kind of anothen, I am now compelled to ask what kind of water and what kind of pneuma. V. 6 stm further narrows the posslb:le reference of the _....,. . ....~~._ anothen birth. Confirming Nicodemus' erroneous impression that the birth is physical, Jesus UJ;:"UU~UJ;:)U'~;:)
en<;oura~e(1.
between
born of flesh and born of
I feel still further
Read on, for the light of dari fi cation may be visible amid the douds But sarx further douds the light and introduces
another of the
accumulating ~.... ~.,..., __"..~ terms. Is it pejorative in this context? Is the contrast of birth
flesh and birth
is it neutral?
spirit meant only to distinguish the
physical birth from a second birth; or, is it intended to demean the physical? If we know what being born of the flesh is, what then can born of
mean?
Jesus has led me to think of born anothen as a spiritual birth. That condusion is consistent with the distinction of the prologue between born of God and born of flesh (1'12-
But the
birth is and how such a birth is
of what more precisely a pVw',,'v, ...·
or divine
compel me on in my ....U'.... IH.F,.
I have managed to squeeze some satisfaction out of Nicodemus' question and Jesus' distinction between spiritual and physical birth. But Jesus' words in v. 7 mock both Nicodemus and me in our lack of understanding. How can we not be astonished? Now I sense that I once to understand.
stand with the Pharisee in my
alienation from Jesus is reestablished.
Yet Jesus goes on now, concerning the pnewna (in v.
to promise darification. His words encourage me to
God's dominion .. u,..." .. "o.. an anothen birth
an elucidation of the Spirit. Spirit is the key
The
MQt/Wi/$!
to unlock the meam'ng pUi~zHng,
3: 1-1 5
M€'Wl1flOr: Another l\,t;L,tUtlLk' iTn.".. i~,£,,,'\,,,rI
then, is the fact that the
in Jesus'
27
Hmv OlSaPl)ollrltHlg and
itself comes locked away in its own prison.
The tiny metaphor of v. 8 stretches my mind between pneuma as spirit and pneuma as wind. Jesus speaks in the freedom of the pneuma, the perception of the sound in the "vind. but the
of its origin and destination. An implied
comparison of wind and spirit is supposed to illumine the anothen birth and the
But
water
how still evades me.
By v. 9 I feel that Nicodemus is inside my mind and
for me. My
identification with him in his puzzlement and our mutual alienation from Jesus I, too, repeat Nicodemus' query, "How can this be'!"
in
..,,,~.'''''''''"'' to the entire discussion thus
Consequently, Jesus' stern reprimand
in Nicodemus in his reprimand of me as well: HAre you a teacher of Israel have you read this
and
you do not understand this?"
The distance between Jesus and me increases with v. II. It that signal that what follows in important and truly, I tell you. I have heard the
with
my experience) demanding: but nmv,
and the
virtue of my failure to understand, Jesus says, I have rejected the witness. As a first-time reader, the first person plural of v. 11 in not troublesome, for I thus far in the
acknmvledge the plurality into((
e.g., the narrator, John the Baptizer, and others. However,
""""'-Hf"if"iIt1'(>
with this
verse, I experience the conversation opening into a community. Jesus but nmv from within a group that has "seen" and here "bear witness" to their The hole
deeper. Jesus has spoken of
believe? What are these earthly
things," and I did not
and what might the heavenly
be?
My mind is driven back to the flesh-spirit distinction. But I am led to think that both of those are earthly, not heavenly things. Still clinging desperately to the hero's verbal coat tails, I suppose that Jesus
of heavenly
Yet I am ill-equipped to receive his words. Added to the qmmdam;.!s
piled
on me by the discussion thus far comes another distinction: ascending and descending. And with the distinction a title, Son of man. Yet I recall the promise to Nathaniel: "You will see heaven descending upon the Son of man" (1:5
and the angels of God
and
Again, here is an ascending and
descending. But now it is the Son of man who descends and ascends. The connection between the two, plus the encouragement of the .....,'.. ,',.. "'. to the
28
"What is John? nurtures my identification of Jesus with the Son of man. The aelicent,
I suppose,
in a veiled way of the Word's
flesh. But what might
the ascent be? Am I to assume that Jesus will ascend? What has all of this to do with anothen birth? I feel as if I am listening to a foreign
in a
only a few scraps of vocabulary. The having been shoved rudely away from the enough scraps of
of 'rvhich I have
thus far has left me with a sense of hero. But I have been thrown
that I continue to trail along, still hoping to reach the
banquet table. Immediately on the heels of the hint that Jesus has descended and therefore must once again ascend comes the enigmatic Son of man will be "lifted up" in a way in the wilderness. Sparks struggle to
those
14. The
now is that the
to Moses' lifting up of the
as this text rubs against
and I
hints of light. I am now confident that Jesus
himself with the title Son of man. "Ascending" and "lifting up"
of with
one another in their verbal image of spatial movement. I know I am spatia] imagery for
of
but I have no other clue as to the
the the reader is asked to wrestle with a puzzling, ambiguous Along with anothen and pneuma,
is another hurdle. From it I might
conclude that Jesus anticipates enthronement, and my mind races back to God's dominion.
venture the dreadful possibility of
only to be
forced to recalI the dire prediction of rejection in the prologue and the mention of death in 2:22. But I cannot choose between enthronement and crucifixion, I have no clues to help me. Along ,\lith the other ambiguous terms of the passage, I am left to
judgment concerning the sense of
until further
reading. But the puzzling word occasions another recollection from my reading "Destroy this
J. Culler, "l"r'esllpp,osll:lOn and
and in three days I "'ill raise it up"
Int(~rte!xtula1l1ty"
19).
Modern LallRu,aRe Notes 91 (1976)
1387. <)
of
MC)IOIleV argues 117) that the reader is exp'ect(!C1 to grasp the double me,mulg in vv. 14-15, even what the event may be a
The
3: 1-1 5
MQt/Wi/$!
illumine the earlier
Raise up. Ascend. Lifted up. Could these "'... ,bu ...... "'" one?
29
the earlier one,
V. 15 jolts me with the seriousness of the matter at hand. The one who believes in the lifted up Son of man may have eternal life. I feel more threat than I have no basis for belief. I cannot
inmy
promise in those
believe, if I do not understand. My understanding,
takes on ultimate
slgnmcarlce. At this point, let us suppose that our .......b ........ reader puts the text exhausted
the strenuous demands of these fjfteen verses. As that
my head is exhausted
with
the pace of the
stretched
obscure reteremces.
and confused
its movement. Still
and Jesus, I nonetheless have been intrigued by
distance between
I have taken seriously the claim that
the puzzle in the passage.
sornetnmlg vital is at stake. I shall in the future take up the text
to resume
my
Reflectiolls 011 a First Readillg Experience of JohIl3:1-IS On the basis of our journey through the passage as an we are
to make some observations
first
the text and the implicit
strategies of the author encountered there. PRESUPPOSI110NS IMPOSED ON THE READER
The first of these observations concerns what is presupposed of the reader in the passage. I J Those presuppositions are of at least
1\VO
basic kinds.
the
text presupposes a prior
of other texts. This presupposed
involves at least the earlier
of the narrative. Further, the passage seems to
assume that the reader ",vill
f'I"T....
reader is reading the whole
nl~j-'"
the remainder of the and the fullest
that
that the
of the
passage is known only in the context of the whole document. Satisfaction with
A. Reinhartz (The Word in the World: The ISBLMS 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 19921 esp. lan!~Ua!~e of vertical movement in this and "cclsmologJcal tale" the other discourses evidence Our reader unk~no1,vmQ'Iv immersed in a cosmic narrative. II Culler, .. Pl'CSIJPPlOsltiO'n. See the Tale in the Fourth
LaS/11/71O,l?lc,al
"What is John?
30 the
passage is
the reader is led to hope, with the remainder of
the narrative. But beyond the text of the
v, 14 presupposes the reader's
knowledge of another passage in the canon, namely, Num 21:4-9. The second kind of
burdening the reader of this text has to do
"vith values. It assumes from the very first the implicit worth of the God and eternal life.
of
or "entering" the kingdom and having "eternal
life" are implicitly desirable. Without adherence to God's dominion and the quest fOf a higher quality of life as important
the
of the passage is
rendered impotent But the passage also takes for granted a certain willingness on the part of the reader to '''YI'''''r'I'''r,''<''
and deal with polyvalence. The reading
is moved
the
of
words. Without the reader's
desire to pursue the sense of this language for the sake of understanding what is required to enter or see the have no n'H',f11,'<:>f,nfl power.
of God and have eternal
the passage \vould
The imagined reading experience I have sketched demonstrates that the passage makes enormous demands on the reader. There are dlSC01Jragelnellts, and alienation from the
hero. The text
implicitly trusts its own intertextuality and the reader's values to sustain the .~ ....'...........
The reader survives the text only if and because, as a result of the
previous two chapters, her Of his Ias:CUlaUng hero of the
12
has been
by the
The reader endures the abuse of the passage only
if and because he or she senses that the
of God/eternallife are of utmost
importance. With the obscurity of the passage, its impJ.ied author risks the loss of the reader-endangers his or her patience. So stressful and passage that
its intertextuality and
"nT,f'rnln'1"
is the
matter render it passable.
(John, 17) to demonstrate that the Johannine Jesus
and valid; also "The Elusive Christ: A New Fourth JSNT 44 (1991) 20-39. Our of 1-15 is an exr:>enen(;e elusiveness. But for the reader the mystery of Christ's also of a certain fascination that her him pursue a resolution Christ's hiddenness. 13 199) cites 3:1-15 as one of where the author tries to accompll~)h too much. Stibbe of a "discontinuous OJalioglle traJlscc~ndJn.g the level of discourse used (John, 55), These are others that the text demands too much of our first time reader.
The
3: 1-1 5
MQt/Wi/$!
On the positive
31
what I have addressed as the author's risk might also be
understood in terms of the enticement of the reader into
The
arduous demands on the reader force her or his involvement, if the passage is to be other than pure nonsense. The reader ventures some
of
are
only if the
sense that enables progress.
14
The
thing about the first reader examination is how tenuous the reader's constructions of
are and \vhat thorough and
is
for
a successful reading. THE ROLE OF NICODEA1US
The second of my reflections focuses on the steadHy decreasing role of Nicodemus in the discussion. On the one hand, he stands at the head of the the anticipation of the reader.
""''"''UVIJ. taking initiative in the meeting and
On the other hand, he rapidly
from
He is
three
speeches in the passage. The first of these in v. 2 is comprised of twenty-four words, the second in v. 4 of words. In the the reader's
and the third at v. 9 of only four around Nicodemus is d."",n''''f".nf",d
Without trying to engage the whole question of how the author characters, at the level of
the reader is
with Nicodemus as we1l as to draw excited the reader has identified with Nicodemus, she or he
encouraged to from his entrance. Once to be distanced from
him, beginning with his first response to Jesus' words. But, finally, in his last speech Nicodemus articulates the reader's eXIJerlence. 15 However, then the
J. E. Botha, Jesus and the SaJnaritan Woman: A
Act 4: 1-42 190. C. H. Talbert who suggests that the gaps are 65; l."ciden: Brill. John INew York: "invitations for readers or hearers to fill in the nmTative" Crossroad, 1992) 103). On such literary gaps, see Fowler, Criticism, 6165. I cannot agree su~~ge,suem that the the at Nicodemus and his obtuseness and reestablishes a author in lUUi~UUlr; close rel,atJe)I1sltlm re'iitiC)I1sltllD between the reader and Nicodemus is. it seems to me, far more cmnplJcated and the reader's identification with either Jesus or the author made far more than (J. L. Staley,
The Print's First Kiss: A
in the Fourth
32
"What is John? Nicodemus is a bridge character, that
reader
a means by which the
to understand them. He is a scout
to hear Jesus' words and to
who leads the reader into the midst of the skirmish. But once the reader has become involved in the process of the discussion-once the reader
to
of Jesus' words-Nicodemus' function has been
with the
accomplished, and he becomes an obsolete accessory to the reading process. But the reader's
with Nicodemus amounts to what
calls "reader victimization" and what "manipu]ation:' 17
Botha terms more
ln particular, my reading experience led me to view the advent
of Nicodemus as of Jesus'
and as the
of a significant
view that the passage utterly
annihilates. IS LOlns~eqlleJ1IUV I felt as though I had become a victim of the text. Furthermore, my relationship \vith Nicodemus moved from identification to
1988J 92). 116, 120) that Nicodemus represents one who is not able 11 to a to move his own Unable to move him, Jesus shifts at commentary on the whole discussion. Furthermore, for the reader he serves as an eXilmple of those described in 2:2325. Stibbe calls Nicodemus "the embodiment of mI:surlderst;m(imj~C John, 54). My view of Nicodemus differs in that I see him far more as an authorial construct to lead the reader into a one-on-one with Jesus. However, he remains, I think, character in the whole the Cf. 1. M. Bassler, "Mixed Nicodemus in the Fourth JBL 108 635-646, and M. Davies, Rhetoric and in the Fourth 69~ Sheffield: JSOT Press, 336-38. 17 The Print:5 First Kiss. 95-118; Botha, Jesus atul the Satnaritan Woman. 191192. However, Stibbe convinces me that Jesus' the readers see characters such as Nicodemus respond to Jesus. As and behave in such a way that our of who Jesus as Therefore, even with the reader's dlSap]JOlntllnellt in Nicodemus' failure, D'~"U""uu~.F. Jesus' may be clearer. concludes his taSCIl1,atlTlg study with the sUli:ge:sucm the fact that it is intended for "insiders. The reader of the if else. But "the reader victimization Qtr~ltp(.Up,~n "outside" (Print's First Kiss, 116). outsider and
1-15 functions
to evoke a sense of an insider.
an
The
3: 1-1 5
MQt/Wi/$!
33
superiority and back to identification. As a result there is a sense in which the text manipulated my attitude toward this character in "vhat Botha calls "involuntary association and disassociation:'2o The reader's posture toward Nicodemus may, one of several \vays in \vhich the text
be
misdirects the
reader. THE LANGUAGE OF THE PASSAGE
The peculiar langmlge severa] different ways. Verbs of
are prominent in the
whole of the discussion. Nicodemus knows In
and
and then does not knmv
11 Jesus and others know. Verbs of
discussion through v. II and then
8
dominate the
way to belief
with which the
passage climaxes
12 and 15). This shift skillfully leads the reader from a
concern for
to one for
of
and to the ultimate
knowing for belief. The reader's experience of struggling to understand to know) is vital in order that she or he '''Ylr'\'''r~.:.r't''''
of this passage,
is,
believe. On the basis of the reading and
appear intertwined, if not
synonymous. Another feature of the
of the passage consists of the words referring
to the use of the senses. The verb see
occurs twice
3 and 11). But
words of sounds and . "said" and
dominate the passage: In v. 8 the verb "to hear" 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, and II); "~'U'''\)\lP.f·p(1
three times
"Sound"
and "told"
1
"witness"
complete the repertoire of auditory
"'j~I.,F'''''''''''~''''''
in the
passage. Of course, a aIatJo~~ue:-dISCIJSSIOn passage is
to use many of these terms,
so their prominence does not surprise us. Still, I propose that the reader has an auditory
as a result of the passage. Not
Jesus is made to
of the pneuma, so
refer to the sound
is the
of
20 Botha (Jesus and the Satnaritan. Woman, 192) suggests that reader victimization functions two ways: On
hand. it maxirniz:es reader participation and invI)lvenlellt.
to expect next. and on the other,
fOrrlmlated by beliefs
never know
the cornmuniealion
thenlselves because they
to
and
"What is John?
34
hearing. Combined with the use of the verbs of ess:enll1aJ.ly a sensory one. This
the reader's
is important, since the passage
each of which has a sensory basis. "To be born," "to be
around four
born of water, "to hear and feel the wind, "to see the Son of man lifted aJl of these appeal for their reference to an
of the senses. The text
sensitizes one to sensory experience and thereby opens the reader to the transformation effected
the metaphors.
course, the author of this Gospel
appeals to the senses,
the document with
the
incarnation of the Word 11: 141 and concluding it with a discussion of Thomas' 120:24-29\. of the passage also subliminalJy bathes the reader in
But the
2,8, 10, and 1
contrasts: knowing and not knowing and heavenly
6,
anothen
spirit
and flesh
5,
12); ascend and descend
3. 6, and
and natural birth
born
4 and 6); and the implicit
contrast between lifted up for enthronement and for crucifixion. Still, another of the passage. It is the contrast of the
contrast is fundamental to the
in the Greek text with the use of
possible and the impossible and is the word,
The contrast begins with Nicodemus' confession in v. 2, "no
one can do these
that you do, unless God is with him. Jesus claims that
in God's dominion is possible only if one is born anothen the water and the spirit possible
Three times Nicodemus asks how such a birth is
in v. 4 and again in v.
aftlrmation of what is possible but "How is it POSSI IDle
3) of
Jesus' interrogator behind his last
\vith an
1J""'~4".IJ'U'"
The contrast is between what is impossible from the human
perspective and what is possible and necessary from the divine perspective. becomes aware of a
Meeting contrast after contrast, the reader
to which the passage propels her or him, namely, a
fundamental
contrast of belief and unbelief which becomes explicit told you about earthly
and you do not believe, how can you believe if I
tell you about heavenly
See R
in v. 12: '"If I have
John the Maverick
In general, the author frames the whole
(rev.
. Louisville: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1993) 8690.
Stibbe points out (John, 57) that the author par10dlces Nicodemus' lack of I
The narrative with
3: 1-1 5
MQt/Wi/$! n'''I'...·.1t'''''~'
which find their literary
contrasts we see in this passage. The
35
in the kind of
seriousness of v, 15 is
in
by the polarities with which the reader must deal. The sense of seriousness is because, in the environment of the contrasts of the passage, there is no alternative to the
of belief and unbelief.
The unity, of the passage is attained on one level by its takes the reader
The author
the hand to lead her or him on from one to another thought
means of sornethHllg like catch-'Nords. We have in the use of several words in the text: leading
observed this feature
" leading from v. 3 to v. 11; "know,"
from v. 2 to v. 8 to v. 10 and finally to v. 11;
directing the reader from v, 12 to
15. Two other bridge words are worth
"God" in v. 2 recurs in Jesus' words in v. 3; "born" is first used in v. 3 but then sequentially in vv. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Establishing such a
of words
focuses the reader's attention and formulates a theme. Using them to lead the reader on
transitional bridges, holding
to the reader's mind as the
passage races on. One more linguistic observation is necessary. In the passage as I have delimited it, Jesus is introduced with a saying about birth the passage '\'ith a reading
about life
Jesus concludes
It is not accidental, I think, that my
directed me from consideration of the origin of life to a claim
about the authentic quality of life. The character of human existence is journey from physical birth to a search for the
and quality of genuine life.
Therefore, the anathen birth is implicitly about the authentic "'''' . ,,~..,..vv. i.e., eternal life. READING STRUCTURE
The reader is carried through a threefold dia\ogue. 24 Each of the three parts is
of a statement or question
Nicodemus followed by Jesus'
"vords. As Nicodemus' participation in the discussion is
shortened,
Jesus' words become more lengthy. In each of the first two of the three
in terms the np{'p~',at'l decision and 119) expresses this nnI)Osslbllhtj of indifference. Such a view assumes the role of the reader's values, mCIUClmg those sketched above. 24 See Stibbe, John, 53-54.
36
"What is John?
components, Jesus
his speech with the
10 intrudes before
component
experience itself, the double amen are of vital
tell you." In the reading
the reader that the
but also that they
In
amen, amen. In the third
truly, \\'iJl
words
be puzzling.
only as an interested observer of a dlaIJO~~ue
the passage, one
between Jesus and Nicodemus However, the dialogue soon evolves into a triangular
including the reader's
abruptly to a
Finally, it shifts
between the reader and
who now stands within and
for a witnessing community. Hence, the tripartite structure entails three reading modes:
with Nicodemus and Jesus; and dialogue
partner with Jesus and his community.
The Making ofa Metaphor-The Metaphors of John 3:1-15 I have traced the
'"""II"'v ....... ,....,
and drawn from that
of our imaginary first reader through the passage a number of observations about the text and the
strategies of its author implicit therein. Only now are we ready to turn to the central topic of the
The making of the
passage, I
found there. The
the way in which this author creates a metaphor,
fa'ihions a metaphorical experience for the reader, and places the reader in the midst of a metaphorical is
In this case, the construction of the metaphor
what I would like to calJ
(sometimes single
that
short uses of ....... )-, ........1-\""'
to refer to something
the commonplace
referent of the words. The process of that construction has a number of features, a few of which describe the way the text constructs EARTHLY PHENOMENA ItU!IA"!<' I ,;
me:ta~mGlr.
TRANSCENDENT RE'ALI11ES
the
of a metaphor in this case, as
the reader to consider two phenomena the phenomena are four
birth and
side
is side. In this passage
. birth and pneuma; wind and
spirit; lifted up for enthronement and lifted up for crucifjxion. rule of God is is named "eternal. strangeness of the reference to the
the
with an earthly kingdom and authentic human existence In each case, the metaphorical
the shock of
resides in the asked to consider one
and the provocative and open-ended character of the
The
3: 1-1 5
MQt/Wi/$!
Metaphor is created
37
phenomena from this earthly
existence 'rvith those of a transcendent realm. In particular, physical birth and birth from above
by
physical wind and the divine spirit, and
crucifixion and enthronement In this way, the metaphors have an earthly quality about
which in turn transforms the
into something more.
This leads us to a related feature of the passage, "defamiliarization.
of the metaphors in the
Obviously, the text requires the reader to deal
with the familiar phenomenon of birth and wind in unfamiliar ways. In the process the power of the familiar is altered and a new potency infused. Birth becomes new creation in a novel sense. Wind is broken open to reveal the work of the Spirit. Two ordinary
of "lifted up" are challenged
the
possibility that the two may become one. The text imposes on the reader the ne(:eS~Hty
to see the old and
consciousness is
in new ways. Their entrance into the reader's
their very
into the fortress of the reader's
But once having
they wreak havoc in his or her worldview.
But the {'<:nAni""'; of defamiliarization is not quite witnessed in the
entrance to what we have
of the reader. The familiar is not
make room for the new.
to
it is transformed by virtue of the metaphors,
sornetntnlg more akin to transfamiliarization. The result is that the phenomena of birth and wind remain familiar and
But now the familiar threatens to
carry within itself a transfamiliar reality-the reality of aniithen birth and the Spirit The familiar meaning of the image is not cast
once it is
defam iliari zed. Rather, the familiar retains an essential role in the process of transfamiliarization and ever carries the peril of becoming unfamiliar. METAPHOR OUT OF AMBIGUI1Y
Even more characteristic of the metaphors before us in the passage is the fact that they are constructed from the raw material of ambiguity
all poetic
B. B. Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A LOJrnmenf,ary on the Parables Jesus Mllnneap()Hs: Fortress Press. 277. W. A. Beardslee of the "deformation of lan.gua.fZ,e, a stre:tchmfZ, me ltapJll0r!ICai me,mnlg which shocked the hearer (the' dialogue (Literary Criticism New Testament Fortress Press, 19701 11). See R A. to Biblical (ptuladelphJa: Fortress Press, 1983) 199. Culpepper, Anatomy
38
"What is John?
metaphors
By ambiguity I mean the "verbal nuance ... which
alternative reactions to the same
of
"26
room for
The nuances of Jesus'
language breed tension and constantly compel the reader on in the text. What is clarified leaves something else vague. One hand offers the reader some advancement in understanding, while the other hand rudely takes it away by providing still another ambiguity. But in this passage it is
in
or surplus of
that the
metaphorical quality of the words of the Johannine Jesus is to be found. That the
of the new
from above with physical birth arises from the
the overflow of
11 ...,1.. . ,,11<1.,/
of the word anothen. Does it refer to
another physical birth or another beginning occasioned
transcendent forces?
Therein, as the reader, I am forced to ask how a spiritual rebirth is like a physical birth. The ambiguity of pneuma allmvs for an double meaning of
crucifixion by comparing it with a The surplus of 'CUI5U(:t5'"
of the
as wind. The
invites the reader to anticipate the mc:anJlflg of the enthronement.
in the spe~ecJhes
its metaphorical quality. Metaphor is crafted out of
should not
"'J"VIF,Y'~
us, since metaphor feeds on excess of meaning, often excess
that is never conscious until the surplus n'U'·-:.nllnH rCSRlIng in a
to
it.
the
of a shepherd who leaves ninety-nine
sheep to search for a single stray lamb evades pedestrian thought and explodes our consciousness when it is offered. But the metaphorical use of this passage is of
words or
in
rather than narrative. That is, it feeds on the rather than on ambiguous
narrative of one who is born and then
a ne\v
uu,v,to,y,
line. There is no oo;gH1IllJJng,
or of a child
A.llUn:rlUltv (New York: Directions, W. J'"""'F,'VIJ. of amolj.;(ult,y ",',nl~"f"~" in this passage appears to me to be a fourth and sixth types. He characterizes the fourth type as "two or more me,anjlngs of a statement Ithatl do not agree among themselves, but combine to make clear a more state mind in the author. The sixth type the reader "to invent statement.s of his I sic I own and are liable to conflict with one another" (133, 176). Our passage shows that the Jesus' and are cornpllca1ted. But it also invites the reader's own nnl'lgloatlve constructs.
The uJl~"'lE1,:>r, ... n
MQt/Wi/$!
about the sound and
of the passage are
3: 1-1 5
M€'Wl1flOr: Another l\,t;L,tUtlLk'
uU,i:.,U.':lU'"
f',,,,rn""HH'
and
39
of the wind. The metaphors
as opposed to narrative. adequate, since each of the words or
But that distinction may not be phmses miniaturizes a single basic
The narrative
of the metaphors
in this passage then may be implicit. (How easy it would create a story out of each of the
for
to
expressions of the
However, such a thesis demands further and separate attention which we cannot it is still the
afford on this occasion. Whether or not that thesis can be
ca<>e that metaphor in our passage is fabricated with the stuff of ambiguity. STACKED AND PROGRESSIVE METAPHORS
Another feature of the making of metaphor in John 3 is the way in which the are "stacked. The reader is systematically led to quest the resolution of the earlier metaphor in the next. BORN Anothen TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD leads to BORN OUT OF WATER AND SPIRIT leads to SPIRIT IS LIKE WIND leads to THE SON OF MAN BEING LIfTED The
of the author is to
lH~
upon
and each conceal the others. Image is superimposed on ecosystem of metaphor. Such a
letting each illumine a Iitemry
is not limited to our passage, for one can
witness just such a of in 10: 1-8. er,.",U>(1r\! may be found elsewhere in the Fourth
Furthermore, ev idence of that
Yet there is an implicit progression discernible in the sequence of the of our passage. The Spirit appears to be the key to the birth. But Spirit is
of the anothen
understandable in the context of the event of the
crucifixion-enthronement of the Son of man. There is no resolution of the metaphors, no eXI)jaJllatlon of the pamble, no delimitation of the reference. But
R. "Johannine Case of (Semeia 53; ed. R. A. John 10: 1-8, in The Fourth Culpepper and F. F. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 81-11 L
40
"What is John?
there is direction for the reader's contemplation of these that aU the previous
the passage
Ultimately,
must be considered in the light
of the crucifixion-enthronement and witnessing the communion of heaven and earth in that event. From a theological cross at the apex of the
the author has pJaced the
of the passage and of the discussion of entering
the kingdom of God. From a literary reader at this
the author has tantalized the
with the
climax of the entire narrative (the crucifixion-
The reader's
of Jesus' gJorious triumph has been
drastically qualified by the promise of a conclusion at the foot of the cross. JOHANNINE METAPHOR AND SYNOPTIC PARABLES
A finaJ, concluding observation about the making of metaphor in John 3: 1-15 entails consideration of Johannine metaphorical parables attributed to Jesus in the
and the narrative My
su~~ge:stlcm
is simpJy that
the two share a fundamental functional similarity. What we have come to think of as distinctive about the synoptic narrative parabJes is subtJy evident in the metaphors of this passage. Like the best of Jesus' diaphoricaJ as
oO[)os(~d
<;:Vflnrnl,'
parables, the metaphors of this passage are
Tnr,nUI_~lc1lt~lV
epiphors.
are both participatory in
invite the reader to share in the
the sense that
,1,"'£>["1<'>'-1.1
of meaning
and surprising in that they both make startling comparisons. The narrative parabJes and the dominion of
of 3: 1-15 both
another metaphor
in relationship with very different earthly
the Johannine metaphors share a quality with the narrative rv:"·'.l .... ,t:>~' if only in the sense that meaning resides in the tension among the four
of our passage. The
and the
of the lohannine rnlnl_lrn~HH~"
is evident insofar as the metaphors of this text have power to
initiate ne\v
as do the narratives told
attested in Jesus'
Jesus. The realism so well
is retained in John 3: 115 in the use of the familiar to
invite consideration of the transcendent. The pairing of parables common in the synoptics
Mark
is witnessed here in the
The implicit narrative character of the Johannine
of metaphors. hinted at
might
add still another possible common feature between them and the synoptic narrati ve parables.
The
MQt/Wi/$!
M€'Wl1flOr: Another l\,t;L,tUtlLk'
3: 1-1 5
41
I do not wish to venture d historical conclusion to a literary study. However, I propose may be
the possibility that the parabolic tradition associated with Jesus in d very different way in the metaphors attributed to him in
the Gospel of John.
Three Toward a Psycho-literary Reading of the Fourth Gospel* MICHAEL WILLET NEWHEART
In recent years lohannine scholars have shown
interest in the
literary study of the Gospel. This trend is perhaps best evidenced by the collection of essays in Semeia 53, entitled the Fourth In this
six scholars
a
the
using a
of literary methods, including narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism, and In his rhetorical-critical study of the Lazarus WHhelm Wuellner
su~~ge:sts
one way to put life back into critical readings of the
Gospel. Noting the bond between rhetoric and the emotive side of human nature, he calIs for the rehabilitation of psychological l
approaches. This article is an
to supplement the newer to take up Wuellner's
It
makes a case for a psycho-literary reading of the Fourth Gospel, that is, a psychological
of the reader's
shown how recent literary studies in the Fourth
of the Gospel. First, it will be seem to be
way for psychological analysis. Second, a psycho-literary model of be
Finally, some initial soundings will be made in a
reading of the
the will
os~vcrIO-.lI[emll"V
,-,\1.:>IJ\,.".
Current Literary Studies in the Gospel Current literary studies in the Gospel seem to be albeit toward consideration of n£"'" .... r.''".. fi.''''''' issues. The Semeia 53 volume on literary approaches to the Gospel is perhaps the best
to begin,
This research was made with support from the the Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education Howard I W. Wuellner, Ijfe Back into the L..az:arus Narrative Rhetoric of John 11 the Narration of Faith, in The Fourth Perspective (Semeia 53: cd. R. A. and F. F. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 199J) 119.
44
"What is John?
for a number of essays, in addition to
make reference to the emotions
of the reader, and others seem to carve out a psychological, as well as
for consideration of the
location of the reader. I would like to deal first,
then, with the essays by Robert Kysar, Fernando
and
which discuss the reader's emotional response to the
Staley, and then with
introduction to the volume and Tolbert's response, both of which address the reader's social location. It is
mtl~re:stJru:z
to note how often the words "emotion" and "affective" appear
in the Semeia volume,
these words lie on the pages of the essays still-born
and undeveloped. For "'1".''',,,,-,, in his essay on the Good
:Sh(~pherd
discourse,
Kysar notes how the reader's eXloerlerlce of the metaphors in this passage is "affecti ve" as well as
for they elicit "emotional instability" and
"shock" on the part of the reader.2 But \vhat is the nature of this '"affective resporlse~H!
Why do the metaphors elicit "emotional
has been
a good shepherd in calling these insights by name, but now they must be led out. in his essay on the plot of the
notes that one of the three axes
of a plot is a content-emotion axis. He contends that his own apt)rollch is mid\vay on this
with an
on the
cOI're~;pondj~nc:e
between
n~tti'rfl'"
of the narrative and the patterns of emotional response. s
then discusses
the didactic, polemical, admonitory, consolatory, and
functions
which the Gospel has for the reader respond
But nrl""""".ht how does the implied to the plot of the
polemical function, does it help the reader focus
If the has a If it has a COllS0,jatl[)ry
function, does it help the reader deal with sadness'! The therefore: How does the Word make the journey into the reader's
2 R. "lohannine Metaphor-Mieanm.!Z, and Function: A Case of John 10: 1-18, The Fourth a Literar.'l Perspective, 95-98. in his paper on John 3 (see above), does not discuss the reader's though he does note that the author entices the reader into ........... J'
of the Plot of the the Word of God: A " ... Perspective, 25-26. a ,1UUI6
5
Ibid., 49. Ibid., 47-49.
Newheart: Toward a
rS1~'C/lt()-jrlleral"V l\eW~lfj:,~
Fourth
45
Staley, in his essay on John 5 and 9, refers to :steonfm Moore's criticism that New Testament reader-critics' readings are retarded.
cerebral and
errlOlIOT1a1l
Staley admits that he is still stumbling and reaching in this regard.
Yet the reader of the Gospel narrative-whether implied or real, critical or as well as intellectually to the text. If critics are genuinely interested in "reader response," then they must plumb the affective as well as the l'/~,''Y"""tn;',,~ But what is the critic's own response to the narrative? Is the implied reader's response so cerebral because that is the critic's own response to the narrative? Critical is made both
then, must read themselves as well as the Gospel, a point which ,.'>(U,\\IICl
in his introduction and Tolbert in her response to the
collection from a literary
Both encourage readers to analyze their
own social location,
that a person's race,
politics will affect one's
l'-'U.~IIII,,"
of the text Yet
gender,
and
must be critical of their
psychological location as well. The psychological issues with which readers are wrestling will context
their
as
as social context Indeed, social of the "os;vc!nO-'S{)(:;lal
the
location of the reader, which must be analyzed along with the text. then, seems to be ps)!Cn,olO,gv. Reader-critics are
1'"\,...' ' ' ......... 1110
on the door of
to talk about the emotions which the
7 J. L. John 5 and 9,
Lfl,(Ulj:?nR~e (New Haven: Yale 1989) 95-98, 107-08. however. seems to catch his breath and walk more in later essay, aPlJropri.atelv entitled Passion, in which he notes that his childhood values affect his ll1t~erpretatJ{m I ""I"''''''I'fnHY with a Passion: John 18: 1-19:42 and the Erosion of the Reader, in SBL'sP 1992 Atlanta: Scholars Press, 19921 67). Ini\!p ..""iu
9 E E .,r;~"'V'LL from a 16-17; Tol bert, "A Response from a ibid., 209. See also E E "The Text American Hermeneutic," paper presented at the Casassa Conference on "Text and Toward a Cultural bxc:ges;ls of the Bible. Los March 1992, 11, 23-24. The of this conference will bc published Sheffield Press.
46
"What is John?
reader experiences, and they are calling for their colleagues to examine their own sJulauon. 'rvhich might include psychologicaJ as well as social location. The way seems clear for a
model for
the Fourth GospeL
A Psycho-Literary Model of Reading the Fourth Gospel Of what would such a model consist? In this
the Fourth Gospel. It would consist of two
psycho-literary model of elements: a literary
I will sketch a
COlnpon4~nt
and a psychological
component is analytical ""n.1f,.0'1
The
and the psychologicaJ COlmpoment is criticism contends that the meaning of a text is
First. determined
the interaction of text and reader. The reader is, therefore,
instrumental in shaping meaning.
criticism,
h"'.1!P1,IPr
a spectrum of approaches: from a text-dominant mode on the discusses the text's strategies and
takes in which
to a reader-dominant mode on the
left, which discusses the reader as an individual subject or member of an Int.C>.rnrl~t:::ltnlf~
community. 10 The psycho-literary model that I am
could function at either end of the spectrum. text-dominant mode,
it could
here from the
at the psychological situation of the "implied
the reader for whom the text is written. II What psychological moves does the implied author expect the implied reader to make? How does the rhetoric of the
effect these moves? But also it could function in the
reader-dominant mode, in
on the psychological situation of the real reader
the text. Such an
as an individual
';:)Ul.'I"''"'I.,
of the model
the reader
who brings to the text a unique set of psychological
"Towards a New Direction, 20-21; Tolbert, "KI~sp'Jnse, 204-05. This tenn has been Fvl.J.u .... u,~v'"' WOIH!,m£ Iser Reader: Patterns Communication in Prose Beckett IBaltimore: The Johns Int1JA",",hr Press, For a discussion of it, as weB as others such as "ideal reader" and "informed reader, see R M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Ke('].at'r-J(espOl'lse Criticism the Mark Fortress Press, 1991 26-40. Fowler concludes this discussion with his own "critical reader, which "has an individual persona (mine), a communal person (the abstracted total eX{)cfl,en(;e and a textual persona (the reader the text 1I
Newheart: Toward a
rS1~'C/lt()-jrlleral"V l\eW~lfj:,~
but it also
47
Fourth
that those issues have been shaped through the
subject's membership in an
to be asked
12
include, What is the reader's psycho-soeiallocation? What psychological issues does the reader
to the text? needs a
n£"r" ....
r."".fi."'C>'
method in order to plumb the reader's
psyche. The method I will employ is the analytical psychology of the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung. I have found his psychology personally and professionally
as I try to make sense of both my own DS\fCn'OJO'£HCal
issues and the psychological issues which the text raises. biblical scholars in the last twenty years or so have biblical texts
Jungian
12 Such a use of the OS\ICnO-1I1erarV with the intercultural model of also F. E
14
A
number of analyses of the
Furthermore, Jungian literary
",,..,,,,,,.£,>Yo
then, would go hand-in-hand ("Text as Other, 20-21; see of John 20:30-21:25, The
. ' . . . .""U1F,
DS'fCh,olc)gv is the Some very been scholars S. D. Moore, Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist Perspectives (New Haven: Yale 1992); "Deconstructive Criticism: 'rhe of the Mark," AD.vr()'aO'les in Biblical Studies (ed. J. C Anderson and S. D. Moore; Mln\1leaT>ollis: Fortress Press, 1992) 84- 102; and "Are There in the Water that the Johannine Jesus Dl!lpenSt~s'! Deconstruction, Feminism and the Samaritan Woman, Biblical lntl'trnretl~lti(m 1 (1993) 207-27. On Genesis, see L Rashkow, The ~11,(1I111t'·v Genesis: A Currents in Biblical Interr,retatJ.on: l.A)uisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993). in this of the New Testament (The Bible Human I'rtlfn"tnn:'1I1t,nn Biblical Fortress Press, is almost while his more recent work on the concept of the powers in the New Testament The Power in the New Testament Fortress Press. Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine Human and the Pmvers: Discernment and Resistance Mlnl1l~apolls: Fortress Press, that ,",H'VH(,,""""
48
"What is John?
which is nearly a century old, has years. IS
of a boom in the last 15
method is primarily a
method, for
believed that the
unconscious reveals itself in dreams, myths, folktales, art and literature.
In
a narrative, a reader
emotionally to the
plot, and rhetoric of the narrative. The reader is afraid when the protagonist enters into a dangerous '''~''',",,',HH', angry when the antagonist threatens the
and glad when the
emerges triumphant. In
ps'vctIOJe)gICaJ terms, these emotional responses are a result of the flow of libido, or psychic energy, in the unconscious.
The narrative hooks an inner
or
in his work on Paul
Aspects Rollins has written on the mtlerpret:atJc)n of the Bible (Jung and the Bible PS,,'chIDloglCal Henneneutics and the Bible, in D. L. Miller; New York: Continuum, torthc:OITlin:gl). ~CllU\'ler Brown has of aspects the of Matthew (HUniversalism and Particularism in Matthew's in SBLSP 1989 led. D. J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 19891 388-99) and John ("The Beloved A in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor N""h'JlII,v nlVUlo'-"JU Press, 1990J 366-77). I myself have written on ~X17IOJ"aflons 2 IFali 19881 77-92; "Word, and and the Interpretation
IPhiladel phia: Fortress Press, 19871).
15
S R P.
Criticism (Evanston: Northwestern Universiltv
Press, 1992) ix Criticism, 129-38) is most work to the fore. From a ps,lcll Darla!,'tlC Moore ("Deconstructive Criticism," similar observation: "The unconscious itself .rr",du,,,, hil\,I a realm of associations, surrealistic puns. Moore notes that he is indebted at this to I",acan, "Freud's foremost French I
in The
in Man, Art, and Series XX; Princeton: about the author artist a work: an
>lrd'lf't\m::tI
the finished work, By makes it possible for us to find our back
the deepest springs
aPt}rol:lch here, however, Tomp'Kuls notes, and
focused on the eXIJCfllen~;:e hands,
become
Newheart: Toward a
rS1~'C/lt()-jrlleral"V l\eW~lfj:,~
49
Fourth
and the reader ,/< '-' ''''''~" that image onto the
an archetype, in the reader's
then, is emotionally bound up with a character or situation
narrative. The
in the narrative, Furthermore, the reader becomes caught up in conflict between characters because it expresses the contlict between the reader's own inner 'U>("S"''''
When a character with whom the reader identiHes triumphs over V'J'IJ"',""~.
the reader feels triumphant over the inner conflict. The narrative, then, has a compensatory function in the reader's psyche, in that it some conscious attitude in the reader's psyche.
I8
or corrects
For
a reader may feel
frustrated because he or she feels alienated from compensated
but such a feeling is
a narrative in which the protagonist is a loner \vho is vindicated
in the end. I9 A reader's emotional response to a narrative will depend not only on the rhetoric of the narrative and the \vay in which the author directs the reader, but
as two names for the same ("An Introduction to ReaderCriticism, in Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism 1Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 1980 I Yet i"I"'HJ.~hr\lr"." and L..iterature, The seems to grasp this work of
act upon us us
To grasp its meaning.
shaped him, Then we also underst.and the nature of
must
primordial
of the
the
whole,
Jung viewed this idea of COJlnpem;atlon as a "law of and when he set out to asked: What conscious attitude does this dream in The Practice lrcznste,.,em~e and Other vv•.v,"' .... J
also noted that art serves to compensate for conscious attitude of an age (HOn the Relation "1J,'''Jr.ho.lrvnl and Literature,
imbalance in the to 82-83;
I lise this in Meeks' influential article, "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism" (JBL 91 11972144-72), in which he argues that the Johannine of Jesus as an alien in this world is a prC)le<;Uc)O of the alienation which the lohannine cOl:nnmruty pVl'~prl"'n/~p in the aftennath from the synagogue, it also be said that such an intl~rpret,ati(}I1 of the Johannine is Meeks' own prC)le(:tw,n of his alienation from as scholar'?
50
"What is John?
also on the nS'v'CfIO-:..O(:lal
location of the reader. Readers from different locations "vill have different
with the inner
("H.t",'"'''',
and they will project different things upon the text. A person's social context will shape how one responds to the of which one is a
in a
for the
will affect one's
of the narrative.
Such a community sets down rules as to how a narrative is to be read and what responses are
Readers'
educational status, and A
, race, sexual orientation,
will influence their emotional response. comes to a narrative
complexes, and of the inner
with all his or her
Each person comes \vith a and
according to his or her experience. A
different
upon them
unconscious
then, will
determine one's conscious
of the text. A reader attempts to resolve his or
her
A person reads in order to move toward
through
wholeness.
2o
A critical reader, then, must be sensitive to his or her emotional response to the narrative. How does the narrative evoke such a response from the reader? What is it about the rhetoric of the narrative that evokes such a response? What images call forth such a
Yet the reader must be critical of one's own
response to the narrative. How has this response been context in which one is a
by the social
What emotional issues are prC)le.cted upon the
narrative? How can these images in the narrative
one move toward
wholeness? Such is the constructed. It consists of
model of reading a narrative which I have rea.aelr-n!SpOn1~e
theory, which finds meaning in the
interaction between text and reader, with emphasis on the reader's experience. Another major component is analytical psychology, which understands one's emotional response to a narrative as a result of
energy from the
Sec Ralph Maud, who, under thc influence of Jamcs Hillman, contends that a person SUII[enngs of the soul" to the a book. "We sit down with a serious sornethwl,g of oursel yes to work on: we move toward the CX.IJCfllcn,:;c with our sorrows, all our woe" Criticism and Criticism,
Newheart: Toward a
rS1~'C/lt()-jrlleral"V l\eW~lfj:,~
unconscious occasioned by the
pr()ie(;tj(]~n
51
Fourth
of the reader's inner images on the
text.
The Model Applied: Toward a Psycho-Literary Reading of the Fourth Gospel How, then, can this model be applied to the reader's
of the Fourth
Gospel? Time and space will permit only a sketch, but I will first
attention
of the characters of the Gospel, and then I will discuss
to the reader's
of the
how a reader's psycho-social location might affect the
narrative. Characters to be considered will include first Jesus, then those who believe in
and finally '"the Jews.
location, I wiJ] first
In my discussion of psycho-social
my own
how those from other
location and then highlight
locations might read the Gospel differently.
discussion of characterization in the Gospel must character of
for he strides through the narrative like a colossus. He is the
Messiah and the Son of
but he is also the Word become flesh, the only Son
from the Father; he comes dmvn from long
with the
\vorks miraculous
and returns to the world above through death,
ascension, In other
.vv~nJJ".
and
Jesus is presented in the narrative as a numinous, he is the symbol of the Self, which works
archetypal figure. In Jungian toward wholeness in the character of
speaks in
21
The reader
this
onto the
and thus is established an emotional bond between this
character and the reader. This bond is termed "faith" in the narrative. It has certain
.d,:.,c.'"""",,,,'
God is Jesus
C()mpOll1erlts, such as
that the ,...."':h,,"... the Son of
), but it also includes affective
I,
15:9-10;
such as love
peace (14:27;
17: 13; 20:20). Believing in Jesus means
an emotional
connection with him. This connection between Jesus and the reader is formed ........""."... I u through Jesus'
which both
his actions and supports the narrator's
21 For an extended discussion of the Self in Use of For Christ J ung refers to the Self as "the n"I,,,/,,,·,' t"~wcjhoIIJQ'v to 469).
52
"What is John?
speech. Jesus, hmvever, does not use ordinary
but rather archetypal
that stir the reader's emotions. I "viii highlight three imagistic speech: sensory images such as
ral,nelh~ILJn:
such as bread, water, and light; relational and spatial images such as the '''....... ".~, from above.
Through the
Jesus draws the reader into his bosom.
First, in his
Jesus uses various sensory
light, and vine. These npl'I,~rl{,p
of Jesus'
such as bread, water,
have positive associations for the reader through
in the world: Bread and water
hunger and thirst
4: 1
and vine emph,asl:les connectedness
the reader is a\vare that these images
are associated in the Jewish tradition with God's relationship to the people of God
55:
Ps 80:8-18). They, therefore, are already
_...,.. ,..,~,_ for the reader; they evoke warm feelings and help facilitate the reader's identification with God as
of the Self. In his
Jesus
to himself, often through HI am" sayings, and the emotion
applies these projected onto these
is now projected onto Jesus, with the result that the
bond between him and the reader is cemented. Jesus'
are not only drawn from the sensory world but also from the
world of human
He describes his relationship with God by naming
God as Father, a name which scandalizes his opponents because it means that he is making himself equal to God
18). Yet the reader feels warmly toward Jesus
and associates him with God. Jesus further defines his calJing himself the Son and claiming an intimate characterized is touched
knowledge, will, and love this
with God by with the
esp. 5: 19-29).22 The
then,
of Father and Son; it evokes the reader's own longing
for a deep sense of connection with his or her
Jesus carries a relationship
with his parent for which the reader yearns, and thus the reader is further bonded to Jesus. In addition to sensory and relational
Jesus also uses
to bring the reader into relationship with him: he says that he is on a journey from above. Jesus is not of this world, but he has come down from above 17:14,
see also 3:31).
therefore, is the
22 See also M. E. Willett (Nc:whearO. Wisdom Francisco: Mellen, 68-74.
I1rl'\'ifl!/nc,'v
who is not
in the Fourth
(San
Newheart: Toward a
rS1~'C/lt()-jrlleral"V l\eW~lfj:,~
from this concrete world but from the eg()-CIOmicH)Usne~;s
53
Fourth
world, not from this
but from the unconscious. As the Other, he evokes awe from
the reader, so that the reader too is confronted with the unconscious and forced to come into relationship with it Although Jesus has come into this world, he does not become a permanent resident of it Rather, he returns to the world above through death, and ascension. Indeed, these events constitute the hour of Jesus' glOlflnlcaltlOlil. in 'rvhich he returns to the Father
13:31
the world through mcarnlatJ 0n, works 1
world, and then
Jesus,
into
and speaks in discourses while in the
out of the world through death, resurrection, and of the Word "''''''''tI'i,:.£'
ascension. As the overall framework for the plot of the calls
the
tale, \vhich provides the interpretive
the historical tale of the power" of the
for
she notes the "affective tale.
The tale derives its power because it touches
upon an archetypal theme in the reader's unconscious, that of the journey.26 Jesus' journey is not just a
from Galilee to
but
a cosmic journey, from above to below and back to above. The reader is moved by the image of this cosmic journey, for it leads the reader to follow Jesus into the world
the world of the
the world of the unconscious.
Jesus' speech, then, functions to bring the reader into relationship with through his use of various images such as
water, and
through his
statements about his intimate relationship with God, and through his references to his journey from above to below and back to above. The reader is thus bonded with Jesus. This bond which the reader has with Jesus is lived out in the narrative those characters who believe in him, such as the disciples, the man born blind
UJourney(s) of the Word God, 33. A. Reinhartz, The Word in the World: The LO.W1UJtO,f
54
"What is John?
and the Samaritan woman. The character who has an exemplary relationship \vith Jesus is not identified
name but is simply called "the disciple whom Jesus
loved." He is first introduced as reclining in the bosom of Jesus the care of Jesus' mother at the cross (19:26); he risen
21
already
when Peter is told by Jesus to (21
Gospel (21
he is that Jesus is
the beloved disciple is
and this disciple is the foundational witness for the
The reader is drawn to the beloved disciple, for he
kind of relationship with Jesus that the reader
the
to have "vith the Self. With
this Gospel, then, the beloved disciple takes the reader into the bosom of which is a
of intimacy, of \varmth, of care. The beloved disciple, then,
facilitates the emotional bond between the reader and Jesus. 27 The other
do not seem to experience the kind of
that the beloved disciple does. Indeed, they misunderstand, question, doubt, and even
Nevertheless, with the singular
t;;h~l,;t;;I.JU~H1
(along with the in faith. Their
of
whom Jesus
71; I
the disciples
but rather the reader feels
do not alienate the
an even closer identification with them and with Jesus. The reader too desires union with the Ultimate but feels anxious about that relationship. These and anxieties are orCtiected onto the disciples, and the successful resolution of their faith resolves the reader's faith too. The reader believes through the disciples. The reader views other characters who come to faith in Jesus in much the same way. The reader identifies with the Samaritan woman, the man born blind, and Martha, and Mary
all of whom overcome various
obstacles in order to come to faith. The reader
frustration with these
characters for their momentary lack of faith or understanding but also experiences
and relief when they come to believe. They carry for the reader
his or her faith in Jesus. While the reader identiHes with characters who believe in
he or she is
alienated from those who reject him. These include individual characters such as Judas and Pilate, but the collective character: hoi lOu'aaJ!Ol.
27
For an extended
Disciple."
of Jesus in the narrative is a translated "the Jews" or "the Judeans.
treatment of the beloved
Ul"'~11J1,""
see Brown, "Beloved
Newheart: Toward a
rS1~'C/lt()-jrlleral"V l\eW~lfj:,~
Also called "the Pharisees"
13, 16), they continually appear in the narrative
"vith Jesus
OCloat'mg
18; 7:
5: 1
et
seek to kill him
and finally succeed by clamoring for Pilate to
their King is not Jesus but Caesar (19: and children of the devil "'The Jews,
him,
that
Jesus says that they are blind (9:40-41)
Characters who believe in Jesus do not express
their faith openly because they are afraid of "the Jews" 20:
55
Fourth
13;
I
evoke fear and anger from characters in the narrative,
and the reader feels the same emotions toward them.
carry the reader's
the sum total of what one refuses to acknowledge about himself or The
the archetype of the Self onto Jesus and
the shadow onto "the Jews." The reader must read the
no.· ..otH-'C.
then, with a
divided consciousness: alienation toward "the Jews" through anger and
and
identification \vith Jesus through love, peace and The
therefore, encounters various characters in the narrative such as
the
and "the Jews." The reader
alienation from them,
identification with or
onto them the inner
identiHes with Jesus and feels
The reader
toward him because he is the symbol of
the Self. The reader also identifies with the
u . .,'¥,.,,, ... _,
and others who come to
faith in Jesus, for they express the ego moving tm\'ard union with the Self. And the reader is alienated from "the Jews" and is angry with them, because they carry the shadow. I have been
rf"tPITlnO
"implied
in this essay to the reader as the '"implied reader. The is a construct-one might say,
real reader. A real reader "'. . . 'du." ......" ,
his or her own responses, both intellectual and
onto the "implied reader." When I
that
the
of the Gospel narrative. As a
the
in this paper, then, of "the
I am reaJIy
of myself as a reader
I come out of a PaJrtIc:uhu psycho-social
location. I am a white, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian academic
in providing
educated male education for those
considered marginalized in society. I struggle with emotional issues surrounding Mother and Father complexes, and I have found analytical
of
For a brief discussion of the shadow. "The Shadow, in Aion: Researches ed.; The Collected Works C G. 9/2; into the the Bollingen Series XX; Princeton: Princeton Press, 1969) 8-10.
56
"What is John?
assistance in dealing \vith those issues. of the Gospel. I
my reading
psycho-social location, then, shapes .rl,"'nftl',\!
with the character of Jesus in the
Gospel because his pro,tessed sense of intimacy with God, whom he calls Father, meets my own sense of longing for parental connection. delDICILed as an Other "not from this world," which
Jesus is to my own
sense of alienation from the religious tradition in which I grew up and from at large. Readers from other
locations \vill respond differently to the
Gospel than I do. For example, they will identify with different characters and situations in the narrative. They will also construct the implied reader in varying ways,
In
"'I"".~U'I'"
their own emotional responses onto that construct. Furthermore,
they wiII come to a certain relationship with the implied reader, either accepting the claims of the implied author or rejecting readers.
All such responses,
thus becoming
arc grounded in the
location out of which the reader approaches the narrative. A reader's psychological and social issues wiII shape how he or she
to the
narrative. To take two examples, women and Jews will read the Gospel differently from the way I as a Christian man do. A woman \vho derives fulfillment through in the characters in the
church will her
strongly with the female toward the church onto the
character of Jesus. Another woman, however, who feels estranged from the church because of its patriarchy will not accept Jesus as a symbol of the Self. She will feel angry toward him because of his exclusive use of male and he becomes for her the bearer of the church's
for God, patriarchy.
Jewish readers wiIJ not identify with Jesus but rather with "the Jews"; they will feel angry toward Jesus and wannly toward "the Jews." For the Je\vish reader, the Gospel narrative and the character of Jesus
the seeds of
Christian anti-Semitism.
The term Feminist
reader" is from Judith American Fiction Indiana For a this idea and an to the of Mark, see R. Fowler, "l{c~ader-Jt{esipoll1se Criticism: Mark's Reader, Mark and Method. 73-81.
Newheart: Toward a Other
rS1~'C/lt()-jrlleral"V l\eW~lfj:,~
could be mentioned.
homeless persons, and
57
Fourth
homosexuals,
school students "vill all have different reading
strategies from one another and from me. But also those within particular social locations have various psychological locations. Everyone comes at the from a
location. For
cle'DrC:SSIon might be drawn to the
a reader struggling with
of light in order to find relief from the
enveloping psychological darkness. Another might see Jesus' pOJlenllc
\vith anger toward authority
"the Jews" as a vehicle for
anger. Someone else struggling with grief about the .".,.!" ",.r.1
"'>fHf'C>
be attracted to the narratives
of Lazarus and Jesus' own resurrection. All readers read for I
wholeness. for resolution of unconscious ",,-,.u,,,,,,,~'J, for relationship
with the Self. A critical
then, will be critical not
narrative but also
of oneself as reader. One will examine one's own
location and its
effect on one's reading. What emotional issues does one that narrative? What
to the
of
of the narrative stand out, and how do those
meet one's emotional needs? How does one respond to Jesus as he interacts with the disciples and "the
" and how do those interactions express one's own
unconscious issues? The implied author asks the reader, just as Jesus asks the first two disciples: "What are you looking for" (I
Conclusion A psycho-literary
then, further extends the interest in literary studies It takes
in the Fourth
a reader's emotional response to the
narrative. This psycho-literary model of reading takes as its literary component criticism and as its psychological When applied to the
analytical
this model considers the implied
reader's dual response to the narrative: identification with Jesus as a symbol of the Self and alienation from "the Jews" as a collective shadow figure. A psycho-literary
realizes that real readers will have different
responses to the narrative based on their
location. I will allow Carl
J ung the last word: and But they will read it with much more into their own Blind are the eyes of anyone who does not know his
58
"What is John? own heart, and I that he can understand
463;
ap[HlcatJ()n of a little DS'lcnOlc.gv still better. 30
Letters (voL I; tlOHlIlgen Series XCV: Princeton: Princeton Press, 1973) in RoHins, Henneneutics and the Bible, 1.
Four Reading Myself, Reading the Text: The lohannine Passion Narrative in Postmodern Perspective JEFFREY LLOYD STALEY
of John's until the reader has "INol one has ever done received, as a vital the message of the vv'ork and has felt its his own life and existence. -Crossan "lam
of St John as an Indian. this Indian hyt)otlhetllcal ,,,",, .. >t ••• n,,,,,", I have This Indian is -Amaladoss
"1'_"'-'''''''
but it may also be a neurosis or
is a
-Freund
Re-Readillg Reader Criticism: Experiments in the New Testament Reader~response
literary criticism and
criticism has survived as a theory for
defined subfield of years now. l But its impact
upon biblical criticism began to be felt only about ten years ago. Instead of author-centered like so much of earlier literary and biblical criticism
An earlier version of this in the 1992 SBL Seminar with a Passion: John 18: 1-19:42 and the Erosion the SBL Passion Narrative and Tradition in where respolnd(:d to it. I wish to thank those scholars for their ,..,,,,'fthlth.1 eSilCClally John Carroll, who invited me to present my work to that group. A still more de'/el()ne~d version of this essay will be part of a entitled, with Passion: Formalist fleluat!r-l,e~p()Jn.}e Criticism and the Fourth I
title,
60
"What is John?
had
been - instead of
such as, "What is the context which best explains what this author is criticism purports to be audience-centered. It
trying to doT has been interested in
related to the effect of narrative upon audiences,
theories of how texts effect particular responses, and illustrations of how a narrative can be transformed by the psychology of the individual reader or by particular
communities.
When
criticism burst onto the American
scene in the
1970s, its popularity grew quickly. In contrast to most earlier
reader
criticism v{as keenly interested in describing and analyzing the
side
of literature. The new breed of doctoral candidates in the late 1960s had had their mettle tested in protests the Vietnam war, heal.
the military-industrial
the draft,
and "'''''''''''''', and had seen how rhetoric could harm and
had lived life with
and zeal and had developed a distrust and
distaste for ordered power structures. Now that they found themselves tenurously seated on the other side of the classroom desk, backs to the chal kboard, audience-oriented criticism was the natural, mentors' clinical, who thought they could and
reaction to their
approach to literature. The old "New Critics" texts apart from their political, social, ethical,
effects were nearly extinct. A new
out of the
of reader was crawling
slime. to this development in English
United
across the
in the late 1970s many battle-tested New Testament
1"""""-'"1.>""'"
2 In about literary critics' disenchantment. with mUTatolc)g:v Christine BrookeRose ("Whatever to Poetics 11 [ 284~ my em,ph;asi!s) argues:
.. .the chief problem
to be
arising not from inherent universal
but from them the
immediate and una!loyed pleasures that had
the canon
histories of literature
them to
If one were to take out her reference to "universal structures, "structures" itself, her observation would the earlier reaction of criticism to New Criticism (see S. R. Suleiman, "Introduction: Varieties of Audience-Oriented Criticism, in The Reader in the Text: on Audience and Ied, S, R. Suleiman and L Crosman; Princeton: Princeton Press, 1980] 3-4).
61
and raw recruits just finishing their
Y,,",.;:;'J
""""'~
were se,lrclhinl2 for an antidote to the
hardline historical sourcery that had vivisected the biblical text and sucked out its readerly impulse. Having been inaugurated into literary criticism precision of structuralist
these scholars were soon
rhetorically-oriented "vorks of
Booth,
the up the
Iser, and the important
collections of reader-response articles edited by Susan Suleiman and Inge Crosman, Jane Tompkins, and others. The omens for
to be
M(!pfllen Moore names this new breed of scholars and dissects their work up through 1988 in his chapter entitled "Stories of Reading: Doing Gospel Criticism as/with a
and
ne\v names
be added to his list,
the reader-oriented critics' ... IJII-"')'...... '''~" to the Bible have not changed much in the intervening years. In contrast to their English Department
across the hall, who
believed reader-oriented criticism was a much needed corrective to New Criticism's one-sided,
emphasis on "the poem
Testament scholars initially saw the more synchronic, tOlm,ll1~;t, ....,,"''''F,.'''''.... aplDr0 aCJrtes as offering a way to hover 1
W. Booth, The Rhetoric
., New
n~aGler··or]erlre(l,
over "the text
Press, Reader: Patterns Press, 1974) and The Act oj to Beckett (Baltimore: The Johns t<elldt,rUI: A Aesthetic (Baltimore: The Johns Press, 1978)~ Suleiman and Crosman, The Reader in the Text; S. F\e(:UU:.'r-I~eS.I)()lrISe Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Slrucluralism (Baltimore: ini'IPr<.itv Press, 1980). See also U. Eco, The Role the Reader: EXl)lm"tlti,ons in the Semiotics Press, 1979); S. Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? Press, 1980); S. Mailloux, Conventions: The Reader in Cornell Press, 1982); J. Culler, On Deconstruction: Press, 1982); R Holub, f(e(:ept'lOll Structuralism (Ithaca: Cornell Critical Introduction (New York: Methuen, t<e,aa£~r-J'(espOJflse Criticism (New York: Methuen, 1987). Criticism and the vv.;'p"':.>, The Theoretical LnaUI~n!!.~e (New 71 -107. Haven: Yale
"What is John?
62
itself' and breathe new life into it. s search for the
super,
as New Testament scholars
encoded, implied" reader
to
and under
the biblical text, they seemed to have had a threefold hope. First and foremost, they hoped that the analysis of biblical texts as narratives (complete with narrator,
and plot) could dra\v back
into one loaf the
trajgmlentary crumbs of texts left over after historical-critical methodologies had Texts would be interpreted as unified wholes. 6 Texts would be seen as mirrors and not only as windmvs to the past. Secondly, these New Testament Scholars hoped that the of dimensional
of the
affective and
worlds could add a third dimension to their mentors' two on historical events and
concerns. Text
pragmatics would replace text semantics. And thirdly, the scholars hoped that
5 As Moore puts it so well: "The impression criticism, as students and scholars .. .is that secular dJSI::lplme pre:oC(~lIp!leC1 with the of text and the autonomy (ibid., 11; see also 50-55). See R Fowler, "Let the Reader Understand'" ~el,Wt'r-/{eSfJOI'1Se Criticism and the Fortress Press, 1991) 9-12; M. A. Powell, Wluu Is Narrative Criticism? Fortress Press, 6-21; R Detweiler and V. K. Robbins, "From New Criticism to Posts tructurali sm: the Text: Biblical Criticism and Literary Twentieth Hermeneutics, in (ed. S. Prickett; Basil Blackwell, 1991) 248-252; and H. Boers, "Narrative Criticism, Historical Criticism, and the of John, JSNT 47 1992) 37 -38, 43-44. For note the unitarian emph;;lslS in R Fowler, Loaves and Fishes: The Function Stories in the (SBLDS 54; Chico: Scholars Press, R C. Tannehill, The Narrative Phllad1eJpJrua: Fortress Press, 1986); and R A. CuhJeppler MnUJ'{}/y,/V (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). New Testament Critics Fortress Press, 1978) 19; S. Moore, '''Mirror, Mirror... Lacanian Reflections on Mal bon 's Mark, in Textual (Part (Semeia 62~ cd. R C. and R R Robinson; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 168. 1. L The Print's First Kiss: A Rhetorical Reader in the Fourth (SBLDS 82; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); Fowler, "Let the Reader The Understand'" W. Wuellner, "Putting Ijfe Back into the L..azarus Narrative Rhetoric of John 11 and the Narration Faith, in The Fourth Perspective 53; ed. R. A. Culpepp
63 this new approach could
gap between the academician
studying the text as artifact and the
10\1'n." .. ,,,,"
The Bible would be a book interpreted
rCamIlIi!
the text as article of faith.9
laity and scholars alike
its correctly
power. of
Without a doubt,
criticism in the New
Testament have been firmly rooted in formalist literary theory and rhetorical studies. They have
that markers in the text itself guide and
manipulate readers' responses. The role of the reader critic, then, has been to uncover and expose the New Testament narratives' rhetorical
and to
make them obvious to the otherwise unsuspecting, hventieth century reader.1O written in 1985 and published in 1988, fell into this l,er-respOll1se criticism but with some subtle twists. In it I explored the purpose of \vhat I interpreted to be a "reader victimization" strategy in the Fourth
those
where the narrative forced the reader to the wrong
conclusions (like false leads in a detective novel),
to correct the reader's
mistakes later on. But like its older sister in the secular realm, biblical has watched many of its early adherents
rea,delr-rt~SJ)omie
criticism
away from formalist, rhetorical
constructions of readers to nest with feminist,
and other
understandings of readers. Along the way, more and more weight is
to the "real reader" -either the elite,
trained, late twentieth-century Western
reader, or the feminist
or
Press, 1991) 40-54; J. E. Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Act 4:1-42 65; New York: E. J. Brill, 1991). Cn,Etllcngt!S of Text and Reader to the Historical-Critical Method, The Bible and Its Readers (ed. W. Beuken, S. and A. Weiler; l"hllad1clpllua: Press, 1991) 3-12; and L. White, "Historical and Criticism: BTB 13 (1983) 32-34. Hasn't KCiaae:r-t(eSpOllse Criticism on in New Testament 278-283; more see his Studies?" Journal l{eadt~r-l'{espolilse Criticism and New Testament A to A. C. Thiselton's New Horizons in Hermeneutics," 9~102. Sec The Print's First Kiss, 27-49; F. J. Fourth M1l1neapC)1rs: Fortress Press, 1993) 5-6, the Word: "'-<''''''''''0 9-]3; and Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 188200.
64
"What is John?
the third postcolonial reader. From these more recent those earHer ",n,"r",nr, of reader criticism in biblical studies have been criticized for the same reasons that they had been criticized in literary critical circles: for not
being reader-centered at all, but for being just as text-centered as \vas
New Criticism. II Even in those places where the
biblical rea,delr-f($p,on~;;e
critics did talk of "readers" and the rhetorical responses that a narrative seeks to elicit from its own
what they \vere really talking about was
their
critical moves, lightly masked behind the
technical language of rhetoric and narratology. To some scholars, the turn toward CU''l,'1"1 ri'\'n I" reader-oriented
and ~n~lIV"/'~"
of
New Testament narratives appears to be a radical reaction to rwn.hl,~,tnc left in the wake of historical-critical methodology. Yet biblical has generated a number of
criticism
responses even from those scholars who,
like
arc disenchanted with historical-critical methods. 12 One of the
most
criticisms leveled against biblical
criticism
comes from feminist and liberationist interpreters. These interpreters are quick to point out that the critic's social location has
not been taken into
Criticism, in Postmodernism and Politics Minnesota Press, 1986126) notes,
J.
Arac~
Ialthough] reader-response criticism often presents itself a corrective to formalist or intrinsic criticism!, tjhis explanation ... does not altogether adequate. On the one hand, formalism and New Criticism are already discredited in theoretical circles that there seems little need for another round of abuse. On the other hand. much reader-response criticism turns out to be a notational variant of that very formalism so roundly rejected. An antifonnalist theoretical stance invoked to uphold a neo- or covertly formalist practice is a contradiction not altogether unfamiliar these days, and one which suggests that in addition to the dead horses being flogged, there must be some live ones running around escaping notice. must turn outward, beyond the corral. See also The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews ..\tr,all'pu?'s. LJ'talOf,?J'Jes Hal'aS'/m: New York: 1990) 50-52, lolumnine Faith and Westminster Press, 115; Powen, What Is Narrative Criticism? 9l-1 0 I; W. Wuellner, "Is 'rhere an Encoded Reader in Reader the New Testament (Semeia 48; ed. E. V.. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 41; Porter, Hasn't
98-107.
65 account by the
the readerly
"""'"!,"''' 13
In our
to be part of the biblical critical guild, v{e reader critics have sacrificed one of the truly
insights of
to the reading of
criticism
rea] readers bring
for "scientific" (read "formalist"), exegetical
From this critical
of the
the technical
reader as "in the text" as an "implied
or as an "encoded
merely phrases which, once demythologized, betray the individual
" are mtt~roirett~r
unfocused ideological and political interests. These "readers" are not elements of texts at all. Instead, they are rhetorical devices audience of the """"H,r>7 interpreter to convince an elite interpretation. 16 So Temma Berg can write
in ""'-'"il'-'''''''. biblical
rea.(telr-n~spom~e
criticism
needs: at the words "reader" and "text" and "in" and re-examine The reader in and not in the text. The reader can never because Hreader" and sep~arated from the texts that surround him, "text" are but also because the reader is an active orcKlucer of what she reads. The text exists that the reader may fiJI it. The to
A "l{lespon~'ie from a CUl:opiean IJ""·<·~,,,,,'I.,,.,. Literar.}, jJPl',"nprtn!J> 195-196; 'l'olbert, .. Ke~sPC'nse 15 Moore, Literary Criticism and the VU'JJ"OIJ, Wuellner, HIs There an Encoded Reader . Daniel Biblical the Bible L..ike/As Woman, Diacritics 20 see Post-Modern Use the Bible: The Reader-Oriented Criticism (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988) 14-19, 161-162.
66
"What is John? reader stable
that the text may till her, Neither the reader nor the text has center~ both the reader and the text may be
Ann Tolbert's criticism of my work sounds a similar refrain. She writes: reader masks .. .is the critic himself:
"What
np'"IPT1{,P
~n!~lv .. t"
an
no"'" ""'L~''''-
made
reader of any
of the modern biblical critic."18 Here Tolbert is echoing
Stephen Moore, an argument which was first put fonvard of his own
poststructuralist evaluation of
"affective
"19
Moore's
criticism in New Testament
studies concluded: Irl(~ader-resDollse
criticism of the
,,",v.JOJ...,J,
because it is an
that has worked
pnt,prnn<;p
with reader constructs that are "pn[<;ltlvpllv per"mlSSllbJe critical That is reader-oriented exegeses can often read like the familiar critical renditions of the biblical reader Yo(:aol,IlaI'V The reader of audiencereader. lLs parents are mainstream criticism is a exe:ges:JS on the biblical side, and reader in the text formalism on the nonbiblical side ]20 f
are clear and unambiguous. Warning: Reading in Process. Wash your
disinfect your
and check your
effects at the door.
But on the other side of the critical debate, Tolbert and Moore, of Bruce Malina. While he can agree ,\·ith Tolbert that it is ,,~"".~'"'! to force rea,delr-n~spom~e critics and readers out from stands the social world
behind their individualistic and anachronistic reading masks, he has problems with the
diverse world of New Testament
Tolbert and Moore laud. From Malina's point of
which the high value Tolbert
17
"l{~espom)e from 206. Moore, Literary Criticism and the 134-136; Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? 2167, 147-173. See Christopher Norris, What:5 with Postmodemism: Critical and the Ends (Baltimore: The Johns hlr.,~v,,~~ Press, 1990) 79-83; and Porter, 20 Moore,
67 on pluralistic and individualistic J'-'U'\..lUj~~ is just another
and Moore
middle-class American values different, ancient Mediterranean world. 21
forced upon a
Malina's defined, cultural-anthropological model of is one in which f'£',ntf~,ty\." ...", .., considerate readers who value "U.S. taflrne,ssU';'''- wiJJ make the effort to bring to their place and culture of the biblical author."
the
a set of scenarios proper to Prom Malina's perspective,
models that fail to make this effort are sinfuJly ethnocentric,24
inconsiderate. 25
the fairness
seems to lost in the and "'''''f....",''r\,'''..... reaoHllgs.
rhetoric directed
and
doctrine to which he
"'""'.JlJh'U,,",,
particularl y at
In spite of the many important hermeneutical issues that seJJarate social world critics like Malina from reader-response critics like poststructuralist critics like
, and from
we aU nevertheless share a common rhetorical
purpose: to radically undercut the churchly ordinariness of the text-that presumed connectedness of the biblical \vorld with our own religious subculture-in order to confront the New Testament as other, as an aJien thing. 26 The social world
for their
do this by setting the biblical text in an
ancient Mediterranean social context \vith a
UlllJrl(lgeaOJle chasm between
B. J. Malina, l."uke-Acts," in The Social World Luke-Acts: Models H. MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 18-19,21. Ibid., 22. See Moore's evaluation of North American caIJitalist economy and its influence upon biblical (Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist reJrSvectlves: Press, 19921 148-149). Jesus to Write INew Haven: Yale Malina, " 16. 24 Ibid., 23. 25 Ibid., 17. ~VUIJJ"U'-' this with comment: "A reader-oriented ap[}rOllCh :;I{·l(nn'Lvlf"rlO'/~.<: that the contemporary reader's of the text is not the the ancient author and/or the ancient readers. This is not LJV""Hllv. necessary, or desirable" (Post-Modem Use Bible, 150, also 151-54). See Moore's discussion of in Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist Perspectives, 61-62, 74-75,
C. Osiek, "The Social Sciences and the Second Testament Problems and
BTB22
68
"What is John?
it and our own world. 27 They may provide drop of water to cool their
readers with a critical
but that cultural chasm is one which only
their own prophets can cross with ease.
some
critics-and particularly poststructuralist critics-undercut the ordinariness to the biblical text to jarringly juxtaposing it to an
collection to
contemporary
theorists and intertextual reading But let me a different illustration of this rhetorical phenomenon from a related field: that to historical Jesus research. I find it not at all
surprising that the Robert W. Funk-inspired Jesus Seminar has recently, in the final decade before the end of the second millenium, "discovered" that the n"n_~lru''''5\I''T\fH'
historical Jesus was a profoundly prophetic, transform and revitalize out against the popular
figure
to
This peculiarly l.ukan-sounding Jesus tell:Vl:slon-eVal[lg(~Hst
which is
saturated by a gross apocalypticism, a mode of Christianity which is largely uninterested in
for or
the
world and its
But compare this latter-day reconstruction with Albert Schweitzer's turn-of -mje-oemurv \vork on the historical Jesus. Surrounded a popular Christian culture that believed the twentieth kingdom through the
would herald the humanizing
of God's
of church and state,
Schweitzer's historical research uncovered a " a different
metaphors opposed the idealistic
of Schweitzer's
Although Schweitzer's research and the Jesus
Seminar's research reconstmct the different lines
"Markan
former
~<>'''i·h,' .... n
of the historical Jesus
Jesus' apocalyptic words as
UU',U"".HJ''-',
the
17 the social world critics there is a upon the ancient Mediterranean "honor/shame culture" with its and "limited B. J. Malina, The New which Testament World: IAtlanta: John Knox, 1981125-93). Fowler, "Let the Reader Understand", 228-266: Moore, Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist see D. Culbertson, The Poetics Revelation: Relcof:.~nition and the Narrative Tradition (Studies in American Biblical Hermeneutics 4; Macon, GA: Mercer Press, 141-185. See, M. Jesus: A Vision: Culture, and the (San Francisco: and Row, 1987) 14, 125-171, and his more recent article, "Portraits North American " HTR 84 (1992) 1-22. of Jesus in
69 latter
them as secondary), both share a common but unspoken rhetorical
aim: to make Jesus different from their own culture so that "he" can speak to it. I believe that this same phenomenon can be found in the social \vorld .,_..'.' __ _ as well as the reader-response and poststructuralist methodologies differ radically, their similar: to defamiliarize the
Although their
(either conscious or unconscious) are narratives to such an extent that they can
to contemporary culture in fresh ways.3l Or
their
be
better described negatively: all three critical approaches, paralleling historical Jesus research, attempt to defamiIiarize the gospel so that it is no longer able to in the traditional ways of the Even the great contemporary Jesus scholar, John had a
<'1 ..(.n(l~"I"
aU1lODJOj1~raIJnICaJ
course, all reconstructions except Crossan's of the scholars
and
of Jesus. I
is quick to point out
that researchers' reconstructions of the historical
did Schweitzer before Jesus have
'A'.'':>,''~U.
element to them
" In other
is, of
the interests
the research are always replicated in their point could also be
that the same
made of biblical literary critics and their historical-critical counterparts. Indeed, it is precisely this aul:00JO~;raIJnlCal element that Tolbert's and Moore's criticisms attempt to uncover in us, the reader critics. Thankfully, short of
they
we]]
their fellow scholars or themsel yes.
In summary, those who chaIJenge
criticism's
by
biblical scholars focus on two fundamental issues. The first criticism focuses on criticism's lack of critical apparatus for analyzing its own int."' ........, .. t,iuo
stance.
J{eaal~r-lreSPOIt1Se
criticism often fails or refuses to ImreS1tI,g.ate
the social and rhetorical contexts of the interpreter and the ImIJHc:aW:ms of those contexts for interpretation.
its interpretations lack a critically-reflected
Not makes the same observation when about Bible. 148scholars' reconstructions of "Paul" (Post-Modem 31 White, "Historical and Criticism, Crossan writes: Jesus research is a very to do and call it to do and caB it (The Historical Jesus: The Mediterranean Peasant [San Francisco: 19911 see However, his own and reconstructions are somehow free from these two viruses that inflict every other of Jesus (ibid.).
70
"What is John? of the fact that the interpretations are
critic's
'''Vl'''''t'''."r,f''''
as much as liberationist and feminist
rooted in the \,;AI;;f;;I,;;., • .,
is explicitly
rooted in the experience of oppression. Although the failure or refusal to address the social and rhetorical contexts of the interpreter may be due as much to academic or ecclesial
as to any theoretical
nevertheless more
openness in this area will be necessary if
criticism should ever
solidify its place within the guild. The second criticism focuses on
reader~
response criticism's interest in appropriating the Bible for the contemporary reader. From this angle, reader-response criticism seems blatantly unconcerned about how canonical texts have been understood and considered nl">r'CIlCtcn.rj">- by tlrst-century audiences. biblical reader-response critics fail at both ends of the reader spectrum. For historical and social world critics,
criticism as it is applied
to the Bible fails to understand the ancient Mediterranean 'rvorld or its valuesor worse
it has no interest in understanding them.
criticism
is blatantly, pointedly anachronistic. And for feminist and Iiberationist critics, ea
Reader-response criticism is blithely elitist and anarchistic. In view of these pointed criticisms, I will
my own leserly
narrative at its most sensitive
of the 10hannine passion
somewhere in the text of the Fourth
Gospel- but within a personal narrative that attempts to LJIV'~""''''~''
my
I wiJI
apart the seamless,
nakedness. Or to use a more violent narrative which intends to smash the
bones of the dispassionate
observer in me- the thing left writing
after the spirit has passed over.
Reading Myself: All Experimental Metaphor Like many others in the academic discipline of New Testament ,~"U'Ul"'.~, I have come to the guild of biblical scholarship through the roots of American Protestant fundamentalism. But the anti-intellectualism that I was raised with, in the fierce primitivism and sectarianism of the lay-led Plymouth Brethren, was tempered Tthis
a childhood is often made in Fowler,
the eroded cliffs and canyons of the
HLet
many critics' interest the Reader Understand", 48-52; Moore,
71
Indian Reservation in northeastern Arizona. There, as the son of a mlSSJloncuy school teacher and a school
I encountered a culture
different from that of my own We lived our first fourteen months at Immanuel Mission in a hvo-room adobe and stone the bathroom wi th oll,(",uho',,, an ancient who knew no English and was a survivor of the "Long Walk.
Yellowhair was
more than a hundred years old when we first met him, and \vhen he smiled his face would wrinkle and crease, making him look like the loose skin that covered of my thumb. For
years he had been the only baptized
in
Yellowhair's room adjoined the basement bathroom. And on his way to
his slop-bucket in the morning. he would stand
and silently watch my mother getting dressed. With a sudden feeling of eyes upon "''V . . . .
J.''' .. J'o!
she would turn and glimpse his shuffling shadow or hear his door
shut on the hard-packed dirt floor of his windowless room.
Within two years we had built our own four-bedroom, cinder-block house with aU the conveniences of the modern world. Unlike the two-room never flooded and it was much better at keeping out unwanted house had owned a
gas
it Our new
running water, two indoor toilets, and we now
yellow, van-like
(bought for fifty dollars at Army
Surplus in Phoenix). But outside the mission compound no one had these comforts, and no one seemed to miss them. Most of the Dine36 I saw rode horseback or in horse-drawn \vagons. They lived in
l2
mud huts
with crude oil drum, wood burning stoves in the center. They traveled for miles to fill their barrels with drinking water, and their toilets were any bushes tall or ravines deep
to hide them from the curious eyes of a roving
\vhite
34 'rhis is what the Redondo in central New Mexico. 35 We used the
called their
into exile at the
a tenn hPf .. '''r.n,~ its anti-sacramental, communion service. "the people call themselves. It can best be translated
72
"What is John? Inside our house \ve read the Bible daily around the
Sunday School I memorized verses that
room table, and in
of a Holy Spirit poured out on
Jews thousands of years ago. But outside our front door I was getting to know people who encountered spirits,
and holiness
, harmony)-all
within a quarter-mile walk of Immanuel Mission's fenced compound. Inside our house we
a as a pet, and it slept at night curled up on our front But beyond our front door the name for was Xi
and I saw
kicked at every opportunity.
laughing Navajo children would throw live
into the mission's
o~rt\~(rp
fires. It was not unusual to find their small blackened bodies the next ... "" ...... ...,, mixed in among the empty cans and broken bottles. My most vivid childhood memories are of silvery shadows flit across the moonlit that 'rve owned in
They haunt my dreams. Their
of my unconscious. I remember two
although the
Chloe, lives in my memory
only as a name. The second was named Bimbo, and from time to time my brother and I \v(mld pretend that we were she. We would crawl around on all bark and eat her In our first few years on the
food from the bowl on our back porch. rpl:pr\!;:lt,inn
our family selected
for pets
from among the many
that made their home in the mission dump.
Our fIrst transformed
was named Blackie. In our home she grew to be
sleek, healthy, and alert. But to the only one
a cunning kiner. She could only have gotten fat One
I found Blackie under the mission's old :stlldebal(er
in a puddle of blood, turned inside out vear~olQ
eyes \\latched her life
a bullet through her side. 3R My eightpour out on the hard-packed adobe. She
This translation of Xi comes from somewhere in one of HiHerman's mystery novels-the book and page I cannot recall. Although the word for dog was one of the first words I learned on the reservation, it never dawned on me to connect it with (excrement)-another word I learned very it was this particular translation, I read it the Hillerman story. now lost me, that rekindled my interest in my childhood on the reservation. John 19:32-37.
73 had crawled home to her favorite
place, to nurse her four newborn pups
one last time. The second
our family took in appeared to be part German shepherd. He
was larger than Blackie and light-colored, and after a few \veeks in our home he had
from a
creature into a spirited and
friend. But one
his rightful owners came to our door accusing us of theft and the dog of killing
They demanded the
back. Then they took the
and tied an
old piece of briar-like barbed wire around his neck. With the husband pulling him, the wife kicked the dog the entire mile to their house. We children watched in horror as they made their \vay across the desert sand. The dog never
off his
haunches. He cried like a newborn pup but never opened his mouth to bite them.
Two
later the
was still wound
returned to us. His tail was
around his neck. We were
turned to anguish when our
and the wire to see him, but our
made us take him back to his original
owners. He wouldn't leave us, so we threw stones at him to chase him away. I don't remember what happened to that
I can't recall its name. pets out of the stray
Although we soon learned not to make ,~""< .... ,' ...
the mission compound, it continued to be inundated by the troublesome
pests. Invariably, the problem \vould be compounded females were in heal.
each spring when the
would come to the mission for water, mail, or
medicine, and after they left we would invariably find another four or five puppies
for food in the dump. Much to the annoyance of other mission
my mother had a habit of naming each unwanted leftovers outside our
and
beyond the mission fence. It wasn't
long before she was stretching the boundaries of inviting
them by tossing
OJ"-'OJ<
<''''' ..
even further by
women into her home for CO<)KJes.
foolish and scandalous activity by most missionary standards. Sometimes, in the white heat of a summer Sunday, the door of the two-room school where we had Morning Meeting would be propped open to circulate the cool Colorado Plateau breeze. Occasionally, a
dog would wander in and
slowly approach the communion table-perhaps drmvn there fresh baked bread and hands of a senior missionary were
Isa 53:7.
the smell of
But the aJert eyes and quick able to maintain the sanctity and order
74
"What is John?
of the hour. Much to the disaplpointrneJlt of us around
But after the
b'~,buU'b
if the
children, no dog ever
had been
and could
foHow its nose, it would find scraps of food under the outdoor picnic tables set up in the shade of tamarisk trees, where the Navajo faithful \vere fed hot beans, and Kool-Aid. In my more reflective moments, which sometimes jolt me with a sudden sharp
I have thought that perhaps the real communion on
those Sundays took place outside, under the damask veil of those tamarisk trees. When the stray
became too
and threatened to run in wild packs,
my father and other mission staff would gather the young ones with the old and
stuff them into dusty potato
along
and tie them to the
exhaust pipe of our idling car. Before too long they would stop squirming and yelping. Then they would be buried in shaHow pits at the far end of the mission Aftenvard my brothers,
and I could
run
and
without fear in front of our home. Because of the two different environments in which I was immersed as a child, I grew up with a natural curiosity about contrasting \vays of world. Existential questions
the
the inherent correctness of the order inside
my home and the chaos outside it, and their corresponding claims of certitude, arose which otherwise might never have surfaced. Eventually, this same led me to cha]Jenge the authoritarian, anti-intellectualism of my Plymouth Brethren upbringing, replacing it with a mindful
and a natural
pluralism. Perhaps because of the doubleminded bind in which I grew up, this slowforming New Testament scholar had no interest in studying John's
The
Fourth Gospel's message seemed too obvious, too transparent t-'Vf~rVI'nlrIU
divided up nicely into two camps: the
the truth-holding believers and the unbelieving liars
There
seemed to be no room for openness, intellectual curiosity, or John's narrative world.
16-18).
and the blind
the Johannine Jesus was the
in of character
who pounded the truth into people's heads whether or not they wanted to hear his
of course, did not. But then in
school, while I \vas
seminars in literary theory, I began to use the text of John to teach VV}., . . 'UU1L!"J
Greek.
I began to read the
with a new set of lenses.
to see that although the Gospel had a clear message to how the reader was transported to that end could be as . ..v."",.,..f<>,,,,t as the text's
75 final words. And the how which I ,vas \vhich undermined,
to find in John's Gospel was one
and
games with the reader's naive grasp of
the story. In my more Fourth
moments of
on my critical approach to the
I will argue that I have been drawn to reader-response criticism
primarily because it has offered me a way to read the Bible closely and yet critically and differently. And
(a reflective
which I do not wish to make public), it has allowed me to do what I most like to do- read imaginatively and dramatically. Assuming that no text has the ,vhole truth,
reader~response
critical tools with which to ask
criticism has
me a set of
about the Gospel's
dramatic story and how it intends to affect its audience. Narrative poetics and pragmatics are the
n1V'r~lti"p
As I noted
criticism has al ways been concerned with
analyzing the effects of literature. It is interested in the persuasive goals of texts: how texts work readers and how readers work texts. And in criticism's more formalist common
rea.delr-rt~Spom)e
of texts are
But in these two foci I also hear resonances from my past.
I grew up in a home where John Nelson
torturous, literalistic
readings of biblical texts (those that gave birth to
and theories
of a pre-tribulational rapture) were the ideal model of """' •.,p.,.... ,~h~ and translation. But in our house these were coupled to a devotionally focused ethos. "What does this verse mean to
What is God
to tell you
were the classic
QUestlOflS asked around our dinner table. We may have given lip service to Darbyite. "literal
of the Bible, but a
Spirit-centered
devotion was what reaIJy mattered. So it is not coincidental that my family should emphasize the
element of Scripture over everything else. And
it is only natural that there should be little or no critical reflection on that and no sense of the differentness of Scripture. In our Plymouth Brethren home, scriptural meaning was
simple and crystal clear.
Interpretive conflicts did not arise from honest intellectual willful acts of rebellion. In view of my criticism functions as a chain linking my
but from
history, then, to my
rea.delr-n~spomie
Like a chromosome
chain, it is wound tightly around the persuasive effects of narrative and my own
76
"What is John?
personal history,
it provides the critical tension (distance and attention)
needed to assess those effects. When I secured my first professional position in 1985 at a small adjacent to the S1. Johns district of Portland,
one of my goals as a
teacher was to defamiHarize the Bible so that it could be
afresh by
individuals and communities of faith. I firmly believed that in order for growth and
one had to be able to see Scripture
one's own
nf'l"t/"rlrl"
Furthermore,
as different from
of the world-without ne,;essarlly being better or worse.
thought that difference, distance, and defamiliarization
(sharpened and polished through my years of academic research) were crucial to the critical and hermeneutical task of the biblical scholar. Thus, for
I
sought to show my students how sensitivity to the Johannine manipulation of narrative order (a special
in much of more formalist
rea,aeJr-rt~spom)e
sometimes seemed to subvert the narrator's own explicit Among other
this
of reading was intended to undermine students'
naive assumptions that they were reading events from the life of Jesus. My
historical accounts of was that, as a consequence, students
would more critically evaluate their own unexamined and historical assumptions But
U1"l"'uuu,
theological,
canonical texts and the life of faith.
the ability to "see
to me purely through
is not something that came criticism, nor was it
something
I "discovered" in the text of John. Contrary to my earlier assumptions, I do not believe that I developed this
merely through appropriating the critical,
distance-creating tools of scientific,
research and the rhetorical
tec:nnlqlles of academic discourse. As I have begun to think more recently in terms of how my own social context,
and personal
experience interpret the biblical text, I have come to believe that difference, distance, and defamiliarization have been from the age of seven, when my
of my psychological makeup
moved to the
Indian Reservation.
When I was a student at Shiprock High School on the banks of the San Juan River in northern Ne\v Mexico, the rU"I'IC''Iu''lv
used
and "town
was pejorative reservation for any
who had not
made the transition from traditional Indian culture to the dominant Caucasian
77 culture and its values. Like a chapter from my childhood (like the red-letter text of John in my
parents' home), John seems to me to be a
that
outwardly has a simple message, clearly stated and transparent. But underneath that message there is another which-like the john world outside my childhood front door-often seems to subvert and controvert the previous]y established norm. As I approach my fifth decade of
I am beginning to think that I have
long been the unsuspecting victim of two johns, two
and two
existential ironies. Having long since left my fundamentalist roots and the Navajo Reservation, I am nmv
that that context \vith its values still remains with me, the way I read and influencing my own
But whether I am wrestling with geography or
n/"f'CII~lCi,u>
U1CC:{;~.:,l,'"
Juan Basin of northern New Mexico and initial
into that
Saint John or the San
I wm
treasure my
Like the red desert sand of my reservation
childhood, the book is my blood. John's
has been a place for me to abide.
It has been my abode; an adobe-framed hiding
In my childhood years on
reservation, Sf. John flowed "vith the muddied waters of the San Juan
the
River of northern New Mexico and southern Utah. It
deep beneath the
snow capped San Juan Mountains of southern Colorado. San Juan me like
bread. The air that scraped its
was a
nourished :"\\,V~~I,-La:"\L11
heady wine. I know no St. John sans
for that matter, sans Jean. For my wife and
I both were carried in the wombs and suckled at the breasts of women named Jean.41
Reading the Text: An Exegetical Drama (John 18:1-19:42) Now that the
of the U1SIP3SSI0naI'C,
reader-critic in me have been
smashed and my proftes,slO>llal robes have been dispersed among the curious
40 As the ancient Hebrew puts it, "Like a that returns to its vomit fool who reverts to his (Prov 26: 1i). Or to put it more nf~""t."'.,.I,, "Train children in the way, and when old, will not (Prov 22:6). 41 My mother's name was Elizabeth Jean, and my mother-in-law's name Marjorie Jean. Both of my sister's middle names are also derivations of the name John: Brenda Joan, and Beth Janette.
78
"What is John?
bystanders, be
drama can begin. A Roman soldier
to cut the
leather thongs that hold the three bloodied bodies to their crosses. He
the
valuable iron nails from the still-warm flesh. They will be saved, straightened, and reused another
for another
demonstration of Pax Romana. As he
the tlrst corpse on the ground, Death rattles their throats and the interpretive tale begins. The first corpse falls in a heap, face in the addresses the other two. "You
and one of those left hanging
I must confess to you that I have never
written about be 10hannine passion narrative before, primarily because it has ahvays struck me as a the same thing,
Ignace de Ia Potterie has
more in terms of character
said
He says, 'The careful
reader will be struck by two details: the complete self-awareness
several
times indicated, and also the majesty \\'ith which he goes forward to his Passion. '42 But Raymond Brown describes it in a manner which I tlnd to be more theologically, as a the Johannine Jesus,
narrative where 'there is no victimizing of
is in such control that only when he affirms '"It is
finished," does he bow his head and hand over his Spirit' (l those
Suddenly,
of subversion and victimization that so intrigued me in my earlier
~n>l...\t<':l<':
of be Fourth Gospel's story world seem to have
If they're
here at alJ, I'll have to work hard to tlnd them." The corpse lying free down in the dirt intones, "And I'm absolutely repulsed by this Johannine Jesus, a person sent from God who is so sure of himself, so hYlperseIlSItJze~d
and aware of be hour's that 'he passes through death 44 without tunnoil and with jubilation. So how can I be <>n'!Tn,.no radically resistant reader to this I've
to know this
L de la Potterie. The Hour
£aIKe·HV(H'lSnUlll·anu-cal
narrative in a painful,
Da~;Sl(male
way, in a
Jesus: The Passion and Resurrection
Jesus
Ac(:antme ta john (New York: Alba, 1989) 16.
Beloved
(New York: Paulist Press,
llB. 17 (philadel phia: Fortress Jesus in Fourth
Acc:arc.llnJ< to john
20; M. M. Thc'rnp~son, (ptuJadelphla: Fortress Press, 1988) 87-89.
79 carnal way. I will find a way to strip it and lay it bare, shuddering and convulsing, before the faithful mother and beloved disciple." The third corpse, still I'm
on its cross, enters the conversation: "Frankly,
both of you. One of you has refused to talk about this text
previously because it annoys your
literary and theological
sensitivities, while the other of you dislikes the text's passionless characterization of Jesus,
has decided to read it anyway - any way you want.
You both seem to reooj,H1IJze intuitively that these crosses reflect the radical difference between two social worlds- the ancient Mediterranean and the cOIt1tem~,on:lry
Euroamerican-yet you can't let the difference stand by itself and
to understand that cultural difference for what it is.45 So 'rvhy don't we just let our crosses stand for evaluate,
for the Other? Let's
critically
and interpret the text, but then let's leave our crosses to turn
to stone in the sun. Let them be discovered
chance as artifacts of a different
culture, and The second corpse, oblivious to the Its voice me for a
0 ..,,·,,1('\11<:'
comments, plunges on in its
and grows more confldent as it continues. "Listen to
you two wind-filled bags of bones! From my
here I can see that the passion narratives are the most plotted parts of the
and the Fourth
point up proleptically
is no
to
this. Straightforward predictions, foreshadowings, allusions, and reliable cOlmnlerltafY all \vork
to announce significant elements of Jesus' final
and purposely leave little room for
or imagination in the
narrative. As many scholars have pointed out, from the opening scenes of the Gospel incidental ,",t'\IJU,",H
off (1
the narrator, and Jesus himself all make
or
references to his death and its signifkance. John's witness starts Jesus alludes to
and seems actually to contrive it
1;
Part of that ditlerence has to do with the corltrastlfllg e;"pe:nence personhcx.)o in the ancient Mediterranean world and the contemporary Euroamerican world. Bruce Malina and Jerome Mary would argue that the Jesus of the Johannine
14-16~
10:14-18; 12:7-8,23-24,31-32; 15:13;
80
"What is John?
13:11-2]; 17:12); the narrator expands upon it 11:5 and even a minor character such as CallapJhas inadvertently prc,ph,esHes if'
i"\!{~nflll!=llll'l
The other
corpse impatiently interrupts to "I can
game too, although I
your
anachronistic, ethnocentric notion of story worlds. that I am
of 'rvithin the
a slightly different your
But,
for the sake
the text as so-called closely as you are, I note that
narrative itself the actions of political powers dominate the
sequence of events as nowhere else in the story. "For example, this is the
section of the narrative where Jesus is
moved from one place to the other.
in the
narrative is Jesus bound or led to someone
brought
18:
n~H~<:'t1"p,I'1
the actions and intentions of the soldiers
18:
that move your plot
and
Jesus' moment-by-moment
decisions. "As a matter of
earlier in the Gospel the chief
temple police to arrest Jesus
but precisely because they were reI uctant
to do so, the action was not carried out "~~'f"~r••>I1
had sent the
And at other times Jesus
or withdre\v from people \vhenever he wished. 50 Finally, \vhen
Jesus was asked to intervene in situations of need, there was
an
immediate sense that Jesus' own prerogatives !Z0\Ief11ed the plot movement-not
discllsses many of these references within the context 86-98); see also D. Senior, The Passion in the MN: Press, 1991 31-44. world" expresses the biblical narrative critics' notion that stories can have their own natural laws, social codes, and symbolic connections which be different from any "rea) world" outside the text. For eXElmIJle, are two contemporary genres that construct story worlds which are often at odds with the world as we know it (see Powen, What Is Narrative Criticism? 6-8; Moore, Criticism and the 8Note D. discussion of the word ("Nicodemus and His NTS 34 19881148-151
See, for John 5: 13, 18; 6: 15; I, 10, 19,25,30,44; 8:20, 37, 40~ 9: 12; 10:39; 11 :8,54. See M. W. G. Stibbe, "The Elusive Christ: A New of the Fourth JSNT 44 (1991) 21-25.
81 the second
interests.
So the intentions of both the protagonist and the
amtagonllsrs do seem capable of Fourth
plot developments.
then, the
plot is not based upon a Greek idea of the Fates. Rather, Jesus is and loyal son in a Mediterranean household. To paraphrase
Malina and
the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel is one \vho internalizes and
makes his own "vhat
his 'father' says,
and thinks about him because
he believes it is necessary, if he is to be an honorable son, to live out the ex[)CCltat]l~ms
of God, his 'father. '52 although your implied reader has been
early on that Jesus would willingly be 'lifted up,
numerous clues
in the passion narrative there
are only minimal references to Jesus' ultimate power over the events or the 11' 1
These come equally from Jesus
and the narrator (18:4, 9;
19:30), but only at the beginning and end of the be clumsily tacked on such an important
your timorous of the
narrative. They seem to author. One would think that in
your implied author could have
implied reader consistently
your
clues regarding Jesus' self-awareness or
commitment to God's purposes. But the closest we come to this is a remark by Jesus in his conversation with Pilate (19: 11). By
in the
of
your implied reader can find numerous references to Jesus' control and his near manipulation of events (11 "It seems to me, and
11-15,
you could argue that in this
of power
there is a subversive and doubly ironic undermining of the
passion plotting. Jesus may indeed willfully step forward into his at the beginning of the
narrative (18:4-1
arms
but once he does that, he
51 Note John 2:3-7; 4:46-49; 7:2-14; 1L 1-6. In his study of these texts, Charles H. Giblin and Positive Action in St John's .~,,'-rrQ'I"" of Jesus, concllides that "there or of mind on Jesus' part For Jesus disassociated "from the human concerns of those who, merely human standards, would seem to be rather close to him .... He never fails to attend to the situation to him, but in so he acts r
82
"What is John?
becomes a mere pawn in the hands of Jewi sh and Roman authorities. And for a few moments, anyway, you can legitimately say that things move beyond Jesus' personal control. Why? hates and
because the 18:36; cf. 1J
him (15:
order 55
Even Jesus can't control
that." Dogs! There are
all around me!" The first corpse, face still in the
dirt, suddenly screams out in its darkness. 'Thin ones, \vith ribs protruding, ears and their tails between their
There are
Xi
in this
hungrily sniffing and licking my dried sweat, blood, and on~nlt".rI
Jezebel's
56
like the
First come the flies and
then
come the The second corpse intlemllpts: "You're out of your mind! Lift your head out of the dirt and look about
you babbling fool! If you
you'll see that there are no " ...., ...
lJ.")iV'~,
in this
open your eyes
world. Sheep, shepherds, and
yes. But nowhere in John will you find a
mentioned. They're
only the mad dreams of your disembodied mind. "It may be true that there are no corpse breaks
in your 10hannine story world," the third
"but every Mediterranean crucifixion scene would have had
them: the shameless for the corpses to be
silently sitting on their haunches, \vaiting could finish the work left undone. The
scavenging dogs surrounding crucified victims would have been one more element of the public
of criminals in that ancient social \vorld.
many great escapes Jesus is at last a where he will not and does not Where he can be With to Pilate, who is a rep'resentatn!e the Fourth Politics of John: The Trial of Jesus observes that "he is canous and reJentless, indifferent to Jesus and to truth, and contemptuous of the hope of Israel that Jesus fulfills and transcends .... Pilate is thus a hostile second to 'the Jews' themselves. 56 2 9:30-37. 57 In his of honor in the ancient Mediterranean world and the of Paul Friedrich has shown Honor. Journal t'S}!Cn~')IO.t::lC421 Anth!rm1oll')Q'v 5 I how are ... an illuminating key to the IHiadic idiom of honor. IThey I emerge in the fourth line of the epic and reappear at least once in all but five of the remaining twenty-three books. thirty-five times in connection with the eating of corpses, mainly in metaphors, invectives, and similies. Dogs come
83 "So now you believe it too'! A corpse with its nose stuck in our filth shrieks , and just like that honor/shame SO(:letles
off in the 'rvorld of
and
That's precisely what I find so OlscorlcelrtI
about your
kinds of interpretive moves, the second corpse says ex:as[>cr:atllngJly "You have no
for how
authors
worlds. You
create
want to bring any and every detail of the ancient Mediterranean social world into the gospel-all from other first century texts, of course-and then you act as though they are part of this particular story world. But not every
of that
ancient social world is in here!" "Oh no, it is all
replies the third corpse. "It's
Mediterranean world is a
context
that the ancient
which 'producersJ sketchy and
texts, leaving much to the reader's or hearer's imagination .... Hence, much can be assumed. '59 Western the other hand. are 'low context
and
on
. which 'produce detailed texts, speJled
out as much as possible, and leave little to the imagination. "'60 here knows \vhat a crucifixion is like. We don't have to spell out all the gory details." "Your two-fold for storytelling,
oe~)critption
may work for societies at
but it won't work
the second corpse, trying to stretch out tall on its
in pairs. and packs, devouring the myriad corpses on the battelfieJd Isicl or even rushing in to gnaw the testicles of their dead master ""Numerous threats and entreaties involve being thrown to the dogs, the worst form of detllement
(San Francisco: See also J. D. Crossan. Jesus: A Ve~mls,mg the Shame of Har'Per:santTancH~Co. 1994) 123-127, 153-154; J. H. and Shame and the Johannine Passion Narrative, Semeia Reason and History of L,jterature Minnesota Press, 1987J 167-169). of the ancient Mediterranean world as one whose values center around honor and shame, see B. 1. Malina and J. H. "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values the Mediterranean World, The Social World Luke-Acts, 25-65. Malina, "L1.~nrl.n" Ibid., 19.
84
"What is John?
cross. Hit seems to me that narratives
reflect
contexts,,61 No
can hold its hearers' attention if every detail of that narrative world must first be spelJed out. Authors 'rvho had to do that would never get around to te1ling their stories! This is
of what is meant by beginning a story in media as, and it is
as much a dictum of modern Euroamerican prose as it was of Greek Iitemture when Aristotle first observed it. Enormously high context demands are placed upon readers of all narratives. It's not just a peculiar identifying mark of ancient stories from Mediterranean cultures. "I wi11
you the point that it is
to know how shaming and how
shameful crucifixions were in your so-called honor/shame society. But I will still maintain, after all is said and done, that it is just as important to
how
this author refuses to dwell on its most shameful details. This implied author's ""'.·..n\"1 constructed world-no less socially constructed than any so-called real world, mind different life is
that in
to convince its
lJ"IV....' ...
reader of a
of outward appearances, the final event of Jesus'
honor to his 'father.' Thus, many shameful, real world elements
have been purposely omitted from this particular 'fantastic' don't go bringing into the
\vorld.
So
those elements which the author may have
purposely left out." "You don't think I understand how stories work? Well, you don't understand how different cultures work!" snaps the third corpse. "Don't you see that you can't understand what was 'left out' of a text without first understanding what
Bruce Malina's concept of the socio-rhetorical "context" would be called the text's reIJ1ertIOIn:!" in \1\/nltn<,nlY Iser's of aesthetic response, which for him, "consists of all the fammar within the text. 'rhis may be in the form of references to earlier works, or to social and historical nonns, or to the whole culture from which the text has H<;':.#Ut",>{., 69). Yet Iser (ibid., 83) can go on to make the ImIJor1:ant observation that, II literary communication differs from other forms of communication in that those elements of the sender's repertoire which are familiar to the reader through their application in real-life situations, lose their validity when transplanted into the literary text And it is precisely this loss of validity which leads to the communication of something new.
The author of 4 Maccabees the torture of the Jewish faithful Macc 5:28-6:30: 9: 10-11 :27). Kasemann (Testament 45) the modern concept of in the New Testament our IFourthl is more fantastic than any other
85 implicit 'in' the text? Your ethnocentric
ao~gmatI:sm
just appalls
The corpse crumpled on the ground tries to jerk out of its deathly slumber. "What is all the
I keep
I've dreamed of those damned
I can stiJI hear them is a
around me. Hidden inside every mad
damned to suffer for our sins.
us. They add a realistic note of u,",,,',v,",,::>,
it's two
and
So I say let's keep them here beside
to an otherwise
And
one. You're the odd corpse out
"But you can't do that to the
The second corpse retorts. "You can't
bring your
Xi
arbitrarily, so just because the in that? Where's the SClllOI(;:llrly
seen them in your dreams! Where's rl,<">,,.," .. ,,,O' any semblance of plausible
interaction \vith the text? At least the corpse in its scavenger
into this
UUlLlS1UfS
world so
beside me has a reason for
social world reconstructions of first-
",'r" "'",.! crucifixions would demand their presence. But you shamelessly add
elements to the story based
upon your own idiosyncratic desire to have
them here. "Oh, so you want a reason for the dogs' presence, do you? Some 'plausible interaction with the text?' If you can
it to you.
66
that for
interpretations, I
knows there are intertextual aJJusions to Psalm
22:14-18 in John 19:24 and 28. The narrator even adds, 'In order that the scripture
be fulfilled: So what do you think is the subject of the third
person plural verb diemerisanto and the antecedent of the reflexive pronoun
See Micke Bars criticism of enthnocentrism in biblical literary criticism and need for narrative ("Point of 730-737). David White writes, "There is much of man in his in us, and behind this, much of the wolf in lx)th the and man. And, there is some of the LJUi!-l,llan 'AlJ"''''''''V, The of 1991115). Or, I some of the in Christ (see SloterciUK Reason, 161-1621 and Crossan JThe Historical Jesus, 72-88,421-4221 who both describe much of Jesus' behavior as or paI'apJ:uase Mieke Bal, "the argument I am to make is to prove the presence of the absent, and it is up to the reader to evaluate to what extent. (Death and Diss:vmmetry: The Politics in Book In"JP"'Olh! of Press,
86
"What is John?
heautois in 'They divided my clothes among themselves'
It's the
Ps 21: 1712] ILXX J) !67 So you see, the
of Psalm 22:16 and 20
are here too. Some may watch us silently from their haunches, waiting to gnaw our bones. Others
and rip
our discarded from its cross,
But the second corpse continues to
""IV'U""",.
Ul~,ml,sslng
its
companions' voices with an attempted twitch of its head. "You can't have those either. In Psalm 22: 16 and 20 Even there the
is a
aren't real.
epithet for 'evildoers.'
just a metaphor. And besides, it's neither here in
the third person plural verb nor the reflexive pronoun that is
John, but rather the action of dividing the clothes. That's what 'fulfills "You bitches! You don't understand at all! What I want is precisely the metaphor: people as
or
as people-either way, it doesn't make any
difference to me. You say your implied author has historicized the Psalmist's metaphor, turning it into a prophetic reference to events at Jesus' crucifixion. 68 Well, I just want to retain the Psalm's original metaphoricity. What's "Tong with that? Can't you hear my pain and my and call it
" It is
as faithful,
'I have
a name to my
as obtrusive and shameless, just as
just as clever as any other dog-and 1 can scold it and vent my bad mood on it as others do with their
'69
So you can keep the
herders, the sheep, and the rock-enclosed corrals. I just want the
And
Robert "'~"n,'lc." rt~Co,gmzes this ("An Absent COlupJ:ement and Int~ert(~xtllahty in John 19:28-29, 19931 438). Ernst Haenchen argues: "The scene itself, the division of the clothes and the lots for 'the tunic without seams: is derived from Ps 22: 18(19)" (The IHermeneia~ 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 19841 2: 193). Brown, however, thinks that "the of the stretched to cover an incident that the found in his tradition rather than vice versa, since one would expect to find lots rather than the verb lachomen inv£>ntinfY the scene (The to the were 2:920; see 2:903). John lAB 29-29a; 2 voIs.; Garden Science: with Prelude in and an fiPJPen~alX E Nietzsche, The (New York: 1974) 249-250. Or as John Crossan writes, "if you seek the heart of darkness, follow the (Jesus, 127).
you can't take them away from me!
mine, and they're
me up inside!" Attempting to get the
discourse back on track, the second corpse
decides to
the last outrageous outburst
the issue of
if I remember
You had just brought up
Now there's an important
Fourth Gospel and a Johannine strategy that we can all agree upon. narrative is highly ironic. 70 And, I
says the Johannine just talking about the really in control?
we were
views of power in the text, weren't we? Who is or the earthly, ruling authorities? Surely, as you
the
contrast between Jesus \vi1lfuHy stepping forward at his arrest and being led here and there is ironic. 7l And of course, Jesus' conversations with the
that
be' are ironic (18: 19-24, 18:28-19: 16), "As everyone notes, those so-called powerful characters in the text think they but, in
are in
the
reader knows aU along that they are not
Clearly, all Jesus' and the narrator's talk about horalkairos has been supplying the
reader with that ironic, binocular
the
from the first scenes of
So 1 don't see your focus on the contrasts in power and
powerlessness as
undermining the theological theme of God's
salvific power (10:17for pollution
As with the 19: 14, 3
of the Je\vish leaders' concern
these multifaceted ironies
bind the
implied author's and implied reader's ideological/theological points of view more closely
over against those of the ruling authorities: in
of
earthly appearances, God and Jesus are in control. Or to put it in your terms, the faithful, honorable son is
out his socially prescribed role
to his
father's wishes. Another leather thong is cut and the third corpse the first "I suppose it's time for me to jump back into your
beside 'nt,~ .. n ..ptl"'P
game.
ex(:umJle, see Culpepper, Anatomy Fourth in the Fourth (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985) 129-137; Senior, The Passion 68,152; C. H. Giblin, "John's Narration of the before Pilate (John 18,28-19,16), Biblica 67 (1986) 238. 71 Stibbe, "The Elusive Christ, 20-25, 29. 72 See John 4:21-23; 5:25-29; 7:6-8,30; 8:20; 12:27; 13:1; 17:1. Paul Duke, tollloW'll1g many before him, of in the Fourth (Irony in the Fourth
88
"What is John?
So ans\ver me this. Wouldn't you say that one of the most dramatic ironies is when Pilate asks the offhanded question 'What is truth?' who had earlier told his
'I am the way, the truth and the life' (
Yet curiously, neither Jesus, the narrator, nor Pilate John 19:9-10 Jesus will
fail to answer
Pilate note Jesus' silence. But silence. has
response, no
TLLL",
and there both the narrator and earlier question, and he
to every other question of PiJate up to this point. Why is there no not even a narrator's remark 'And he said nothing?'''
The second corpse Li'"
to the question. In
su,mgelY there is no narrative mark of the
not? Jesus responded to the high
reSpOll1(lc;~a
of the very one
answers. "Well, obviously the implied author
the implied reader to fill in the correct answer: 'Jesus is the Truth. '74 And
dilates he is an
it asked
pensiveness? or
only that
So at Pilate's expense, Jesus, the implied author, and implied
reader are aU joined tojJ:eUler. Ideologically they are one. "But I'm not so sure," the third corpse interjects. "Did you know that this is the last time the noun atetheia is used in the book? Hats and your implied author both know that the answer to the question 'What is truth?' does not lie in some abstract quality of historical accuracy or confessional correctness (see I :49-51 ~
threat in this him' (6:]5; is not a
IJ
40). Irrespective of 'the truth,' Jesus
becomes a
'believe in him' and 'follow So whether Jesus really is or Pilate's inscription on Jesus' cross and the chief
Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other U/"'''i ...,,~ 1972Michel Foucault, 1977 (New York: Pantheon, 1980) 66. 74 Paul Duke writes, "It that the unanswered que:sU()I1 concludes the as scene because the Johannine ironist invites us to reflect upon what-and who-the Answer in the Fourth 131). See M. fAiwards, "The World Could not Contain the Books, in The Bible Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion and ' ..,,,,,lihilit,, (ed. M. Warner; New York: 192; the Shame of the 12). :')cfmaCKt:nDurg (The to St. John and R Brown (John, 2:869), David says that truth?' 18:38) lis not! the of serious seeker; if it were, he would stay for an answer" ("The Politics of John, 403). See M. W. G. Stibbe, John as Fourth (SNTSMS 73; New York: Int1JAr.o,h! Press, 1992) 107.
89
obllecltlOIlS to it will be the ultimate joke here (19:
Contrary to
your OPInIOn. here I think Pilate and Jesus are both aligned with your implied author. "Yes! I think
found the correct answer to this text's Qm:stion, 'What is
truth?' I \vould only want to add that \vhether Jesus fed 5,000
with five
loaves and two fIsh is also beside the point for your implied author (6: 15. even whether he is or is not a son of God is beside the nor what
18;
confess hi m to
be-nor even who Jesus confesses himself to be-is the cruciaI4u'''''''~J''''' for your implied author or Pilate at this
As the next
Pilate will show (19:8-11), the important
12: 12- I 9). The question of truth
\vhether Jesus is a threat to power (11 cannot be
between Jesus and underlying all others is
from the body that stretches out the hand" (
"So as I was about to say, in 'handing over' Jesus (I have safeguarded their
of power
overlords (11
over' Jesus (19: 16), Pilate is
In
position of power
the threat of their Roman
19: 10-11)
the
(19:12). And in 'handing over' his 17:
of power
threat of Caesar
Jesus will
before God (10: 17-1
his his place
We all know that '[plower is
cautious. It covers itself. "'78 the power of the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate resides precisely in Jesus' possible threat to Roman
in the truth or
So Jesus doesn't answer Pilate's
to
of his claim
and there is no uptake.
Duke, Irony in the Fourth In the ancient Mediterranean world, the hands of the human The (Malina, New Testament World, 60,66; see E. World INew York: Oxford Press, 19851 76 77
Violence and
Girard, Derrida, and Deconstruction
Illinois Press, 1992) 160172. Charles Giblin .n<:f.nt'lr"!,,H! rt~co:gmzes that "Itla Pilate's mind threat to Roman rule or to Pilate's own Pilate, Once he to be a threat to his
pu".uvu,
and
90
"What is John? Because in the presence of power, the Qwest'ion of some independent truth
source is ultimately irrelevant. Jesus, your
author, and Pilate know
that."80 I guess what I'm trying to say is that 'It/ruth is a thing of this world virtue of ......... ;-".... 1"" forms of constraint.' It 'is
it is produced linked in a circular relation "vith it. "'81
~v~tl"rrl~
"'That's the most absurd, convoluted corpse
of power which
~rOllml/~nt
l J " . J .......,'"'''''
and sustain
I've ever heard!" The second
its voice shaking with anger. "Why do you have to jump into this
discussion too? First you tried to force your ridiculous Navajo and nmv you're
to turn one
into the
off-handedly ironic question of
Pilate into some radically deconstructive metaphor that
the entire
narrative and empties its claim to truth. I wish you would just keep your mouth shut and your head buried down there in the dirt! "From my
point up
it is
clear that right at the very start
of the narrative the prologue revealed an implied author who would be vitally concerned with truth-who it goes (1: 14, 17),
where it comes from, what it does, and where it
I mean, aletheia and its
So let me teU you, your deconstructive let it happen! "But I do think the former Pilate's question, is an
"I"\.,,:.,.'IJ<1II.,....'
occur 48 times in the book! simply won't work here. I won't that there is no narrative uptake to
one. Yet I can't see how it is slg.mllcalllt·-(){o,er
than as a joke between the impJied author and implied will stiJI maintain over your VVI"''"'UV''''', are
at Pilate and his earthbound
sensibilities. "And if you
want to talk about power in the
n~r'r~\tiv4'~
then talk
about it in the resurrection account, where God's power is ultimately triumphant over human power.
moves to get rid of him ( 19: 12). See M. Foucault, Politics, Culture: Interviews and Other 1977-84 (New York: 1988) 106-109, 118-119. Foucault, 131, 133. M. Warner, "The Fourth Art Rational Persuasion, The Bible as Rhetoric. 176-77.
l\,t;L,tUtlLk'
let's move on to talk about
c,"r"'£'~h""n
the Text
more
objective, empirical, and countable. Let's look at the repetition in the of .." ...,".. "h ' ' ' ' ' ' "Now
91
more author's use of
""""""'''''''0, HUIJU ...'U
This is an important topic, and the passion narrative is full a minute! Who's
about n£"'tC't ..t.',';;,'f~t."~,',,"',,! , .. literary H
and a lohannine metaphor that deconstructs itself? I wasn't! I was thinking that perhaps \vhat is
in the Fourth Gospel is a commonly overlooked,
ancient Mediterranean social-world code of patronage 'based on a element of inequality and difference in power.
It does seem to fit. I mean, think
of it this way: Jesus is the truth because he is the broker who has been 'sent' from 'the place of ultimate honor and power ,84 That's the language
the patron of patronage.
You \vere «,..l'-'\.dIU-' with me that in reference to the
this narrative power ultimately more important than some one with the power at the
is
abstract quality of truth. The
\vho has the
connections, is therefore the one
who is 'the truth.' Power-either honorably acquired or ascribed- is truth, and in the Fourth Gospel truth does not exist apart from authority and power. That, my friend, is a description of the "All your talk of
in an honor/shame
sounds objective and
you really press it in the Fourth nr",('I'/!,t'O<, in this
After all, Jesus never calls God his uses the relational language of
Isn't that difference in metaphors finally more important than
Isn't fktive kinship
om:rollas~e r"~
"You know me, I'd hate to have to broader, ancient social-world it meant
but how far can
up any Johannine metaphor for some of its
usefulness- if
the peculiar ideology and narrative world of the Fourth
Gospel in the process.
H. Moxnes, "Patron-Client Relations and the New in L.,uke-Acts, The Social World 242. See John 3:31-36; 5:31-44; 16-18; 8:12-18; 10:36-39; 12:44-50; 17:25-26. See 1 Clem 36: 1; 61 64. See John 19:7,26-27; 20:31.
92
"What is John? "Well, don't
'rvith
that
language is often used interchangeably
language in the Mediterranean world.
patronage are much more
Fictive kinship and
linked than you might think."88
"God! I'm confused. Am I awake or
Now that the two of you are
on the ground, your voices are
to erode,
and coalesce.
Perhaps if I could just lift my head from my chest to look at you .... But I can't. And I can't seem to connect voices with bodies anymore. Ancient Mediterranean social code of
or deconstructive
it what you will, the
effect still seems to be the same. "For example, just look around us! No one is really listening to our conversation.
I-"!~"""f""'f"
who cared about us has
convinced that we're dead.
The only one still here is the cursing Roman, trying to cut me down from my cross before sunset. Needless to say, I'm worried that both of your strategies, no matter how necessary or novel for the modem communities we're
sce:Klnlg
will cut us off from the very
to nourish. This exercise is really
bej~mmnlg
to bring
me dmvn. "Oh come off it! You're the only corpse left up there with its head in the and you talk about us being cut off from community? As far as I'm """"""''''''''V''',
the sooner you join us dmvn here, the better off you'll be.
After a few moments of painful silence, the corpse remaining on its cross decides to ignore its own misgivings and the grunts and groans of the two on the belmv. Once more it picks up its cOlmnlerltalry lers try this conversation one last time. As I noted earJier, the narrative is the most carefully plotted section of the repetitions of
words and
meolO,gICaJ point of view. For (18: 1-1 (I
••'0-'"1"":;''',
88
legal charges (18: 19-19:
Throughout it,
fill out and confirm the author's the basic plot line is fourfold: crucifixion (19:
arrest (4) burial
But plot developments in each of the first three narrative sequences
See, Matt 5:43-6: 15. Halvor Moxnes (HPatron-Client Relations, 245) writes: [n Roman models of society the relations between public. professional life and personal, family life were different from those of most modem societies. We make a clear distinction between the role of individuals as parents. or friends on the one hand and their role public officials on the other. Within one set of relations we might expect them to show preferential treatment (parents. friends), but in others we expect strict impartiality (public offieials}.ln Roman ideology, however, there were no such distinctions .... Even the emperor played a patronaJllpaternal) role. He was looked upon more powerful father figure than an imperial administrator.
93 are slmved down by the numerous repetitions, repetitions which
F ........... J
blame for the tlnaJ events of Jesus' life. From the implied author's Jesus' arrest,
assess
nl'lr;;:n,Pl'tl\/f"
and death are the result of collusion within the kosmos of
Je\vish and Roman power. "The three most dominant re[lleUlLIOJ1S are those which deal "vith 'the handing over' of Jesus to someone, the attempt to release Jesus, and his ultimate punishment by crucifixion. In the first case,
It is also used four times in reference tone
narrator's epithet for Judas Jewish leaders
is used twice as the
the Jewish leaders themselves.
Jesus, 18:36, 19: 11).
by Pilate,
Interestingly, the six references of
earHer in the
are
the narrator never implicates 'the Jews' in Jesus'
all related to Judas. rJaJ'aL1~la(mQ[l.
and by
the narrator uses it once in reference to Jesus'
This is something 'the Jews' themselves do, almost \\lith a sense of
pride (18:30), and it is echoed
Jesus and Pilate.
"The most common repetitions in the
narrative are those that mention
the crucifixion. There are fifteen references to it: 19:6
17, 18, 19,
31 ,
noun
10, 15
and 41. The narrator uses the verb
while 'the Jews' (chief
the verb in the
rnrlf.~r!:lti"IP
or
and
only use
mood (two times). Pilate, on the other hand,
uses the verb in questions leveled
16,
references of the kingship
Jesus are repeated five times (
19:
four of which are couched in questions which Pilate asks. The remaining reference is the chief Caesar' (19:
climactic response to Pilate, 'We have no
but
Finally, there are eight different references to Pilate's acquittal
and intended release of Jesus
in 18:38; 19:4,6;
19:10 and 12 Itwice)). Six come from
in 18:39 [twice);
one comes from the narrator, and
one comes from 'the Jews.' Clearly, all these repetitions strongly reinforce the ImlDIt(~d
the
author's ideological
of view, one which cannot be ml:'Hnlteq)reted
reader.
The third corpse grins up at the second one still hanging above it "Whenever I interrupt one of your dramatic soliloquies, you're forced to shut up for a while.
John 15:18-19; 17:14-16; 18:36. David out that "Pilate too becomes an agent of the 'world'" in the lohannine trial scene" ("The Polities of John, 402; see further, 403-406).
94
"What is John?
So let me thrust another splinter in your 'Sometimes the
bloated side. Someone once said
a text is not excessive obscurity
posed
rather,
some fonn of excessive clarity. '90 "You talk of
in the
down the plot and
V'UFU''''''U''V
and hmv
your implied author's .......''-H'.'[S.''.... point of view.
But curiously, it is not until one earlier was the most
to the crucifixion
which you argued
element in the narrative's plot, that the action While it takes from 18: 12-19: 16 (five pages of
up Greek
seem to slow
to get a death verdict
(two and a half pages of text) to
Jesus, it only takes from 19: 16b-42 Jesus
and buried. Thus, in
the first half of the account, narrative time and time more parallel each other. But in the second half, narrative time is greatly {'l1IlfllO:Tlrl['lfPrl time remains roughly the same. 91
while
"Furthennore, there are fewer cmm~:cs,
and more characters on
I "'IJ''''LlI.JVllJ
in John 19: 16b-37, more scene
than in the first half of the passion
narrative. Only the four unusual references to
being fulfilled (19:24, 28,
the five references to Jesus' mother (19:25
26 [twicel,
and the narrator's five necessary references to crucifixion (19: reflect those
emphatic
92
31,
Finally, and most
at the
cruciaJ moment when Jesus is 'lifted up; your implied reader's eyes are immediately averted from that central glorious event. Paradoxically, at this your implied reader is made to look anywhere but at Jesus" "If you ask me, you've still listed quite a number of repetitions for that
section of text," snaps the hanging corpse. "And I must say that to mention one of the most ~'H::f""V"~lln{'"f redundancies in the entire
failed
B. Johnson,
in Writing and LOInp()sltwnand Literature (ed. D. C Atkins and M. L Johnson; Lawrence: In""",.,,,I,, of Kansas Press, 1985) 145. Alan Culpet:)per describes this narrative duration to point out the variations in duration on the last it it a "sentimental scene" ("An but surely this misses the rhetorical of the rCIJ~tJltlOflS
(sec below).
95 narrative: the six additional references to \\Titing which introduce the crucifixion 19
scene
and conclude with Pilate's final words, ho It can hardly be inconsequential that Pilate's own
in a gross
of Je\vish Scripture, will not be modified
and is an object of debate among 'the Jews' who read it
1:45-46; 7:51
Nor can it be insignificant that it directly precedes the last three ,",j~~~""" citations of Jewish Scripture in the Pilate seems to be
'I am one thing, Ibutl my U{r1un!1\.: are another
matter:"94 the first corpse mumbles "What's that?" else about intertextuality, An echo of another
"Oh nothing, It's just
text, I suppose," responds the third corpse,
to look at its companion.
"Well, I'm not interested in those sorts of intertextual echoes, the nal1lgIl1lg corpse says. "That corpse beside you
the hell out of me. Can't you
get it to shut up? It has absolutely nothing to add to our conversation, '~<:'n.{.~f'tn!'~ of your failure to note the important I ....
pointed out, you would still need to account for the
I just
in narrative point of
view at the crucifixion scene. The focalization in 19:26-28 is from the perspective of Jesus. Jesus is the focalizer. This, I think, is really
for
it means that the implied reader is indeed with Jesus at the moment of his down at those around his cross." There are, therefore, other ways of
the
author's ideological
besides
['"n~{·"tl'\! observes that Pilate's ... is un(iouhted!y understood (The John: A Commentary Westminster, 19711 669), and Thomas Brodie caBs it the "H11pilcatlon 546). But (The to John INew York: Oxford ironic connection between these references to Absent C:Olnplem,cnt, in J. Derrida, The Ear (ed. C. McDonald; Lincoln: Nebraska Press, For, Bultmann can say, in the cmcifixion has that had to happen; the work of Jesus is he has carried out that which his Father had commanded him" (John, 674-675; see 632).
"What is John?
96
repetition. And in this case, the implied reader is uniquely made to share both Jesus' view of 'his mother and the disciple "vhom he loved Slanollng aJOngs:lOe (a person whom the narrator had left out of his earlier scenic description I and Jesus' knowledge that 'all things were nmv finished' ( isn't as much repetition
the implied reader is
So even if there in a most privileged
position." The first corpse is aroused out of its restless dreams dogs gone
I'm sick of
them
and
around my head.
Where the hell did they "It's true that your implied reader is where Jesus and knowing what Jesus
what Jesus sees,
but I wouldn't say your implied reader is in a
privileged position because of that. Your implied reader is actually offered only the most literal, rudimentary interpretation of Jesus' words. Jesus' statements to his mother and the beloved disci pie (19:26) are
by the narrator si mply
as Jesus' interest in her welfare ('the disciple took her to his own home' I which is a rather mundane concern for oldest sons in ancient Mediterranean kinship structure. 96 And Jesus' next statement initially seems to be a straightforward fulfillment of Scripture (19:28), Yet almost everyone sees Jesus' 'mother/son' langm:t.ge as ....HAf·t. .
H ..
mother and Jesus' thirst as more than a
more than a mundane concern for his for a drink. People say these must
be symbolic, related somehow to the foundation of the new community and Jesus' mission.
But why do people say that? Where are the explicit textual
dues? "Damn it! The dogs are back. Now I think they're beginning to
a hole to
bury my bones. "You know, I once heard how in ancient Mesopotamia
is not too far to
the east of here, I need hardly add) dogs were often severed in two, longitudinally, so that the offerer could then
between ... [the I two
lJe~)Plsmg the Shame of the Cross," 15; sec Stjbbe, John 161-166. 97 See, e.g., Brown, John, 2:922-927, 929-930; Senior, The Passion 113-120; D. Foster, "John Come The Belated i::,v,lll,gelis:t, Press, 1986) ) 27-128; Tradition (ed. E McConneH; New York: Oxford ... r",,,!,,·,; HAn Absent COltnpJemem.
97 which, like a magnet, attracted .. .impuritl ies]. '98 Rituals such as this are illustrations of how 'the
tends to be brought fonvard in its most extreme
form only on behalf of a cultural artifact or
or made thing (a
sentence) that is without any other basis in material reality: that is, it is only brought forward when there is a crisis of substantiation.'99 Well, as far as I'm concerned. our own little 'crisis of substantiation' here makes this the time to cut up those f'n.,"", ... nn canines. if I could just find something "WeJl you can actually
about chopping up your ph,antasrmc
There are
intratextual clues that Jesus' mother, the beloved disciple, significance here. Just look up John 2: 1-1 ]; 4: 1-30~
and thirst have
and 13:2125. you're probably right," adds the third corpse. "Those probably are intratextual cues. But I think what really interests my companion is hmv real and mesmerized by the narrator's seemingly
readers mundane
wanting to turn them all into
mean, here, at \vhat appears to be the moment of
symbolic codes. I clarity, when the 'hour'
comes, when all things converge at the cross-that place of Jesus' 'lifting up' your implied reader is suddenly overwhelmed by the narrator's excruciatingly of
attentive "For
peripheral and extraneous details."lOO
" chimes in the fIrst corpse, "why should anyone care that
Jesus' robe is
woven in one piece from the
Simply
because your implied reader knows Psalm 22: J8? Or is it because your implied reader also knows the high
vestments were seamless
39:27-3
Perhaps your implied reader is expected to recaJl Mark 15:38 and the the
of
veiL Who knows?"
P
and B. Hesse, "P,lm[Jerc:d
72~ see L E. Were Hundreds of Buried at Ashkelon?" BA 17:3 (1991) 30-42. in Pain, 1 see 14; Gen 15:7-11. M"",,,,I,,,,, writes, "Petty detail reDI~ate~dlv mSlgnHlc:anc:e of details can be the other side of their tlYH~f~""'''''''P Absent C:OInpicm cnt, 166). 105-107; de ia Potterie, The Hour oj Jesus, 98-104. See Senior, The Passion
Burials, BA 56:2 (1993)
1
98
"What is John? "And
to continue that line of Questiorlin]g, the third corpse adds,
up into the
"how much ink has been spilled over the symbolic slgmnCaJlce
of the hour of crucifixion (19: cross
the mother and the beloved disciple near the
the jar and the hyssop stalk which cannot support a sponge with "vine (I
the thirst that completes Scripture; the lance thrust,
the unbroken bones, and the wound that pours forth water and blood ( As the extensive repetitions \ve talked about earlier diminish, readers have a need to find more and more intertextual and intratextual allusions in order to themselves some interpretive direction and a sense of control over the text. But 11lJ~VU''''.
overt opacity and a
"So it's not the
metaphoric murkiness abound. of all the scenic minutiae which I find so
intriguing," says the first corpse, trying one last time to lift its face out of the dirt. "Rather, it's the fact that the inconsequential details are so concentrated here and tied so tenuously to the fulf1JIment/completion of
to anything else,
for that matter. What clues is your implied reader given in order to understand these concrete statements as allusions and
Why don't these kinds of
illusive allusions appear earlier or elsewhere in the
narrative?
HMost think that a seismic semeion is on the verge of erupting. If so, it would appear to be one \vhich calls into
the apparent clarity and translucence
of those carefully constructed semeia pre:ce,omlg this climax. 103 Jesus whispers 'It is finished/completed'
when
your implied reader's task
is just U'"'f'~ll"uU,fi' "Well, at least we've established from the preceding narrative that the implied reader knows this is the key scene in the
" sniffs the hanging corpse. HAnd
if that is the case, the implied reader has been
in every way to overread
the death scene."
Marianne has a nice summary of the text's various and intertextual connections (The Humanity I 09-11 O~ Senior, the Johannine crucifixion and
pU"'HllUll,.... "
~'h'F""'>, 161-163. mt~erpret;atl()J1
of the crucifixion scene, Moore says the control the Johannine writers tn\(:lIu ,onaIHy been said to be within their control" (Literar.y Criticism
99 1 can agree with that Like Jesus, we have been led to cry 'I thirst!' We want to
the text
to squeeze from it every last bit of wet, sJippery
symbolism that we can, in order to
for unity and meaning."
our
you can't do this to me!" screams the last Il(llllP;IUP; corpse as it is finally cut loose from its cross and dropped down on the
next to the other two.
HI'm not finished! I still want to talk about the use of emphatic pronouns in the
su! aU over the place, and no one has ever made a detailed study of their usage here. I think I can squeeze them in, if you'll let me-but not to! Now 1 can't even find them! Someone help me! Tie me back up where I "Oh no, it's My God! It's the I can hear them face. They're here and the bitches are on~"U!,lno my passion narrative.
eaten my "Don't
so upset. laughs one of the
bone. "Just think of it as that's it,
its mouth full of dirt,
of erosion." the second corpse. "It must be erosion, and it's
to destroy the text in the same way that it's
away every trace of us.
"Once upon a time there was an implied or encoded peJletratlmg force, was erected upon this
who, with
hollow hill. But now there is
only an eroded reader.105 Our titular should have read, 'Here reader. Broken and finally devoured J.,Iplhr,c>uJ
and
and
~~j""''''''''U,
the eroded
stripped bare of its outer and inner
the dream hang it over our
of a
it was
corpse.' Put that in Latin, and see what real readers do with it.
"At least the image of erosion fits you," chuckles the third corpse. "And when rosy-fingered Eos appears you'll be some
gone. But
the
\vas
and yelped 'errorscission: Maybe the
cut of that Roman blade is beginning to bring you to your senses."
The Greek verb here would be (John HListen to this. 'The top of the hm is round and smooth, worn down of eroticism.' Is she my HI suppose she means 'erosion. HI suppose she does. But vearmru! betweeen the lines" (W. 49). INew York:
centuries
100
"What is John? no, you hvO still haven't gotten it!" hisses the first corpse. "'The
'erosion.' 'Eros-eon.' It's aJl about eros, can't you see? 'The
for
for essence, for the total picture, for the real and the true, are eros \viH live on in readers for eons, No
"106
and
of what happens to us or the text.
hyssop can quench the tanha-like thirst for
nor will
a tightly wrapped linen cloth ever silence its voice."
Post Mortem Reflections "Socialization is training in aJJegorical says,
and the
Barbara Johnson
temptation for me at the end of this drama is simply to
defer any conclusion, allowing my readers to infer their own preferences from their own particular locations.
if confessions and
1..1"""""1"'''
(and I suppose that to write this
eXt~ge:ucaJ
do
V'
and social """'''~'
intentions count for anything in
I should also add that I did not intend
exercise as a drama. I did not begin \vith a plan to
fictionalize scholarly discourse. The
began like any other academic
\\'ith "..... Ul'l"! out a text,
developing a bareboned thesis, into the literature, and ","",,,, ..,.nn the various '""","c ...... ,'t.,,..,, But as I began to reflect on some of the own
raised "108
criticism and how I might "own my
I realized that I could not simply
with autobiographical
reflections and then let that stand apart from the critical discourse on the Johannine passion narrative. To do that would be to very
that critics have been
uncritically the biblical reader-response
criticism. So I decided that I would somehow have to find a Way to integrate my autobiographical self into my
reading of the Johannine
narrative in such a Way that Whatever came out Would express the
nf\lv\l~~h"lnrl"
and intersubjectivity of interpretation.
B. Szabados,
AutobIJO~;raT)hy
after WHtgensb!ln, Journal
AeJ:metlcs and Art
50 1992) 10. Criticism "l{lespom;e from and the ,-,v.'I/""">' 1051 06~ Porter,
Criticism 283-290.
101
As Stephen Were states, write with several hands. "]09
must be several in order to
and you must
at the risk of error or
the
double-edged polyvalency of text and reader has been voices in my
reJ:~re~;ented
bra trinity of
No doubt there are more voices in me,ll° but three
is a fine number. It has held a position of honor in the Christian tradition, and sounds rel~BctltOn
contemporary when placed alongside postmodemism's of the modernist fascination '\'ith
And besides all
that, the three subjects were right there in the text from the very But, "Whatever happened to narratologyT asks Christine Brooke-Rose "'." ...... "HL~." III
Is there still a
in bi blical
of rea,delr-re~spCJns;e criticism \vith which you
for the more formalist your literary-critical
of the New Testament? I stammer for an answer. After all, my Bal, Brooke-Rose,
career
guides. Indeed, what has happened to narratology? But Christine I can collect my thoughts, "It obvious answer, she
swallowed up into
with
and others as my before
seems to be the
to her own question. "It slid off the
methods of a million structures and became the story of its own
Moore, Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist I-'PI"Cl"p~'I'nM'(' criticism, I hands" than with "several hands" (see and Shadow," in The Intimate and F. M. Zahaur; Durham: Duke n!'lr'~nl,r>l'''' Szabados. "I have a mouth. Yet my aim has been to create 5). Or as MikaiI Bakhtin (Discourse on the as quoted in H. L,. after Gates, "FAiitor's Introduction: 'Race' and the Difference it Makes, Critical 12 I I) puts it: Language .. .Iies on the borderline between oneself and the other. The word in language is half someone else's .... ITlhe word does not exist in a neutral and impersonal language ... but rather it exists in other people's mouths. in other people's contexts, serving other people's intentions: it is from there that one must take the word and make it one's own.
See also W. Booth, The We An Ethics of California Press, 19881238-239). III Brooke-Rose, "Whatever Happ~~ne:d to Narrato!,og~(r' 283.
In"lpr'~lh!
Fiction
"What is John?
102 functioning
"112
And then comes her final challenging query.
was it a
I'm silent. I don't knmv, and I'm not sure I care. Let others be the judge of that, if it is
But, like a pup happily chasing its o"vn
I can't resist telling one more
the true
of how the
made their
way onto the paper, or how they were housebroken. The
were not a
of the 11rst draft of this article, which was
read at the Pacific Northwest Regional
of the
of Biblical
Literature, in May, 1992. The dogs made their \\lay into this article, first in the in order to ill ustrate
autobiographical
the difference
between Navajo values and the dominant values of my Euroamerican home. Only after some thought did I decide to add the dogs to the developing exc::!j;!,cttcial narrative. In this latter
drama of the
of the article they were simply
intended to stand as a metaphor for how we read our own interests and into canonical texts- or better
they \v(mld become a sinister
for the intermingling of text and reader- the erosion of the one into the other. The more I thought about the dogs, the more they seemed the metaphor for this
phenomenon.
were despicable
creatures in some ancient Mediterranean cultures, and thus could symbolize the "social world" were despised animals in
of many New Testament scholars. Secondly, culture, and thus reflected my own cross-
cultural childhood experiences and memories. and most impOlli'lntly, I kne\v that there were no dogs in the Gospel of John, and so any in'\"I,,~'iti/',n of them on the Johannine text would appear But now I had a real problem: how could I make where they were so
the argument for their presence, the better. An iHusory
of
in John
of some of our guild's interpretive moves.
Ibid. Brooke-Rose has eX<'lggerated methods of a million structures ... three methods have slid off their structures. Ibid.
the more fantastic
out the arbitrariness and subjectivity of some types of reader-
responses and the masked
1I2
"appear" in a text
absent'! The narratologist in me wanted some
evidence of their presence in the Fourth would
and artificial.
"It slid off the
103 Knowing the \vord kuon did not appear in the Fourth for a backwards kUOfl. The
by looking
form of night
seemed to offer
possibilities, as did several participial constructions. But
fit
in John to save my soul, no matter how cynicaJIy I toyed
I couldn't find a
with the text. It made no difference whether I was reading the text forward or backward, up or down. Then, totally the
chance, and to my
narrative
V'-""I""'~""
in the
surprise, the dogs reared up in
from Psalm 22. I
hadn't seen
them there before-or had I? If I had seen them before, they had long since been in the dirt of my subconscious. But they were
reburied, like an old
hadn't I seen them there before? Suddenly. arguments
obvious to me now. about the arbitrariness of
and signifieds took on new meaning. For what
had begun as a conscious attempt to read had ended up
purely
into a text
stuck in the muck of a 10hannine
nicely,
narrative world. As I sit
these lines, I remember a
just last night. It nr:>r,v.r.o
with my
like a Chinese two big
call I recei ved from my
SC\iCH-vt:~ar-OlU
son
twice. 116 Then a
on the line and pregnant pause.
chased Allie tonight and knocked her down.
My wife picks up the phone in the bedroom.
that's right. And she has
cuts and bruises all over her face to prove it. She was flat on her middle of the street, drooling in her face. She was
and these two nj"'llrH~I{"£l
I guess I am not the tirst Kasemann (Testament
but the
in the
were pmving her and just thought it was a game.
read the Fourth
in
ways. Ernst
have investigated each line and each syllable from all possible perspectives, reading backwards and forwards. turning it upside down ",.It Itherefore I easy for outsiders to ridicLlle LIS, that we think we call hear the grass grow alld the bedbugs cough.
For the of the John to see The Acts of John, 60-61. after I had made the intertextual connection between and the Not narrative, John Crossan established a similar connection on Johannine (see his entitled "The Beneath the Cross, in hi stod cal-cd ti cal Jesus, 123-158). There an ancient Zen koan that goes monk, 'Is there a Buddha-nature in a Chao-chu barked, 'Wu. (Wu is the npor<:>ti'll" in Chinese, "No O>V'U,"''''UJ'F.
104
"What is John? owner, 'God damn it, that's why
One of the ..",.,..,u","" kept cities have leash laws! To your "''''''llVlU!''>
like yours under control! '"
under control!" I can hear my fellow biblical scholars
that response. "You can't do critical,
of half-wild
\vith a bunch
about your neighborhood, all over it"117
room, or
continually disrupting your work and
Yet if my readers (both the formalist ones inside the text and the real ones outside the
have proven to be fktions, fossilized remnants on the verge of
erotdUHZ away into nothing, then who-or what-is left to control the freethat remain behind? For as the sun
as
there will be caninical constraints and controls. I suppose the
answer to that question, dishearteningly, is to be found among the same whos and whats that have
been in control: those
structures which stand together as a human wall outside.
sociopolitical the ever present chaos
however, those structures are nourished by the of the monstrous chaos they seek to exclude.
117 words that today, still describe many New 'restament scholars' resistance to new in biblical studies and hermeneutics, Robert Roberts aornmmgly wrote fifteen years ago of Rudolf Bullmann: he "has not ambled his mo~cienllty lor pos1tmodenmty Bultmann Wm. R Eerdmans, 1976] 9; see also
Discursive Formations, Ascetic and the inf,7rnrl7i/7tirln Part I (Semeia cd. Vincent Wimbush; Atlanta, Scholars Press,
38.
THEOLOGICAL APPROACHES
Five The Gospel of John as a Document of Faith in a Pluralistic Culture R.
ALAN CULPEPPER
pluralism, and multicultural buzzwords in higher education
have become
As the world shrinks and American society old issues in a
pluralistic, "'"V""",,",,''',, and churches are
becomes new way. We are also
that interpretation is both a distinctly personal,
subjective enterprise and a communal one. Interpretation requires the interaction of a person in a particular context with a particular text. but the interpreter is never isolated from his or her tradition of interpretation, and
of
biblical texts exert powerful influences on communities of faith. My concern for the implications of
the Gospel of John as a document of faith in our
mcreasmgJv pluralistic culture is grounded in my own the
p"ll{~rt.1'.'1"..S.>~(~·""",
as a reader of
'JV'~IJ"'"
The Gospel of John has ahvays been for me a document of faith. I was raised in the home of Southern Baptist foreign missionaries in Chile and Argentina. I cannot remember a time when the Bible was not read and discussed in our home. I have ahvays ac(;eptea the Protestant principle of the centrality of Scripture, and in my early years it never occurred to me to question the of the
or suitability
of John as a document of faith. Here As a Gospel that has spoken
to people of different cultures and different ages, transcending cultural barriers as it communicates the essence of the Christian pluralization of our culture, interpretation, and
ethical sensitivities force us to examine a question
seldom discussed in either the
>wblnE'/:Jl"
The
in our understanding of the nature of biblical or the church: Can the
in the lnCre(J!Slll,{? Christians as a document culture? What problems or resources does it present to
believers 'rvho live in a pluralistic culture? The
is framed deliberately. I am concerned with the function of the
Gospel of John for Christians. By '"a document of faith" I mean a text that the character and content of one's
beliefs.
108
"What is John?
Christians (and Protestants in the sole sufticient
have confessed that the scriptures were
In other
in matters of faith and
'rve say
that the scriptures are our authority when it comes to defining what we believe and how \ve are the
to live.
question,
of John with the
juxtaposes the authority of
pluralism of American culture. As the
culture in which we live becomes increasingly pluralistic, religious communities are beginning to confront issues posed
the
religious traditions of individuals from
and
different social, ethnic,
religious Da(;KgrmmGiS. To put it in other words, does
a document n/LI'rmfu\f,rr culture
the
as
lead to a stance that is aa(,?quate to the believers?
Before attempting to fashion a response to the ourselves of two
and
clUlllenRj~S a
let us briefly remind
to the use of the Gospel of John as a document of
faith in earlier eras.
Challenges to Gospel as Document of Faith
ANCIENT CHALLENGES: VALENTINIANS AND MONTANIS1S
In the second century, of the the
were raised about the
tI'le~Ol()lUlcal
f l r t h f l ; " i / l t'U
The Gospel of John first appeared as a document of faith among Gnostics. One Gnostic school in Rome took the name of
Valentinus, who lived between 100 and 175 and founded a school with the purpose of
Christian theology '"to the level of pagan philosophical
studies:'l We cannot be sure that Valentinus knew the
of John, but it is
dear that his followers used it. Ptolemy, one of Valentinus's early students, wrote a
on the prologue of John, and Heracleon, another Valentinian,
wrote the first commentary on the evidence is, it shows that while the Johannine
alx1ut A.D. 170.
as the
were used only tentatively
by the Church Fathers before Irenaeus (about 180), the Gospel was treated as an authoritative
the Valentinian school in Rome.
Between 150 and 180 several sources confirm that John was widely known,
The Gnostic "r',-il'lfJ,''-Pt' See my John, the Son of South Carolina Press, 1994) esp. 114-119. I
2
B.
267.
Culpepper: The
was still fluid: Marcion
but the status of the fourfold edited version of wove the four
109
a Document
the Valentinians added the
nv"'#~""
When others orthodox scholar at
rej ected the
and Tatian
of
into one continuous account to use the Gospel of John, Gaius, a
an
':>f'{,·o,nt.;••1
n""chl.,ti:. ..
and noted
and denied that it was written by
an apostle. Gaius was an opponent of the Montanists an enthusiastic group in Asia Minor who based their claims regarding the Spirit on John. While his basic concerns seem be have been carefully
Gaius
to discredit John
its historical discrepancies and the places where it contradicted
the synoptic
Gaius is
because he shmvs that the authority of
John was not so fIrmly established that it could not be challenged
one of be
leaders of the church. The form of his argument is also telling: he sought to discredit be Gospels, 'rvhich
of John by showing that it contradicted be synoptic implication served as the standard by which a
could be
judged. Moreover, if the Muratorian Canon is to be traced to Rome during this same (A.D. 180200), it can be seen as a defense of the authority of the of John in a social context in which it had been called into question. Specifically, it reports that the other disciples urged John to write his they fasted for three
and it was revealed to Andrew that alJ of be
disciples were to go over the ,",",f.HJ"". but John should write everything down in his own name. 4 Irenaeus, more than any other
mounted a defense of the
as an orthodox gospel and fashioned a powerful
of John theological
He was also be first writer to offer a defense of the apostolic authorship of the
of John, the first to claim that it was written in
Ephesus, and be first to report that the apostle John lived to an old age in Ephesus. A
element in Irenaeus's defense of be Gospel was his
to a chain of tradition reaching back to be apostle John. Irenaeus had heard Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna. who was
J.
that he
about A.D. 156.
Ibid., 120-122. The of Gaius in this has been sIgmhcalluy clarified Yale Smith, "Gaits and the 'nnfl"~'''~''''''1 over the Johmmine Literature,
1).
1979. CulpelDPe:r, John, the Son
~U'<.CUC:C.
128-129.
110
"What is John?
Irenaeus claims that Polycarp \vas "instructed
the ap<Jstles and that Irenaeus
himself. in his youth, had heard Polycarp. Even so, the
of Irenaeus's
testimony has been sharply debated. Given the uncertainty of the
"'!td~','\"P ex:ag,~erated
claims-either that John
was used onJy by the Valentinians and Montanists before Irenaeus or that the authority of the Gospel was clearly established before Irenaeus - are out of place, Nevertheless, with Irenaeus the battle for the fourfold Gospel was won, The ""th,,,-ih:
of the
of John as
MODERN CHALLENGES:
K.O.
was never
BRE1:SCHNElDER AND
The second challenge to the use of the wa'i signaled
D.F.
in question. STRAUSS
of John as a document of faith
the publication in 1820 of a work by Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider
and its influence on David Friedrich Strauss's The Examined
published in 1
Jesus
This time the issue concerned primarily the
Johannine discourses and their implications for the messianic consciousness of Jesus. In the Johannine discourses Jesus speaks not about the but about his own
of God
as the Son of God and his role as the reveaJer of the
Father. More broadly, the question was to what extent the Gospel of John of Jesus. Is it the historical memory of the apostle John or the
tne~OI()gICaJ
construction of a later writer'? The
tied to comparisons between the
"nn".-.tu'c
ll1e~oJ()glcaJ
issue was
and John. Bretschneider argued:
It
that both the Jesus of the three hlSl[oncallly true, since there is the greatest difference between them, not only in the manner of discourse but also in the and the behavior of the two; it is also quite incredible that the first invented Jesus' practH~es, tea(~hHlgs, and method of but it is quite believable that the author of the Fourth could have created his Jesus. 6
Prior to Strauss, the Gospel of John had been the favorite of postbnhgltlte:oment German tneoIOlgJalns, including Friedrich
Ibid., 123-128. W. G. KiJmmel, The New Testament: The Problems (trans. S. M. Gilmour and H. C. Kee~ Nashville:
~CllllelefimaCn(~r.
rU.I'Ul,lO;'''VU
who
Culpepper: The constructed his
111
a Document
that Jesus is the ideal archetype from the Gospel of
John. For
Jesus was the model of human consciousness in his
awareness
on God. Although Strauss waffled on his
judgments
of John in the third edition of his
mounted arguments
the
of the Fourth
that profoundly
shaped subsequent scholarship. Repeatedly, Strauss materials to detailed Jesus
he
the Johannine
\vith the synoptic accounts. Whereas in the in aphorisms and parables, in John he offers extended
discourses which employ an entirely different style and vocabulary. The discourses of Jesus in John resemble the idiom of the the Johannine
the elder of
not the style of the parabler of the synoptic
7
The synoptic sayings are brief, pithy, and memorable, but it is inconceivable that anyone should have remembered the long and repetitious Johannine discourses 'Nord for 'Nord. Strauss
"We therefore hold it to be established, that
the discourses of Jesus in John's The
arc mainly free compositions of the
of Bretschneider and Strauss did not lead to a reconsideration
of the Gospel's canonical status, but they set the
for a century and a half of
debate over whether John should be read as
or theology. Although the
debate is
no means settled,
most interpreters
that John is both
history and theology: the fourth evangelist used historical traditions while composing the Gospel with considerable freedom and CONTEMPORARY CONCERNS AND CHALLENGES
For many
",,",,uV'U[J''''
hr",HA,"A"
seem relevant. Generations of circumstances of the composition or complements and extends the
the battles of the
no
have shown that whatever the usc of the Gospel of John, its thought and
of the rest of the New
Testament. Indeed, many would say that it forms the pinnacle of theological
7 D. F. Strauss, The Examined (ed. P. C. Hodgson; trans. G. Eliot; Lives of Jesus Series; Fortress Press, 384. conceivable how John could Ibid., 381-382. On p. 647, Strauss adds, "it ~1'{'llr~lllp.I~1 remember these Ibid., 386. Strauss adds, "but we have admitted that he has culled several of Jesus from an authentic tradition.
112
"What is John?
reflection in the New Testament Neither do the historical
.""JJUIJJU~~y
vu ..... .., .. ,..""",,
to the Gospel's
form the center of concern for many
theological and historical
\,.cU(:tIl"'H~~"".:I
In
of the
of earlier eras, a series of new concerns has
arisen. These concerns are not
theological or historical but ethical: (1)
Is the
Does the Gospel have
the marginalized and the oppressed? and
to say to
How should we
the
theological exclusivism of the Gospel in a pluralistic culture? I will treat each of these UUleSllOflS ,.,,,1,.11£11.,,,III,!
The Gospel and the Jews own early responses to the
that John is anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic
were probably not unlike those of many others for whom the
is a
treasured book of scripture. I readily turned to counter-arguments that John does not teach hatred of Jews:
it reflects a historical period in which there \vas
tension within the synagogue and Jews and Christians were not Jesus and the disciples were all
and the first Christians were Jews; and
the Gospel of John opposes not Jewishness but the response of unbelief. In John,
the Jews are
of unbelief. I still believe
these points are correct, but they no longer constitute an
response.
Jewish friends and scholars have persuaded me that such responses to the issue do not take sufficiently
the
role in
anti-Jewish
sentiment in Christian communities. We may be able to demonstrate historically or exegetically that the Gospel of John does not condemn Je\vs as a people, but the what are we to do with the statements that the Jews or, to be loudaioi in John? The Gospel of John contains some of the most hostile, anti-Jewish statements in the Christian
So sharp is the contrast between Jesus' exhortations
to his followers to love one another and the hostile references to "the Jews," that Kaufmann Kohler, an eminent Jewish scholar at the turn of the century, of Christian love and Jew hatred."l0 commented that John is "a The t~n.llr.'~l!.n,n passages give only a sample of the statements in John which
K Kohler, "New Testament," Jewish
bnc:)lcIOf)c'dw
(1905),9:251.
Culpepper: The
113
a Document
refer to the loudaioi in a hostile manner: 11 -"But I know that you -Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in himl look for an oPlJOrtuIllltv to kill me, because there is no in you for my word. I declare what I have seen in the Father's presence; as for you, you do what you have heard from your father .... You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the lJej~ll1mJ1lg and does not stand the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies .... Whoever is from G(xi hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God" (8:3] 37-38,44,47). Ithe Jewsl will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, an hour is so are when those who kill you win think that to God. And will do this because have not known the Father me" 16:2-3).
The effect of these and other passages, when read as part of the scriptures of the church, has often been to incite anti-Je\vish communities. In eastern
in Christian
in particular, Jews feared the celebration of
Easter because they knew that it frequently led to pogroms or massacres of Jews. It is now
acciePtc:~d
that the
of John reflects a
of
controversy with the synagogue about the time the Gospel was written. John has
See M. J. Cook, "The of John and the Jews, 84 1987) 260-261. In of our earlier discussion of Strauss's arguments and their influence, it is mt'~re:stHllg to note that later this article Cook observes that the Johannine dialogues no verisimilitude" One may compare Strauss's comment: "Hence, I confess, I understand not what is the meanJlI1g of verisimilitude in the mind of those who ascribe it to the discourses of Jesus in the of John" (The also poses the whether John should be considered po!emlcI~;t, or a theOlOgian. the view that John was nrl1mel'Flhl that "anti-Judaism is foremost on John ··"~'''"t·.~[fll\! anti-Jewish, Cook (267). He therefore contends that John should be understood as a theologian. established issues have therefore been a new focus the increased "",r."itivilru both Jewish and Christian scholars to the need to find effeetive ways of blumtlng the effects of John's anti-Jewish pronouncements. II
114
"What is John?
therefore interpreted Jesus' debates \vjth the
authorities in the light of
the experience of his own community. In this process, references to and in places even the Pharisees have
chief
way to a polemic
"the
Even if the Greek term hoi loudaioi once denoted Judeans or the Jewish of John generalized and stereotyped those who rejected
authorities, the
Jesus by its use of this term and elevated the bitterness and polemic to a new level.
of the
Perhaps even more importantly, the Gospel is the first
document to draw a connection between the authorities who condemned Jesus and the Jews known to the Christian community at a later time. By means of this transfer of
effected by
events in the
of Jesus with the
conflict "vith the synagogue in the time of the perhaps even encouraged Christians to read the
allowed and in an anti-Semitic
fashion. Christians after the Holocaust-and indeed in a time of resurgence of "ethnic cleansing" -can no longer ignore the role of anti-Jewish statements in John and elsewhere in the New Testament in inciting or
prejudice and violence
Jews. We may argue that in its historical context the
of John
cannot have been anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, since the influential work of Rosemary Radford Ruether, 14 Christian scholars have begun to Gospel
that the
contends that its festivals and observances have been
replaced, and uses the
tern hoi loudaioi to identify those who
God's revelation and persecuted Jesus and his followers. We must therefore reckon with the
of the GospeJ and its effects on those of us who
read it as Scripture. Is it
for Christians who are sensitive to these issues
to interpret the toward
in such a way that does not foster antipathy and violence
or should the
be set aside as a document of faith?
Constructive proposals have taken various forms. Christian to sensitize others to the
may
of John's anti-Jewish references and the
R. T. Fortna, Use of l.A)cale in the Fourth Studies in Sherman E. Johnson (cd. M. H. Jr., and E. C Hobbs; fiFl{!m~'an he(JlO;~lC4rll Review, Series 3 11974l) 90. l3 R. Fuller, "'I'he 'Jews' in the Fourth 16 (1977) 35. R. Radford Ruether, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament, Christian 85 (1968) 191-196.
Culpepper: The difficulties of
lHtJIJ:SI.:tUJ:Jg
115
a Document
the term hoi loudaioi in John. Some have called for
limiting the use of certain passages in John by excluding them from the common lectionary used by many churches. Others have proposed altering the translations of the Gospel on the logic that if it did not originally condemn Jews as Jews, then modern translations should not support or even a]Jow for such an interpretation of the GospeJ.15 Most would agree,
that if translations are altered, it
should be because the text demands it, not because translators are or diminish the anti-Jewish tone of the The Greek term hoi loudaioi can mean "the
to
'-.";UI>..,,.
" as it is usually translated,
but it can also mean '"the Judeans. In the Gospel of John the group designated "J udeans" as opposed to Galileans or
this term appears to be Salmalrlta,ns, the "Judean leaders" or-less t.·..,'.. u~ntll" of the term hoi
JOilifaalOl.
therefore be determined
it is used interchangeably with "the as opposed to Gentiles. The .......'.... "' .. b
which is used seVemlV-(me times in the
'-H';UI>..,'.
must
the context of each occurrence, There are places in
John where the term can hardly mean "the Jews. A different translation \vould '=If'flll~llil.!
convey the sense of the text more accurately. For
although the
crowd in Jerusalem at the festival of Booths must have been predominantly Jewish,
stilI fear the loudaioi By translating hoi loudaioi as '"the Jews" in
this context, the NRSV and other translations produce a
that makes little
sense. The Jews Ihoi IVU,UtU,ln were for him at the festival and about him among "Where heT And there was considerable the crowds. While some were "He is a man, others were "No, he the crowd. Yet no one would about him for fear the Jews Ihoi Ioudatoi] (John 7: 11-13, NRSV).
Here it is clear the Iwi loudaioi refers to a more limited group opposed to either certain Judean Jews or the religious authorities. The same difficulties appear elsewhere in the Gospel. each reference to hoi loudaioi
Improving translations by
contextually may contribute to eradicating anti-Jewish
of John,
However, if the Gospel is to continue to have a viable place in snalpmlg Christian
Bible
W~JiJa,deiphla:
"""'h""'''''' CO~Jperatlon, 1986).
'rhe American Institute for the
116
"What is John?
faith and practice, biblical scholars and Christian tne:Ol()gllms are to continue
to have
promoting awareness of John's anti-Judaism. John's
circumscribed love command-that you love one another, that
fellow
Christians-is no longer adequate. To
Matthew rather ironically, "Do
not even the Gentiles do the same?" (Matt
The anti-Judaism of the
of John must be repudiated, and hard questions must be addressed theological
but more on this shortly.16
THE GOSPEL AND THE MARGINALIZED AND OPPRESSED
The second
Cntltllelilge to the Gospel of John is whether it has anything
to say to the marginalized and the qw~stlon.
What does the
say to women who are striving for a place in the
church as well as a voice in American who is
Various groups have raised this
for a
at
were violently displaced and forced into oppressed
What does it offer the African-
and a heritage for those whose ancestors and who themselves have been
racism? What does the Gospel offer to Hispanics, to Asian
Americans, and-Jest we
the Native Americans we displaced from
their lands? Unfortunately, biblical scholarship at least until recently has been dominated almost
white,
HUlronearlS and Euro-Americans. The voices
of those who have been culturally marginalized have scarcely been heard. The methods of critical biblical scholarship were developed and defined European scholars, and the concerns they brought to the text were defined their own ~mjefj(;ans,
and cultural context. Women, Africanand third \vorld readers rightly point out that the authority of the
Bible has been wielded in the interests of the status quo, the powerful, and the educated. As a result, even our Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and
See further N. A. Beek, Mature f:ll1'i"ti'anitv in the 21st The Recognition and Anti-Jewish Polemic New Testament (rev. ed.; New York: Crossroad, 1994), esp. 321-328~ and my essay, "The 84 (273-28K revised and putlllsJ!lcd John as a Threat Jewish-Christian Relations," Fear Between Jevl's atul Christians 1. H. Charlesworth with E X. Blisard and 1. L Gorham INew York: Crossroad, 2 J-43.
Culpepper: The
a Document
117
commentaries are not free from hermeneutical bias. The ,nf,""1'"\,.,-.t •.".. must exercise a "hermeneutics of sm;OH:;lOn . whose interests are being served by this or that sur)On~ssc~d'!
and whose voice is being
What do we communicate when \ve treat the blind man in John 9
and scarcely note that he was a
or when we ,nf"' ..n ..,-.' John 4 and pay little
attention to the social location of a Samaritan woman? On the other hand, the patriarchal bias of the biblical stories is often taken as normative for society Along the margins, however, we are beginning to hear the call for a reading of the Bible that grows out of the struggle of various groups for economic
and the
for example,
of their own voice: a black South African, writes:
'rhe
of the black in its different forms and must eplste:mC)lo,gICallenses with which the Bible read. such a seems to us to represent a theoretical break with dominant biblical hermeneutics. less a with what in fact must be
Elsa Tamez, reading the Bible from a Latin American woman's perspective, says: of and freedom that neutralizes It is the antifemale texts. A the Bible that attempts to be faithful to the word of the Lord wiH achieve that reflects the of the even whcn sometimes to the forces the reader to distance herself or himself from the text. Therefore, a time has come to that those biblical texts that reflect culture and women's and their submission men are not nonnative .... The rationale behind this statement is the same as that offered the the of of Jesus calls us to life and announces the of the kUllgdcDm
I. Mosala, "The Use of the Bible in Black the Margin: the Bible in the Third World (ed. R. S. :SUJ~mnaralah: '"'
l11t,(}rnrptif11.V
118
"What is John?
In a similar
Gustavo Gutierrez caBs for identification with the
of the poor: to draw near a God who has because divine love refuses to be confined God has a love for the poor ne(;eS!mnly better than others, or re!l.glc)Uslty in an inhuman situation that is contrary to God's will. nrp",c .•",u
The examples could be multiplied, but these eloquent voices suffice, The influence of the pel'SPjectlve the culture, and the social location of the interpreter is being
No text, and no interpretation, is ever completely unbiased
or neutral. Some interests are advocated, privileged, or defended, while others are denied or subjugated. The implications of this shift in critical theory are just v ... l::> ...... "'b
to be considered, If no interpretation can claim to be
for
and if the
and detachment has often functioned as an excuse
for failure to
re(:o~Jm~e
the ethical, political, or social implications of our
then the deliberate about the ethics
is to be and
mte'rpretaltwfltS. The
detachment should nmv be replaced by a
,,,h.''''f,h,,,hr
for an ethics of
that
arises out of the highest ideals of the Bible and the Christian tradition, an ethic that is adequate to guide the interpretive community as it seeks to live out these ideals in a pluralistic culture. As a
in this direction, interpreters are beginning to take
,<""
£,<", . . " " . .
what
may be called the "p" codes within the text: power, privilege, and persecution. Who is privileged and who is oppressed, and how are each treated in the text? The issues of power and social education, social l~""""Ul""''''
the
religious obligation, and work-often guide us to
of the text that
text
power
undermine
master- servant,
19
relationships:
male-
citizen-alien? Whose interests are
protected or advanced by our or empower the
In what \vays does
to its ethical
of the text? Does it protect the status quo
dJs,posse:ss<:~d'!
G. Gutierrez,
and Deliverance,
the
131.
Culpepper: The This
VIA ..... "
...
,..,v
119
a Document
calls us to examine our int1crp'retati(.ms as well as the texts \ve
seek to interpret. What do
have to say to the poor and the
Do
they perpetuate the interests of the privileged or liberate the OPIJre:ssed' And where must they be read with a hermeneutics of suspicion, looking in the gaps and silences for what is not said? Various jntl~rn,rptpr" are
leading the way. Three recent, small books
illustrate that John need not be read from the perspective of the emo01,vel'ed. Richard J.
states his thesis
at the outset: "In depicting Jesus'
identity and mission within his
the evangelist John was concerned to
present elements and themes that \vere readers
significant for Christian
Roman imperial claims and for any who faced Roman
persecution:'2o Such a perspective allows Cassidy to read the Gospel's claims for the
of Jesus, the Roman
John 20-21 in light of how
the farewell
and
would have been understood
persecuted
communities under Roman rule. David Rensberger notes that John seems to be the least Iike]y of the gospels of liberation because of its overriding focus on
to support a
christo]ogy. Nevertheless, Rensberger cautiously notes that although John does not offer a political program, and the situation of its first readers was different in
respects from that of
John is "the
communities
the
of an oppressed community."21 John 15:
of
15:20b, and
16:2b show that the Johannine Christians at least saw themselves as
OP[)re~~se~(t
"If the world hates you, be a\vare that it hated me before it hated you ... .If persecuted me, they will persecute you ... .Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you wiII think that Rensberger then to identify publicly with the
so they are
worship to God.
Nicodemus as one faced with the decision whether marginal Christian community:
'rhc choice that faced Nicodemus was whether or not to side, no but with a group in his S()C:ICt'V-1I1UCCU.
Rl
11 rTI:tf')/"}O\,'
Faith and
and the Realities
120
"What is John? with those whom the members his own rank and class, the whose were ... .In essence, Nicodemus is to company he be found wherever one whose life is secure must face those whose life is insecure, who in the cause of God, and decide to say, "} am one of them.
When read in this
John's passion narrative and ethic of love also
propheticaJly to contemporary readers who are sensitive to the situation of the oppressed. 24 In a little book entitled Jesus and the
Ma~rgllzaIIlZt;~a
in John S
Robert
J. Karris calJs attention to the neglect of this subject in Johannine studies.' Successive chapters deal with the poor, those who are ignorant of the raw, the and women in John's
physically afflicted,
Gospel. "Those who do not know the law" in John 7:49 are interpreted on the basis of rabbinic materials as
of the land" who may not necessarily have
been poor but who \vere marginalized
the
authorities because they
in John did not know the Law. The lame man in John 5: 1-15 and the blind of the ...... cOf~ I~ of the land" who were also
9 are treated as
.....
physically afflicted. The Galilean basilikos in John 4:46-54 and the Samaritans r"'n,r,-'c/'>nf
those who \vere geographicaJly marginalized. In a helpful excursus,
Karris argues that the military context is absent in John
leading to the
conclusion that in this context basilikos designates a "Je\vish royal to
Herod Antipas."26 As a
he was held in low
regard by the Judean rabbis. Because of their marginalized status in antiquity, women often exerted influence through religious communities and activities. up these threads in the concluding chapter, Karris contends- building on the widely held thesis that the Johannine community was experiencing conflict with the Je\vish authorities-that the Jewish authorities opposed the because it
in the {Xx)r, GaHleans and
the
physically afflicted, those ignorant of the Law, and women. The result of such
Ibid., 115, 116. Ibid., see esp. 116-132. 25 R. J. Karris, Jesus and Testament; MN: Ibid., 61. 24
Marglluwzea in John:..
Press,
(Zacchaeus Studies: New
Culpepper: The
121
a Document
compromising of the traditional standards of election was that the Johannine Christians were drummed out of the synagogue. The encourages believers to remember that the Messiah to the ma.rglnallze:d was himself marginalized. Rensberger, and Karris have each contributed to J"'''''''~''''. 'U'E to its concern for the persecuted and those marginalized in
In sum,
readers of the various ways
and
When read in this light, the Gospel
believers to oppose
nrl]·\!~·IIInIO
structures and social
patterns that oppress the marginalized. THE GOSPEL AND EXCLUSIVlSA1
The third faith is
of the emerging challenge to the use of John as a document of in the
exclusivism The
How should we
the
Dlu!ral'lst,/C cliiture?
of John is not alone in the New Testament in
salvation is attained
thl'ough confession of Jesus as
",<,<,,,,rt,n
that
but the Gospel's
pronouncements are at the center of Y'~"V:;;"Y'",J between Christians and persons of other religious faiths. While the following passages articulate the core of their faith for some, they pose an insurmountable obstacle to faith for others: I am the and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except me" (John 14:6), -"No one can come me unless drawn the Father who sent me who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me .... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in (John 6:44,45,53), -"Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers~ such branches are thrown into the fJre, and burned" (John 15:6).
These verses raise the problematic issues of exclusivism. Does the Gospel of John offer the Christian reader any basis for
with persons from other
religious traditions, or does it demand that there is no hope of salvation apart from confession of the Lordship of Jesus? Global questions are sometimes best approached through the struggles of a
'rhis summary of Karris, Jesus and the in CR (1992) 224-225. from my review,
in John 5
has been
122
"What is John?
particular indi vidual. I have learned a
deal about the issues of exclusivism
and pluralism from a Jat)amese Christian. Dickson Kazuo
has written of his
struggle to shape what he terms "a yellow theology."28 Jal)anleS(!-A.mc~fj(;an
is a third-generation,
convert from a Shingon Buddhist home. For over twenty
years he has taught Christian
and 'rvorld religions at Seinan Gakuin
in Japan. His grandfather prayed daily for the Buddha altar. On his deathbed, the the
At
asked
before his
if he \\'ould pray for
the grandfather wanted to pass on his
but he realized
that his grandchildren would know little of the Japanese Buddhism, so he asked Yagi to pray for the family,
and
of
"Of course, you are
not a Buddhist, but a Christian minister. Yet surely the Buddhas would understand the cultural problem and accept your Christian prayers. "29 And so Yagi
"Will the God of
Jacob, and Jesus Christ also
understand .. .the collision of the absol uteness of the Christian Cross and the cultural relativity of our mUlti-religious modern The difficulty, he faith
is that
with two centers:
Paul) and love
John). A
with two
centers results in two fnu~<,h,,,, ..... that cannot be answered: The first is what can we say about those who believe in Jesus Christ but do not love'? The second is what can we say about those who do not believe in Jesus Christ and yet love their Because there are two centers to the not one, these two are unanswerable. Just as Christians who do not love are one center. non-Christians who do love are affirmed the other center
Yellow theology The most serious
with only one center. faced
Christianity in Asia is ancestor worship.
As a response to the abuse of indulgences, the Reformation cut aU ties to the committing them to the hands of God. But because the dead are honored in Asian
the Asian Christian can hardly abandon hope for those
"Christ for Asia: Yellow D. Kazui 357-378. Ibid., 358. Ibid. Ibid., 364-365.
for the
P~st,"
88 1991
Culpepper: The who die without is Christian.
123
a Document
cOJlte~)siI1lg
Christ After all,
Questioned about his
.08
of the population
of seeing his grandfather after death,
the Japanese Christian responded, HIf I
to heaven, though, and could not find
him, I v{ould immediately go to be ,,'jth him wherever he was- be it heII or nllt"OQtC\r'!
Why should I go to heaven to be \vith white folks while my
burning in
are
therefore calIs on whites and blacks in the West to puU" of this issue on Asian Christians as they
fashion a
that expresses an authentic biblical faith. One of the considers is that of the Cosmic Christ in
avenues to such a theology that John I :9. According to John I
Christ is the true light that enlightens every
man. The Gospel's opening gambit is to describe the work of the from the Wisdom tradition.
As Wisdom, the
by drawing
was the creative
Wisdom manifests God's design and power in all the creation. As John N. Jonsson n.h.onr'LJn" The universal consciousness across the world, how pathel:Jca,1l our excJusivist belief systems are in the and anomalies of our contemporary pluralIstic
The exclusivist claims of the Fourth
such as those cited
must
therefore be understood in the context of the opemng claim that the revelation that came through Jesus Christ is the same as that which is universally present in the
To cite Jonsson once more: Wisdom
of
incarnation, i.e., God a human all of the world. Here there
Ibid., 369. Ibid. 34 See the recent M. E. Willett, Wisdom in the Fourth (San Francisco: Mellen Research Press, 1992) and M. Scott, and the Johannine Jesus 71; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). J. N. Jonsson, "Wisdom: 'rhe Threshold of God in Human Existence" ms. be in a collection edited John A. L Saunders), 3.
"What is John?
124
Nazareth and thc
pr(~sejnts
Because the
IInI'Ilf'I"'~nlltv
the cosmic
Jesus as the incarnation who made known the
work of the Logos from the creation and through all
it undercuts the
triumphalism of claims that Christendom has a monopoly on the revelation of God. The further implication is that 'rvhat one says about the nature of revelation has direct implications for salvation through the work of the brought a
knowledge of God
Just as the and
so the
to persons through other religious traditions as part of God's effort to draw all people to a knowledge of God. The cosmic understanding of wisdom personalized in Yahweh, the one on which John's
is the antecedent
rests. One of the cruxes in the interpretation
of the prologue of John is whether vv. 9-13 refer to the work of the or to the
of the incarnation. Obviously, if this section describes the
it further claritIes that the work of the
Logos was not only
creative but redemptive. Accordingly, John's Logos
allows
Christians to affirm that adherents of other _...~.~.~u traditions may come to know God
the work of the Cosmic Christ.
If Christian theologians have hesitated to draw the biblical
of these
on revelation, it is due in part to understandings of salvation
that are too narrow, After a full career as a
and
Permit me a and later
reference.
of missions and world
religions, my father's last published statement may be a brief in which he deals with the problem of exclusivism
article
interpreting Acts 4: 12. He
translated the verse quite literally, as follows: "and there is not in any other one salvation. For neither is there another
of name under heaven
men in whom it is necessary for us to be saved. reconsideration of the meaning of language about
among
His comment calls for a saved":
The of this last word, "saved, is crucial to the eXI)OsltIcfn this verse. If we follow the popular of salvation sonlettung "h,c..~~""" which we can "have" or "not have, i.e. as
Ibid.,9. Here Jonsson cites Frederick The Transcendence T. & 1'. Clark, 1936) 10-101. Lulpel=lper "Acts 4: 12, 89 (1992) 85.
,j.,dl.nh".ron·
Christ
Culpepper: The
a Document
125
Ahl~,,·t,,"P
status, we miss the mark, It becomes le,g;aHStiC, of the personal, of what we are in ourselves, or of the If God is the relational, of how we relate to God and other human our vocation to be such in IHU'rnCUn! ultimate
It has
His concluding affirmation is a reflection of his own understanding of the work of Christ as the Logos: If there is a God
all to as rel;atH)flsI1JP with
quest for a c"'jio, ......................
theology, John Jonsson's reflections on the
of Wisdom, and my father's reflections on persons of faith from
other religious traditions have sensitized me to both the difficulties and the val ues of
the Gospel of John as a document of faith- both for Asian Christians
and for American Christians in our increasingly pluralistic Concluding Commellts we began with was: Can the in the Christians as a document
The
Inrrt->t:,nYHl
,-.111",'/7/.,·,,,,
culture? In large measure the answer to that question interpret the
Whereas
on how we
challenges to the use of the
as a
document of faith \vere based on theological and historical concerns, we are the emergence of a third
based on what we might
characterize as ethical concerns. I would readily admit that there were social and ethical differences between interpreters in both the second century and the nineteenth
The questions that face us now,
are
more
ethically defined than previous challenges: How should those of us who derive our religious
from the Gospel of John
concerned that the Gospel is
to Jews who are
those who have been
and
oppressed by the church and by Christians in society, and persons of other religious traditions'! These questions concern the very character of faith.
Ibid., 85. Ibid., 86-87.
126
"What is John? also raise new sensitivities and concerns for those who interpret the
Gospel. The position toward which I have been the
assumes that the role of
of John as a document of faith will depend on the hermeneutics of the
ecclesiastical and scholarly the
communities: it depends on hmv we
One could argue that the two
.nt,prn.r,.t
we have discussed from
earlier eras contributed to the definition of new methods of interr)reltation first to the aUegorical method and the second to historical criticism. Our quest then is for critical methods-now much more self COlISCIOUISly hermeneutical that will be adequate to the challenge of
the
in an increasingly
pluralistic culture. I have no program to
that may be useful in our
common search: I. For the sake of clarity, it is
to be
to question interpretations that claim
neutral, or nOlI-p.artlsan and to seek to be clear about the
assumptions, commitments, and interests that
our own work as
interpreters. 2. One of the issues to be discussed is whether the biblical texts are themselves inherently Iiberationist or oppressive and how to treat those texts that are oppressive.
always calls for the interpreter to
elements of the text that
his or her
the
and show how those
facets of the text undermine antithetical or incongruous elements of the text. Part of the solution, therefore, may be for the interpreter to allow the voices of the OlJ1DreSSe~C1
and excluded to raise new sensitivities and concerns for those of us
who interpret the Gospel of John. 3. Because the challenge, we face is in many
an ethical one, our
must be informed not only by theological tradition and
reading of the
historical criticism but also by concern for the effects and ethicallmpltcat.lOIlS of whether our
our mterr>reltatlon. serves to put an end to violence voice and power to the
that our interpretation wiJJ be relevant to the
Cl1(,tllengt~S
of the Gospel
Jews and other ethnic minorities, to and
and acceptance between persons of different
Consider the
mtc~rpret,atl(m
and to bring understanding traditions can we of our culture.
of I. J. Mosala and E. Tamez in the works cited above.
Culpepper: The Sensitized to the
a Document
127
of our pluralistic culture-indeed, of our world-
the interpreter may find that another part of the solution comes from the itself. That is, he or she may be able to identify facets of the text that resonate with our quest for ,vhat we may call a hermeneutics eX,lmf)le, the Fourth
For
dec1aration of God's boundless love for the world
undermines its polemic against "the Jews." Its concern that the community of faith may be one undermines social and ethnic barriers between
and its
cannot be confined to the period of the
aftlrmation that the ,vork of the
incarnation opens the way for affirming the experience and heritage of persons of faith in other
traditions.
Christian interpreters stHl have much to do. Accountability requires us to seek interpretations that are both faithful to the text and ethically responsible. Only by asking ,vhether our
of the Gospel serves to put an end to violence
Jews and other ethnic oppressed, and to traditions can ,ve
to empower the
and
understanding between persons of different . '"'~"1">", ...,J that our
,vill stand the test of
themselves are read with a "hermeneutics of suspicion."
Six
Metaphysics and Marginality in John WERNER
H. KELBER
We must face the violence of in our traditions, and ask, What is the stance that we must take toward texts of such terror? - Michael Fishbane were But what if the text in Hawed? What if it were "."--r'J-.''''.-' say, or anti-Jewish? D. Shore
But if there were a lesson to be drawn, lesson among the lessons of murder, from even murder, from all the collective lesson that extenninations we can draw if we can do so then we must-is that we must think, know, represent for ourselves, formalize, the possible between aU these discourses and the worst (here the final solution).
In Christian tea.chJll1g and pre:actunj~, the Jew was too often as the QUJll1tf~ss(mtJal "other, the enemy of Chnstlanlty, less than human. -Irvin J. I-
.'(4',",\.H~""'"
Derrida
Spirituality and Anti-Judaism When Clement of Alexandria espoused the thesis that the author of the Fourth Gospel,
and
gospel" distinction between the Johannine narrative and the other three canonical Whereas the
had
the
John had come into existence under the special gmdaJrIce of the
"What is John?
130 1
To be sure, Clement's invocation of the metaphysical dualism of body
versus
fails to capture the relation among the canonical
issue of John versus the
there is no
But the that the Fourth
Gospel entert.:'lins a high estimation of the Spirit. Descending from above, the 10hannine
is endm'{ed ,\'ith the
(John I
a birth
from above and from the Spirit announces the sending of the (14: 1
in Spirit and
promises the "living water" of the
truth and
to the believers
of Truth" in the form of "another Paraclete"
the Spirit among the
following his own
while he is reunited above with the Father ( In John, the
embodies the world
provides illumination in the world
of the flesh, and comes to rest in the Pal:acletje, Jesus' alter ego, while Jesus himself prepares for his return to the world above. Clement and the ancient tradition he relied upon of the Fourth 1 1 " , [ 1 " , . . . ."
There is, however, a the
sensed the spiritual, indeed metaphysical,
....." " , , , ,
awareness of a feature seemingly at odds with
spirituality: its profound anti-Judaism. Alarmed no doubt by the
holocaust, which brought to calamitous heights centuries of Christian antiJewishness, theologians and biblical scholars find themselves under obligation to reexamine the foundational documents of
2
It is tempting to claim
that the animosity John exhibits to'rvard the Jews and most
Jewish is
antithetical to its spirituality and irreconcilable with its theological profundity. Would it not make theological sense to suggest that the unspiritual elements which run counter to its
carries
loftiness? Should it
not be possible to isolate and excise John's unspiritual elements in the interest of highlighting its spiritual pursue in this essay. The thesis
But this is not the
we wiII
here is that John's
and his
anti-Jewish animus are tragically intertwined features. Hatred of the Jews and
(LCL; London: Heinemann; New York: I Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical Putnam's, I 932) 6.14.5-10. 2 A model of critical examination of anti-Judaism in the New 'restament documents N. A. Beck, Mature in the 21st The j(e~CO,1;~nEtlon eXj:mn(jed and rev. ed.; New York: the Anti-Jewish Polemic Crossroad, 1994).
Kelber:
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'n/l,flhj
in John
131
philosophical ambitions are concurrent phenomena in this Gospel. Our quest \viII be for the metaphysicaJ roots of Johannine anti-Judaism.
Facing lohannine Anti-lewishness Efforts to face the issue of John's anti-Judaism are numerous ranlgll1lg from the patently
~'V'JJV,,",""~II'"
to the inteJlectualIy astute.
I. It is sometimes
;)~'J",~",.:n",u
that language lies at the heart of the problem. We
must strive for accurate translation and allow the were. It is
for
C)\l:UJlfJIC,
'''''1n,nql
to
as it
for
that in the Johannine text the tern loudaioi does not
connote the Jewish people as a whole. Attention to
context and
social milieu provides evidence that the term can refer to '"those leaders \vho hold some influence over their Jewish
'-'\.JJ1.:)tJltU'.-U'-'
in the region known to the Fourth
A return to the semantic
will tell the truth and make
us free. John's use of words surely deserves of
because it is
the medium
that the implied author casts Jews and Judaism in an unfavorable
light. But it is facile to assume that translation lies at the heart of the problem and linguistic correctness would redeem the violence in the text. To imply that the polemic
the Jews is correctible by application of
precision is to belittle the nj:.ru>lr'~f.:.
of the
translational
We need to
and
Johannine language and narrative more strenuously to uncover the
depth of its involvement in the hostilities. 2. Another thesis VPI,JV"~Uh>
that to stay with Jews and Judaism as the principal
of the Johannine Jesus is to settle merely for the literal meaning. On
the surface level the controversy is acted out between the earthly Jesus and the Judaism of John's time. Those \vho fail to understand Jesus and go after his life and those who are provoked
Jesus and
to his
and
eg()Centrlc language represent the Judaism of the first century. But what the Fourth Gospel is its inability to remain for long on the literal level. In a sense transcending literalism, the
is with "the Jews as the
representatives of the world," and it is on that level that it takes on "an
R
wrhe
of John and Anti-Jewish Polemic,
J::.XlJlOl'aftl(Jns
6
132
"What is John?
exemplary
for a
more extensive religious realm.
It is arguable that John's narrative '"describes the progressive alienation of
Jesus from the Jews.
As heavenly savior of the
Jesus comes "into the
world" (1 :9) and "to His own" who "did not receive him" (1: 1 who
While those
toward the light are selected from the world (15:
unbelieving world is left in darkness. As the conflict with the Jews they are progressively identified with the world. The world that hates his follmvers is represented
the
.Hn"'.h~lI''''''',
Jesus and
the Je\vs. One cannot join the Johannine
community "without making the decisive break with the
' particularly the
world of Judaism,6 Dramatically, it is thus plausible to argue that Judaism gradually modulates into the notion of the
and vice versa. But we must
press the issue and emphasize the heinousness that underlies the notion of the Jews as representatives of an unbelieving world which "is in essence existence in bondage. Far from moderating Johannine anti-Judaism, it cosmic n ..,~n£".M "'''''' "
it to
3. If one approaches 10hannine language from the perspective of ancient the prevailing
of the Gospel invite a reassessment in a new
light, for the ancient rhetorical culture was adverse to
thought
abstracted from the human Iifeworld. Reasoning evolved out of argumentation with others.
and conviction were born out of assertion
In like manner, it is argued, John's
as any effective
narrative in antiquity, "needs an antagonist as much as it needs a hero Hatred of the other was a rhetorical fact of life in the ancient Gentile, Jewish, and Christian world. Rhetorical considerations \vould thus enable us to locate John's language of invective more broadly in the context of other, harshly polemical passages in the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea
and the Church
Fathers. Undoubtedly, the adversarial
grows directly out of the rhetorical culture
E. Kasemann, The Testament A in the 17 Fortress Press, 1968) 24. W. A. Meeks, "'rbe Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism," JBL 91 (1972) 69. Ibid. 7 R Bultmann, New Testament (vol. 2; trans. K. Grobe!; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955) 16.
"The
of John, 4.
Kelber:
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'n/l,flhj
in John
133
of antiquity. Polemics is an intrinsic feature of rhetoric, although by no means an exclusive or even predominant one. The art of producing conviction in others was already a world removed from the brute force exerted in warfare. Apart from the fact that rhetoric is synonymous with persuasion more than \vith
we
must face up to the animosities as they exist in our sacred texts "because have been appropriated for further hatred."9 Rather than of ancient culture, we need to
violence as the texts for their
allegiances and for the way in which they construct positions of dominance and submission. We further need to acknowledge that we, the readers, also
out of social locations. 10 And ours is a post-holocaust world.
4. In recent years evidence has been accumulating that in addition to its antiJewish polemic, the Fourth t"o<:us!mg on the
was also marked by intra-Christian tensions.
traditions, D. Bruce Woll postulated a charismatic
community which was faced with "too much
, that is to say, too many
claimants to saving powers, too many successor figures, resulting in rivalry and 'charismatic
.
I
In this context. no sharp line \vas drawn between
the earthly Jesus and the ascended and/or risen Christ. 12 Reacting to the charismatic collapsing of the hierarchical distance between Jesus and his followers, the farewell discourse makes a concerted effort at subordinating the to Jesus. James Robinson, approaching the
from a somewhat
different but related perspectnle focused on the chronological divide between open and concealed language. a hermeneutical device which \vas intrinsic to the
M. Fishbane, M. A. Tolbert, "A l{e~;pOlt1Se a Literar.y (cd. R A. Scholars Press, 1991) 203-12. D. R Woll, Johannine Rank. and Succession in the Farewell Discourse (SBLDS 60; Chico, CA: Scholars Pres, 1981) 32; D. E. Aune, The eultic 28~ l~iden: E. 1. Brill, 1972); D. M. Smith, Johannine Essays on its Sources. and (Columbia, SC: of South Carolina Press, M. E. in the ,""H,,,,,fu' Ini,,!p"'~lhl Press, 1982) 49.
"What is John?
134 sayings/discourse genre.
There the risen or living Christ speaks
ca'iting
a shadmv of concealment over his earthly career. Robinson finds this technical in John J6:25 and
terminology of concealed versus revealed 16:29.
14
Whereas Jesus
when he will no
speak mistake the
earthly Jesus for the risen Christ in ch,msmatlc, gnostic fa
12:
it
and was, only with Jesus'
that the time of remembrance was ushered in
and what had to be remembered was the
death, and not
of Jesus' life and
the \vords of the risen Christ
The notion that confJictuaJ relations with a prophetic, type of
are inscribed in the
constitutes a
stunning reversal of the classic assumptions that John has "spiritualized old and "eliminated
0
.... ' - ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , . "....
because he felt that "the traditional, futuristic But even if John \vas gfi()stlclzlmg emphasis on the
is no longer
to curtail an oral, mystical,
Christi, rather than
the
futuristic scenario of apocalypticism, the polemics against Judaism are equally strongly inscribed into his narrative. While much \vork still needs to be done to grasp the historical and
logic of the coexistence of these dual
polemics, it will not alter, let alone justify, the anti-Jewish posture of the After all, the Gospel narrates a rationale for the break \\'jth Judaism while it holds out
for beHevers in
5. Historical
po~;t-r'eSljfn~ctllonaJ
times.
more than any other single approach, has uncovered
the source of John's anti-Judaism. We are indebted to historical
which
J. M. Robinson, "On the Gattung of Mark (and John), in Jesus and Man's (2 vols.; Pitltsblurgh: IJ1.usrmr);~n 1:99-129; rpt in The Problem t-'llllaO IClpJhla: Fortress Press, 1982) 11-39. See also his "Jesus: From Easter to Valentinus (or to the Creed), JBL 101 (1982) 5-37. 14 At this point our of John differs from Robinson's intf"rnrptf'ltinn 15 Kasemann, Testament. 16 H. Conzelmann, Grundriss der des Neuen Testaments (Munich: Chr. Kaiser 388. (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976) 92. R. TUJ\.T,,"U',c,",
Kelber:
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'na,flhj
in John
135
has assembled plausible evidence with regard to the schismatic experience that at the root of Johannine self-consciousness. Few have made a more case for the trauma of separation as a determining factor in the composition of the Fourth
Inn 1. Louis
18
In his classic study on
of John's Gospel. he reconstructed the drama of the building
the ancient of the waH of
which came to divide an ancient synagogue from the Christian community of John. What
the
according to Martyr, "vas neither the issue of the Torah, nor that of the Gentile mission, but rather Jesus' messiahship, or more M()Sa,IC-Pf()otletllc messiahship. At some point in end of the tlrst
F>.:.r. . . . .· H
"19
allegiance to his "not far removed from the
the authorities of a synagogue
nl">r'h-:.r"\c
located in
Alexandria,2o reached a formal agreement to expel members who had pledged all~eglall(;e
to Jesus, the
messianic miracle
1
synagogal authorities proceeded to take formal action heretics
may also
alongside of God. Invoking the 12th oeflculcuon, these
have w0 rsl1llVIJed as
the Messianic
excluding them from their community. Those displaced from their
cultural home fashioned a socio-cultural identity of their own, which was both grounded in their Jewish matrix and distanced from it. In illuminating the Gospel's cultural environment and in bringing to light the SYflag:ogaJ
VVUIIU ....
~,
Martyr has taught us a model lesson in historical criticism.
After Martyn we cannot help but read the Gospel as a dramatization of deeply contlictual relations. But historical
if used as the sole and solely
privileged access to the text, is not without its
By locating the source
of crisis in external
prejudged the internal
Ciltl S..1'f.1C,Jr .. , I
one has to some
problematics of the text. If \ve allow external hermeneutical JUU,IJU"""",
v ..... >-7. . . . . . y
to become the defining
we fail to grasp suft1ciently the intrinsic narrative
including the full force of its anti-Jewishness. And in placing the crisis
at the heart of the synagogue, we have subtly allocated responsibility.
J. L. Nashville: Press, Gemeinde and verherrlichter Christlls: Der historische Ort des ,lollanne.~~eV(mRelll:uns als Schliissel Neukirchcner &: "'f~""L,,,. . .
20
Ibid., 73, n. 100.
"What is John?
136
Furthermore, \vith the expulsion as
of departure for our
has become historically plausible as an
the Gospel
\vhich spoke for and
gave shape to a community in exile. The conflict is thereby the distant past, as if it had never impacted our
deposited in
Consistent with this strict
application of historical criticism, Martyn has therefore little to say concerning the meaning the Gospel holds for the
Unless we comprehend the
and the narrative logic of the Gospel, \ve cannot assess the
metaphysical depth of its
For
ambitions and anti-
this essay argues, are tragically interconnected forces in the lohannine narrative.
The Metaphysical Age"da Let us
not with the narrative minutiae but with an assessment of the
In the macro-coordinates which circumscribe the narrative of the Fourth broadest n/;"~C'n/""tt1!"'" the a]Judes to a ne::lvt'!nlv descent kaltatJ'aS,!S of the .....,,,W>I1 .., , .
narrates his earthly mission, which is marked by the performance of seven signs and four journeys into the city of Jerusalem, dramatizes an apotheosis at
and anticipates a heavenly ascent
While
descent, incarnational career, and ascent constitute defining elements, all three features are
with unexpected difficulties \vhich make for a
and
double-faced narrative. L That Jesus' incarnation is perceived as a descent is intimated for the first time in his conversation \vith Nicodemus Gospel's narrative. The
but is never the subject of the in the beginning
focus lies on the
and on his corning into the world (I :9: erchol1zenon eis ton
en
Reaching back to the beginning of beginnings, to the outside of time and to a state prior to the
the
primordiality. In what appears to be a
in foundational
the logocentric
the Gospel
shows forth its metaphysical ambitions. Yet the noteworthy feature of the metaphysical
is his status of
For the index of his authority is
not absolute transcendence and unambiguous identity. Rather, in and "God" (1'1: theos the '\\'ith God" (I: I: pros ton his ./O,-....... in difference. Inscribed in the logic of O/.,-.~ ••• is the u
!"
both manifests lfn:mn~SSI
Kelber:
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'n/l,flhj
in John
nature of difference. 21 From the dilemma for the
137
the Gospel creates a
\vhich has a critical
on the subsequent narrative
and on its readers as well. 2. As the
embarks upon his
career, he adopts a worldly status
which enllarlges his difference from divinity. But inasmuch as he simultaneous]y seeks to retain his identity from above. The into the flesh does so for the purpose of submits to
HHA,. . . .
his
"c....J'u ...
he who enters
and the Jesus who
standards never tires of .n""''',,,,,,,, on his unity with the Father. In principle, therefore, the
once descended and
incarnated, acts out a problematic which was inscribed already in the beginning But the transfer to earth has magnified the dilemma into one of above versus below and transcendence versus described as being God who was with divinity incarnated,
never
3. The dual
His status, is now more accurately defined as
naturalized in the flesh.
to enact identity in difference, and to dramatize
difference in identity, reaches a paradoxical culmination in the narration of Jesus' death. The cross,
of extreme
is also the hour of
that is said to bring knowledge of his identity (1
3:
LinguisticaJly effected through the double entendre of "lifting up" death and glory appear to be synchronized in "the noiseless hush of With flesh
subsumed under
are we then to assume
that death actualizes anabasis which brings restoration of full identity insulated from difference'! Not quite, because the ascensional held in distinction from the
on the cross is
Jesus' own
of
ascension in the traditional sense (20: 17: oupo gar anabebeka pros ton an
left unfulfilled in the narrative. In the end, Fernando .... ,~'·"'\Ul~\
rightly concludes, "one does fail to tlnd a direct description or portrayal of the
21 In an earlier essay (Hln the tle~~Im1Hng Were the Words: The ApotheOSIS Narrative of the " JAAR 58 69-98) 1 the qUlntessent1:al lClgOl:entnc gesture, e.g., I have come to realize that in John 1: 1, difference is It is this not the posture per se, which creates the nn'_"'.... pl1llo sof'hlcal DI'oblematIc of the 22 1. D. Radical Deconstruction, and the Hermeneutic Project (BloolllHlgt()n and Indlanapcllis: Indiana Press, 6, I "..." " ,
l
138
"What is John?
return of the Word of God from the world of human
to the world of God,
that is to say, a formal closure" to the narrative and introduced in the
prologue. 23
to the problematic
The readerly expectations with regard to the fate of
the principal character are thus left in a state of
aDc~vamoe.
Jesus' circuit is not
completed. It is hard to escape the impression that the traditional motifs of descent and
ascent
entirely to discourse, not to narrative.
traditional motifs, the Fourth
familiarity with the
seems to be adverse to mapping out a
co~)mlolOfgy
of heavenly
"lifting
on the cross, is a thoroughly demythologized version of the ascent
The one ascent which is narrated, e.g., the
genre. In the absence of a
of heavenly
the discourses on
descent and ascent serve to secure the heavenly profile of the Son of Man. "The reader cannot really know who Jesus is unless Jesus is understood in terms of his 'whence'
and
·whither.
Insulated
from
narrative
and
severely
demythologized, descent and ascent constitute a set of coordinates in reference to which Jesus' heavenly ..~o ... .-"'" is formulated. It is as man from heaven that he 'rvalks the
the functions of his
and
announces his return. Etched into this
commonplace scenario is an issue of metaphysical
proportions. At the very beginning, the reader is confronted with indeed
opaqueness. The authority of the
is defined both by
oneness \\'ith God and difference from God. This ambiguous
of the
sets the agenda for what is to come. Descent, articulated as embodiment in the flesh, inevit.:'1bly enlarges the issue of separateness from divine
nrl·Oln~111rv
In inhabiting the human flesh, the
must carry the burden of human
communication. And
reminds his
John the
that "he who
comes from above is above ali, he who is of the earth is from the earth and of the earth"
that the
the language from above. Indeed, the from heaven: "1 am not of this world"
man, while on earth, himself as the man he tells the Jews unequivocally.
"The Journeys) of the Word of God: A .,"-'........ 15 of the Plot of the Fourth Fourth 24 R. A. CUlpepper, wrhe Johannine tf)IJ)od,r!iRlna: of John 1 "Fourth 136.
Kelber:
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'na,flhj
in John
139
On the one hand, he is obliged to concede that the Father is (14:28), "vhile at the same time he continues to state his (10:30,
14: 11; 17:21,
than he with be Father
Jesus' ascent, whether on be cross or
the future, fails to resolve the dilemma. If
in
the duality of his ascents
complicates matters further. Neither the characters in the narrative nor the readers of the narrative are encouraged to undertake an ascent to heaven. Their ascent is in fact discouraged, because where Jesus goes they cannot follow (1
We thus conclude that the macro-coordinates circumscribe and enact the
principal Johannine dilemma of a complex and duplicitous narrative: to secure the
profile of the One who embarked upon
in the flesh.
The Metaphorical Process We have seen that the narrator of the Fourth Gospel has devised for himself and for others a
of perplexing philosophical
does the
take up its central
How, \ve must
deal with it,
it, and
attempt to resolve it? Negatively, John does not "resolve" the issue by resorting to the discourse of reason. For such is the problem that it does not submit to dialectical
or to
resolutions. Heaven and
baptizer assures us, are not negotiable terms
John the
How can there be a
rapprochement between be above and the below? John's principal tool of nl·r·;;:I1~.;;:i.\n is a dualistic structuring of which is deliberately Inf'f"or'~II"(1 into the Gospel's narrative and discourse sections. Upon entering into the condition of the flesh, the
words which are both in conformity with
intelligibility and in excess of it.
his mission on
his
words connote tension between apparent and intended meanings. 25 It is this well-known feature of the double-entendre which is metaphysical
to deal with the
a}4l.~uua.
One of the best known cases of double-entendre is acted out in Jesus'
In response to this Pharisee's confessional
discourse with Nicodemus statement one is born
announces, "Truly. truly, I say to you, unless anlJlnen.
one cannot see be kingdom of God"
Ratsel und Missverstiindnis. Ein Jollanne.s'eVCUlfZ,ellLflns
(Bonner Biblische
It is the word
zur
30; Bonn: Peter Hanstein
des
1968).
"What is John?
140
anothen which proves to be a stumbling block in the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. While Nicodemus understands the birth anothen in the sense of born
and queries about the impossibility of a second biological birth
Jesus intends to
of a birth from above or in the Spirit
Further
arise in the conversation between Jesus and the
Samaritan woman water.
What initially unites them is their joint concern for
fatigued from his
is sitting
the well when the woman
comes to draw water from it. But soon a dissonance arises over the the word "living water"
Whereas the woman speaks of water and
well in the literal sense, Jesus has in mind not kind of water that "viII
thirst forever
comprehension of Jesus' intended meaning of
running water, but the In spite of her tentative
the woman is never able to grasp the Even the readers remain in the dark until a
narrative aside following Jesus' speech on the last them enlightenment
of
of the feast of tabernacles
Only at that point are they informed that
the living water ,,'elling up from one's innermost being ,vas meant to be the Spirit In "one of Jesus' few of the farewell
conversations" with the
"outside
he speaks mysteriously of food in his
possession which is unknown to them auk This takes the f1."".n.,.:." gone to the city to buy food which evokes misunderstanding. Whereas the
brosin
hen
is the double-entendre understand the word to
mean physicaJ nourishment, Jesus interprets it in terms of his mandate to do the Yet another semantic ,>,,,,.. trr,,,,,,,.,,,u surrounds will of the One who sent him the
of the word "death. Jesus assures the Jews that
who keeps
His words [he] shall never see death" (8:51: thanatan au me
As far as the Jews are concerned, death signals the termination of life but what Jesus has in mind is a cessation of living in sinfulness and the eXIDCI'leI1Ce of new 6:48, 68; life in the Spirit "To be born "living water," " "death," and many other terms denote double In all instances, the apparent is deemed maloe1qmne. while the less obvious but intended carries the blessing of
Revelation in the Fourth Claim Phtlad1eJplrua: Fortress Press, 1986)
Narratlve Mode and
rheolo,~lCIal
Kelber:
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'na,flhj
in John
141
the narrator. It is note\vorthy that John's linguistic bipolarity creates an awareness that truth is not directly accessible. The deliberate]y crafted double-entendres cause extension of meaning at the very least and displacement of
at the very most.
misunderstandings and
complicate, and indeed inhibit, communication. In
the Johannine
language of double-entendres opens up the gap of difference, This needs to be ........''Wp" . . ..:,........
before one dwells on revelation and identity.
This observation of the Johannine double-entendre can be extended to the whole semiology of symbols and Johannine
lalll~UCt~!".
features which characterize reinforce pressure on readers to
differentiate appearance from intended
.:Hs ..............."".28
Initially at
are
obstacles to immediacy, Metaphors and irony likewise institute difference through various
of double meaning.
inclines more toward resemblance of meanings, both of
For whether metaphor
or
toward the clash of
the sweet taste of presence. Both enlist readers in the task
down the detours words are taking away from the straight route of
literalism. Insofar as "the entire
of John might be considered an extended
metaphor,"3o or as a book in which "narrative and discourse" were "bound together by an intricate network of symbolism, differential
of
it communicates the
opening up the gap between what is said and
what is meant. This needs to be recognized before one dwells on revelation and identity. While Jesus' metaphori,cal discourses and
27
R A
actions
A
Richard, of Double John, NTS 31 (1984-85) 96-112. Acc:orr;.(mR to John (2 vols~ AB 29-29a; Garden NY: 1:525-32. (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1985); R. Metap'hm's-l'Ille(JlI1ulg and Function: A of John 10: 1-8:' C:ulpeIPpeT, /l,rtUl(JIfj,y. 165-80; O'Day,
Revelation. ""!Vleanmg and Function, 99. C. H. Dodd, The the Fourth In"JP"'Olh! Press, 1953) 143. 31
142
"What is John?
.......... ""u",v_
"'",f'1!<:l,,f,,,c
whole
they likewise bespeak a desire for
the
A persistent longing
to rise above the terrestrial mundaneness of
sel1mOiJo~~v
of symbols and signifying
the highest
The
is enlisted into the service of
That signs are both imperative and capable of uplifting
readers above the literal meaning of the miraculous is a core conviction which flows like an undercurrent from the wedding at Cana to the and Peter's the gap of
haul of fish. If
of in effect open
also labor to overcome it. While double-entendres
inhibit direct communication, they do so in the interest of negotiating ascending moves from corporeality to transcendence. The climactic scene of crucifixion both
the central
movement of sublation or
and seeks to erase it
flUjrnelVUflR
the
In sum, the whole network of metaphors
and ironies brings dissimilarities into dramatic play with the aim of ensuring Jesus' identity. If the
is raised concerning the rationale of John's heavily symbolic
apparatus, one needs to recall the Gospel's principal
e.g., its
The dual potential of the sign to obstruct and to uplift, to
metaphysicaJ
differentiate and to signify, is commensurate with the philosophical project of the Johannine narrative. Whether
communicates an intrinsic connection
between appearance and hi gher
or
stresses
in
similarity, both tropes are ideally suited for trans::lctlmg the Johannine purpose: to secure Jesus' identity in a thoroughly different world. As for Jesus' many dialogues and virtual
"the tactic of the Johannine discourse is
for the answer to transpose the topic to a higher IeveL"32 In the ebb and ftmv of the narrative, metaphoric
breaks open the human realm to
reveal the divine and invites readers to consider both the literal and the meaning. dramatization.
the deliberate ambiguity of and
enacts the double-focused
in short, appeal to John because they take
one thing for another while simultaneously entertaining metaphysical aspirations.
The Role of the Reader The recent application of
Brown,
AClcorriin!l?
hailed
to John, I: 138.
as a
Kelber: turn in biblical
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'na,flhj
143
has focused more closely on the narrative text, what it
and how it affects its readers. In the practitioners,
in John
of most contemporary literary
metaphor, and the implied misunderstandings in John's
narrative engage readers in the process of education. It is precisely due to the rhetorical function of the double-entendres, in whatever form they manifest themsel ves, that a course of iHumination is set into motion. and
misreadings
the narrative enables the readers to grasp what the characters
in the narrative fail to understand. The readers are thereby raised from the naivetes of literalism to the level of genuine enlightenment and invited "to ascend
and
of
to the higher plateau of
Thus the recurrence
which arise primarily over the
of
'~"z.,,~'~n-
seem calculated to usher readers into the circle of privileged insiders. and
as a mode of revelatory
To be sure, literary critics of the Fourth Gospel are cognizant of the varying of double-entendres and the multiple lCUI15uU5''-,
of
of duplicitous
of meaning, and of perplexing distortions of time
and space. Such are the demands the narrative makes on its readers that a few critics have advanced the idea of '"the victimization of the implied Built into the
Jeffrey
is "a
to
humble those real readers who feel that they are on the inside track."36 Although the readers may come face to face with uncomfortable conclusions concerning the person of
the opaqueness of his
the
Disciple, and the meaning of many words and Staley assures us, are temporary and ahvays in the education. "So although the rhetorical
of the Beloved their disappointments, interest of their demands that the
implied reader be occasionally placed in an inferior position as an outsider, the
\cAA,IIJ'.'PIJ''', nntHVffl'Y,
199.
O'Day, Revelation. 22-32. 'rhc was introduced into Johannine studies 1 1.". Kiss: A Rhetorical in the Fourth Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), (95 n, 1) attributes it to 1 McKee, and the Literary Audience: Studies in the Victimization Reader in /iUJ~Lt,)tan Fiction (Amsterdam: 1974). Print:5 First Kiss. 105 n. 48.
"What is John?
144
implied reader does move onward and upward in his journey of faith. In some of my own studies on no Fourth Gospel, I have taken the
that
in some instances at least the narrator lets irony and metaphor do their work on the characters in the narrative no less than on the readers of no narrative. In the cases of Jesus' discourse on no bread and his woman, for
(lIa.lo~~ue
I raised the question as no no
have over the characters in the narration. stronger
with the Samaritan the readers
Stephen
following up with a
confessed an interest in what was within the control of the
narrator no less than "V hat might be out of his control.
He therefore disputed no
very working hypothesis of literary criticism and reader-oriented
that it
was the aim of the narrative to lead "an audience through deferrals to a SUj~gt:su;:u
And
completed
',4{)
The
and Moore enacted
that the recipients of no story can well be the ultimate victims of irony. critical realdulgs of this kind which accord special attention to
features resistant to meanJmg and to
are (still?) very
much the exception. What is distinct about the bent of current literary criticism is to discern the Gospel's transparency, not its obstruction, and to affirm its coherence to the virtual exclusion of hidden contradictions. This literary outlook on the
is concisely summarized in
statement: '"Never is the reader the victim of
"41
Inclusion,
and
fellowship between readers and the implied author are said to be the effects of Johannine double-entendres. HIn the hands of others irony becomes a
but in the hands of our author it is more like a net in \vhich readers are and drawn to the
and fai tho
The
assumption is that the whole apparatus of symbolism and semiology works for the benefit of
them to climb onto the roof and to take in the
Ibid., 116. W. H. Kelber, "The Birth of t1eE;mnmg: John 1: 1-18, lJe}?lW'Wl}?S and the Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 135-38; "In the 88-89. S. D. Moore, Literar.'l Criticism and the The Theoretical Haven and London: Yale Press, 1989) 159-70. Ibid., 160. 41 Culpc(:'per Anatomy, 179. Ibid., 180. 37
(New
Kelber: whole To
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'n/l,flhj
in John
145
if not at once, then certainly by degrees. our
in proper pel'speCLlve we need to
of the
remind ourselves that the underlying theological, linguistic premises are in COltltolrmlltv with ancient, tradition-honored hermeneutical conventions. For what has
the
tradition in antiquity and through the
Middle Ages was precisely the dichotomy of the literal versus the spiritual sense and the conviction that figurative the
served the metaphysical welfare of
readers. Even the two eminent
adversaries who wrote
the earliest commentaries on the Gospel, Heracleon, the disciple of Valentinus, and
of "ecclesiastical"
were in
on
these two principles. To be sure, for Heracleon the literal level was theologically irrelevant, to those
that the
failed to
words contain the shadow of future
'"that
Origen himself was
persuaded that what wa'i perceptible on the literal level required, in most instances, translation to the spiritual level. 44 Heracleon, moreover, felt that for the present the
were excluded from the
whereas Origen insisted on preaching the literal
of full if necessary, to the
common or somatic hearers, while the spiritual gospel was reserved for those of the
level of
the
46
differences which separated Heracleon from Origen, we must not lose sight of the fact that both operated on the unchallenged assumption of the differential quality of Johannine (and aJ) biblical)
and both elevated certain
readers to the status of privileged insiders. To be sure, both Heracleon and searched for the higher roaming
primarily by way of
the "vide world of Jewish and Christian traditions, and
rarely derived the transcendental reading from the strictly intra-Johannine logic of
and misunderstanding. But
43
of the Church 89; 61.
what unites Heracleon and
the WaSnllt1g~on,
of America Press, 1993) 13,
146
"What is John? with the modern literary critics is the
of the letter
and the Spirit and its hermeneutical implications for the
a premise
deeply etched into the agenda of the Gospel and shared by a multitude of Christian readers through the ages. Given the
and metaphorical readmgs, past and
we must
return to the modern insistence on the benign effects of Johannine double-entendre and symbolic langu2lge. Heracleon and "vere less generous about the fate of all the readers. Both claimed that the spiritual meaning was not open to just anyone. Even if we were to agree with the current literary mode that the "gospel's use of fellowship between reader and narrator,
sweetens and
the
we need to rea1ize that John
the language of ambiguity not only to include readers among the circle of believers but aJso to exclude other characters in the narrative. In the philosophical tradition it was Kierkegaard who had viewed irony less as a catalyst of illumination and more as a tool of l1rnutatlOJn, indeed of destruction. That truth ,vas never fuJIy transparent and irony the last word on it was, in the message of Socrates. The last effect of Socratic irony was to destroy at their deepest roots the
corrupt anticipations, and
misunderstandings perpetrated by classical Hellenism. Because "truth demanded a silence before
lifting up its
" Socrates "was
"so "Thus irony is the brand, the two-
in carrying out his "destructive
,\'hich he wielded over Hellas like a l\.JlerK,egaar'{1 could go so far as to compare the role of irony to the Pauline
of the Law which purports to consume and burn away the
natural man. If the
of Kierkegaard seems
make us mindful of
potential in functioning not
truth but also as the
,,-dJ,U"U"'JIJ,
of
it may serve to as the midwife of
of cruelty even.
With Constant J"{el'erence to Socrates (trans. L.M.
51
Ibid., 236. Ibid., 234.
Kelber:
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'n/l,flhj
in John
147
The Victimization of the Jews We have taken
to sketch the
linguistic ImpJememultlc)l] of its it has bequeathed to
metaphysical U"'... U....L., because this other anti-judaism,
itself out in this philosophicaJly ambitious and linguistically
intricate narrative. "The Jews" are the ultimate victims in John's thoroughly is coexistent with the
dichotomous dramatic world. Their
theological aspirations of the narrative. Whether the protagonist strives to carry the burden of the flesh \vhile
to manifest glory, or whether the discourses
address audiences from below while ""'... 'UL,l'"\ to communicate a presence from or whether the narrative runs the course of signifying differences while thirsting after the metaphysical
narratological, linguistic, and
dramatization of the Johannine
thrives
on
the
marginalization, indeed demonization, of the Jews. On his first journey to Jerusalem, Jesus purification in the temple
1
a powerful deed of
\vhich elicits a response both from the
disciples and the Jews. The disciples, relying on their scriptural memory, think they have the cl ue to what transpired in the temple, but their nj:.ruc·'r'gf.:.
to the deeper
of the event
introduce the notion of the sign for ambiguity. What they are
does not
The Jews
""'OJ,,","'"
18), unaware, it seems, of its inherent potential for is in effect '"an authorisation which will
show the lawfulness of his [Jesus'] action:'52 The Johannine Jesus responds with a
of the
double
destruction and reconstruction, forcing the and
Pondering the
it out against the Jews
on the literal level, the Jews stumble over the slgmnCaJlce
of the temple's rebuilding in three days a figurative,
Instead of reaching for a different,
they remain stuck on the literal level whose implausibility It is true, the
they readBy
themselves fail to catch the
double-entendre. But we the readers are admitted into the special meaning of Jesus'
), and we are
moreover, of the disciples' eventual
It is the Jews who are left out and behind. On his second journey to Jerusalem, Jesus performs the first
52 R Bultmann, The
in the south
A COJ'nmemary (trans. G. R nC'1Sle:V-l'VllIITav et
aL; PhIladjelpl,ua: Westminster Press, i 971) 124.
"What is John?
148
by healing a lame man at a pool near the raised do not
QUt:~sti~ons
1-18). The
to the cure itself but rather to the timing of the
on a
Sabbath day. Initially, therefore, the dispute triggered by the Jews is over the sacred status of the Sabbath caused
10). But it is soon evident that the offense
the sign exceeds by far the issue of Sabbath violation. Jesus' own
interpretation makes the
that the healing is meant to reveal the
the Father as well as that of himself
of
The Jews take this statement to be 18: ison
problematic to the core because it unmasks Jesus' claim to
heauton
to
To them the healing constitutes not only a transgression
of the Law but the far more serious offense of the abrogation of monotheism. This time, the Jews fully
the
implications of the
and they repudiate Jesus' metaphysical postulation as utter blasphemy.
In the case of Jesus'
of the five thousand on a Galilean mountain at
Passover, we the readers have the narrator's assurance that the people recogfllZ(~(l its character as a sign
1-13,
And
the crowd's interpretation falls short
of the narrator's intended meaning, for when in response to the people identify Jesus as the
Mosaic Prophet-Messiah
interpretation is inadequate at best and discourse
the
14-1
53
their
at most. In the subsequent
), Jesus proceeds to spell out the implications of the
sign. One must
he asserts, to draw a distinction between perishable and
imperishable food for
the latter is capable of granting eternal life. It is a distinction not without
interest to the
for they have a clear recollection of the heavenly bread their
fathers received and ate in the wilderness himself as the heavenly bread
I). But when Jesus identifies they are scandalized (6:41). Their the son of Joseph,
extends to the manna in the wilderness and to whose father and mother they know
but they cannot apprehend the ironic
transference of the meaning of bread and follmv Jesus onto the
ground of
his identiHcation with the heavenly bread. As if the metaphorical equation of Jesus with the heavenly bread were not DaI'aa~OXICaJ
,",U'cJU':;:'JU.
the bread he offers is further specified to be his own flesh,
W. A. Meeks, The Moses Traditions 14; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967) 87-91; Martyn,
the Jo/ul1lnine
&
123-28.
Kelber: and the
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'n/l,flhj
in John
149
of his flesh (and the drinking of his blood) is recommended in
cannibalistic terms
" ..'.r.,' .......
No sooner is the audience introduced to the
difference between material versus spiritual food than it is confronted with the identity of Jesus \\'ith the heavenly
and no sooner is the audience
confronted with Jesus the heavenly bread than it is asked to commune with Jesus in terms of his flesh and bl{x}d. Earthly and heavenly dimensions, corporeal and spiritual aspirations, difference and identity are intermingled to the producing highly
of
effects. Little wonder that not only the Jews are
scandalized
but many of the disciples cease fo]]owing Jesus
The more metaphor and
are allowed to do their divisive
characters in the narrative are
>Yo" ..F,'·{.'1" ... "J.I,V.....
the more the
While in Jerusalem at the feast of tabernacles, Jesus announces that "For a little while longer I am with you, then I go
to Him who sent me"
This statement about his intended departure leaves the tees in a state of puzzlement. Incredulously they ask whether he was going diaspora to teach the Greeks mc,;uIJ fig of
into the
The tension is between the transcendental to the Father and the literal meaning of
into the
At a later point,
implications of Jesus' language about That "to
the metaphorical they speculate on suicide
in Jesus'
connotes his return to the Father is
forever concealed to them. To be sure, Peter himself falls victim to a similar misunderstanding. When Jesus announces to his not come ( I
that he was
Peter insists on
where they couJd
him
immediately. He,
no less than the Jews, fails to grasp the meaning of Jesus'
to a
nobody on earth can follow him. But whereas Peter is rehabilitated
where :] 5-1
the tees are not. The narrative leaves no doubt about the fact that there are those among the Jews who came to believe in Jesus
But even they, it seems, remain
subjected to the ambiguities of Jesus' language. When he the observance of his a
about
to them about
of truth and the
arises above all over the ambiguous
of of
freedom
"The truth," Jesus maintains, "shall make you free" he aletheia eleutherosei The Jews pointing out that they were Abraham's offsprings and hence ensJaved to no one. They
take
"What is John?
150
freedom to mean liberation from the social and political forces of oppression, 'rvhereas Jesus thinks of what he
to be the "truly"
of freedom from sin. To the Jews the metaphorically
liberating
of freedom remains incomprehensible.
extended
When in the ensuing discourse the Jews
to the fatherhood
their claim runs into a challenge of unprecedented hostility. If they were truly Abraham's ChlJaren, the Johannine Jesus states, they would be recoglnlzmg him
instead of
fllr'nicninlo
to kill him. Since they fail to
acknowledge him who told them what he had seen with and heard from they must be the children of the Devil rather than of God. Their father does not know the truth; he is "the father of lies"
en
and "a murderer from the beginning" point, the Gospel's
At this
toward the Jews has reached an unparalleled level
which in itself turns out to be profoundly
of
After the
narrative has typified the Jews as those who fail to rise above literalism to the metaphysical level of metaphysical
it proceeds to trace this very
to its own
Their inability to comprehend the
language from above, and to recognize identity in difference is itself claimed to rooted in the primordial Father of lies.
be
has resorted to a metaphysical dualism which
the narrator
to demonize the Jews and
to challenge, "their status as God's people. The last of the
the
of Lazarus (11:
unquestionably meets
response among the Jews. Many of the them who learned
with the most
of the events surrounding Lazarus come to believe in Jesus (l While it remains unclear whether they grasp the fuller V'U'"'~'''.v""v"" of the
which
12:9-1 .... F'''v... u'-,.u
SlgI1HH~S
they come to meet him and bear witness to him as he enters Jerusalem riding on 02:17-18).
a
But if we have thought that the narrative drift toward the exclusion of the Jews wa"! being "'V'''JU'VU.
we are soon to be disappointed. For in anticipating the the narrator takes pains to make the point that the Jews are barred
from the central event of
Three times the Johannine Jesus
mysteriously metaphorical language about his
54
Brown,
Ac(~orariml
to John. 1:363.
in
"lifted up." Nicodemus is
Kelber:
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'n/l,flhj
in John
151
the first person \vho is informed that the "Son of Man must be lifted up" 'rVl:,soithenai dei ton
Sp(~akmg
tau
Jesus tells the Jews that they are the ones who will lift him up (1
At this point, the veil of of
lifted up
is lifted ever so
readers a glimpse of the kind of death Jesus was to die ( J1I"'U.JljIH~
Finally, in
he once again anticipates the event of
his last public
dawns on the readers,
to the transcending ascent which is
14:
in the temple of Jerusalem,
to allow As the double
can have
access
acted out in the moment of fatal
obstruction, To the multitude of the
the act of "lifting
remains unintelligible. Since the Christ is to remain forever on earth, his and the thought of his
presence is unambiguously
let alone the
PaI'adl[)XICal sublation of his death on the cross, is irreconcilable with the identity of the Messiah (12:34). Following Jesus'last public speech, the narrator reemrlhasmes the unbelief of the Jews. In
of the demonstration of the many
in him" (12:37: auk comment at the
"they did not believe
Not content with this rather pe~;sums;tlc
eis of Jesus' public
the narrator feels compeJled to
offer a rationalization for the ineffectiveness of the signs.
Isaiah's words
concerning the blinding of eyes and the hardening of
the narrative
(12:40; Isa 6: 10). The
attributes the fate of the Jews to divine purpose
hina
me,
nl'·.:'~fl\/f"
leaves no doubt that the Jews were struck with
incomprehension so as not to be able to
"In John's rendition
it is God who has blinded the eyes of the people."55 Whereas earlier the np.:J"~tlll!ll'\l
of the Jews was reinforced
here at the close of the public
attribution to the arche of the Devil, it is traced to the realm of divine
causality. In either case, the fate of the Jews is presented as
\\'j])
and
predetermi ned
and unalterably fixed in metaphysical primordiality, Divine causality
the Jews are portrayed as people who have no place
in the set of .... ,;" .. "" .. ,.". lcmgltu1des and latitudes \vhich define the ministry of Jesus, They do not know where he is and where he is of the semeia heavenly anabasis
55
Ibid" 1:486.
what the significance of his signs is,
katabasis
14;
the apotheosis on the cross (1
the signification and his anticipated
remain closed to them. They are being shut out from
152
"What is John?
the macro-coordinates which circumscribe the narrative world of the Fourth Gospel. To be sure, the difficulties enscribed in John's
mj"f~rll'lv1;!lr~1
affect all characters in the narrative and the readers as well. But no one encounters
obstacles than the Jews because the metaphorical dynamics
entailed in John's
are primarily
in different
out
them. Or,
the marginalization of the Jews is a growing co-presence in
the narrative development of from below
metaphor, and
and unwilling to seek the
Perceived to be
from above
they live,
formulation, "on the wrong side of John's dualism.
Epilogue IneOloglCliHV the
has been read and is
read in the classic sense
as advocate of love, manifested in the sending of the Son, and as champion of truth, consummated in the fullness of metaphysical presence. So this
rooted is
in the Christian tradition that the so-called
revolution brought about by literary criticism has by and large merely succeeded in
the ethicaIIy and metaphysically sanctioned reading of the The narrative has set high standards for love as a
on behalf of
brothers and sisters. "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life (I5: 1
his
It is, hmvever, more than a matter of practical
observation that love fulfills itself in the inner circle of friends. This is in fact the meaning of the new conunandment (John 13:34: emote kaine; cf. also 15: that the members of the Johannine community love one another as Christ loved them.
absent is the counsel to love
Lev 19: 18. This is all the more of God and love of ........ r,.--ru.
which is the
and to love one's neighbor, which is set forth in
commandment in Deut
since the Synoptics have combined love
into the treat Commandment (Mark I
Matt
Luke 10:25-28) . Absent from the Johannine narrative is also the love
of strangers, e.g.,
\vhich is commanded in Lev 19:34, and the love of
the enemy, which is enjoined in Exod 23:4-5 and in Prov 25:21, as well as in Matt 5:44 and Luke selfless
35. In the Fourth
of one's self within the
Culpct,per Anatomy, 129.
COlnrrlUnllty
love is of believers.
limited to the
Kelber:
M~~ta.DmvSl(~S
and
M/lrrOI'n/l,flhj
in John
153
The same narrative \vhich upholds love as the standard for intra-Christian dramatizes the status of the revs as the demonic other. It is
conduct
easy to discern that the Gospel shapes and sanctions a cultural
.nL> ... .-"'u
vis-a-vis
the synagogue. But the depth of Johannine anti-Jewishness is not fathomable on the historical,
or rhetorical level.
no less than
historical criticism, has failed to confront us with the theological and ethical crux of the dilemma. Historical criticism has neutralized the
violently
eX(;JU:slonarv features and tranquilized our memory of their appropriation for further hatred. No doubt, in reader-oriented approaches to the
"the
reader emerges as the hero or heroine whose actions and progress are central. It is,
noteworthy that ethical concern for intratextual characters is alive
and well in other branches of critical theory. Feminist criticism, for example, has construction in literature and interpretation and sharply raised our consciousness about the "other:'58 But we have as
of the female as the dominated not applied ourselves to scrutinizing the literary
construction of the "Jews" with a theoretical sophistication equal to the best in keen interest in the
feminist criticism.
rrl.'·t~r,h\Jcu'~1
welfare of the reader
has clouded our conscience and repressed awareness of the enforced closure toward the Jewish other. Above all, we tended to suppress the fact that metaphysics and repudiation of the other are tightly knotted and calamitously intertwined in John's narrative. What is at point, the
finally. is metaphysics and ethics, or perhaps more to the IIClnn':lr'\!
ImpJllcatlOflS of metaphysics. Having constructed the
dilemma of difference and identity, the narrative ultimately desires
AUrm~DlJnR
of difference in transcendental unity. To this end, it sets into motion a metaphorical process \vhich enforces the metaphysical distinction of the letter and the Spirit. But the well for the
of
while allegedly working
plays havoc with the welfare of others. For in this
intricately metaphorical and ambitiously
narrative the Jews are
Moore, Criticism and the 83. KG. Cannon, ed., Liberation (Semeia 47~ Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); L. M. Russell, ed., Feminist Bible Westminster, 1985). As the of John, see the contribution by Sandra M. Schneiders in the present volume. 57
154
"What is John?
made to play the role of the letter-the letter which must be overcome in the interest of the Spi.rit. Put bluntly, the GospeJ has taught us to think of the other by way of negation. It has been a contributor to the fateful premise that Judaism was in carnal servitude to the letter,
of
for the
themse]ves:'59 Philosophically, the narrative has not been able to tolerate the pressures of sustaining difference in
An insatiable
endeavored to override the nature of difference. life
'V"'bU'b
for quest for
difference has been neglectful of the condition it has created for the
other. In its passion for
it has trampled upon
On Christian Doctrine (trans. D. W. Robertson. Jr., New York: Macmillan, London: Collier Macmillan, 1958) 3.6.
Seven John 20:11-18: The Encounter of the Easter Jesus with Mary Magdalene-A Transformative Feminist Reading SANDRA
Let me
this paper
M.
SCHNEIDERS
fulfilling the primary instructions that the
contributors to this project received from Professor Fernando F. to be
front about our
and
the reader/interpreter in the biblical text in h,">I"'-'l.no
namely, so that the role of
offered will be clear. My
and the
on the
in
feminist interpreter who
is that of a
the text as potentially
and
revelatory experience as personally transformative. I take completely seriously the
conclusion of John's
"vas written to enlighten and
in 20:30-31, which says that this text the faith of the reader in order that the
believer may be transformed, that
might have eternal life. My objective as an
interpreter is to collaborate with and to serve that basic intent of the literature itself
interpreting the text in such wise that it is able to exercise its
transformative power on the reader. for
a transformati ve
involves two
conscious commitments. First, I aim to achieve a (not integrated
of the whole text rather than an
means that my that
of the Mary Magdalene
of
which
should make sense of
in itself but also in the context of the whole of the Resurrection
narrative in John (chap. 20) and eventually within the whole of the mtlegr'ate~C1
or
This
reading, if it is to be a transformative one, should be both faithful to
the text and
interactive with
religious concerns.
Secondly, I am concerned to expose patriarchal and androcentric bias in the text when such is evident and in the
of interpretation where it is rampant and
to counteract this bias by a consciously feminist
to the text. In actual
156
"What is John?
practice, my
is interdisciplinary,
use of historical, literary, and
methods in the service of an of transformation. In other the overarching np,"",n,PI-t.vP from which I am reading the biblical text is feminist
and my
methc)Clolo12~Y
is ess:enltmlly interdisciplinary.
Placing the Mary Magdalelle Episode within John 20 The Mary Magdalene episode includes vv. 1-2 and vv. 11-18: the fonner recount Mary's
of the empty tomb on Easter
to Simon Peter and the other discipJe
and her report
identifjed in an obvious
redactional move as the Beloved Disciple) that (the body taken away; the latter recount the appearance of the
the Lord had been
""j""IU.'~'"
Jesus to Mary.
This account must fIrst be situated within John 20 as a
which is the
johannine Easter narrative. As has often been remarked by commentators, the Fourth Gospel does not need a resurrection
in the same sense that the
because in John the death of Jesus, his 2
cross, is his glorification and he does not, after a shameful execution. In
up on the
require divine vindication
as I will try to show, the primary purpose of
20 is not to tell the reader what happened to Jesus after his death but to ~""""'F,"
the paradigmatic and foundational experiences of the
the effect on and su~u~e:ste:CI
for believers of Jesus'
that there are two sides to the
\ J . .)'OV'V'''''),
Elsewhere I have event in John:
what happens to Jesus on the cross; resurrection is the communication to Jesus' disciples of his pascal glory through his return to them in the
When
Jesus says in 11
"I am the Resurrection" rather than I am the resurrected one he describes the role of his glorification in the life of believers \vhom he indwells rather than sornetnmlg which occurred in his own
or the one who will life.
See, e.g., C. F. Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament (Studies in Biblical 2nd series 12; L,ondon: SCM. 116. See John 3: 14; 8:28; 12:32,34 on the "lifting and 12: 16, 23, 28~ 13:31-32 on the
u,-,\."'!v;.:,y,
M. Schneiders, The Johannine Resurrection Narrative: An bXleRe'tic('11 and (Ann Arbor: John 20 as a lolumnine
Schneiders: John 20: 11-18: The Encounter 20 is divided into two
Easter Jesus
157
vv. I-IS, takes pI ace in the
The
of the tomb before dawn on Easter morning; the
vv. 1
takes place
somewhere in Jerusalem where the community of Jesus' OISClt:Hes is gathered on Easter
and the
The first part is
by the
question, "Where is the Lord?" "vhile the second part is concerned with forming and missioning the community of the New Covenant once that all important question has been
answered.
The theme of Part I is announced by Mary
in
2. Having seen
that the stone has been removed from the tomb, she runs to Simon Peter and his companion and announces that "the Lord has been removed" and that "we do not know where" he is. As Donatian MoHat
out many years ago, the
in John's have a thematic adverbs pou and GospeJ. 4 Both occur very frequently (IS and 30 times, ..~u'ni'f'~niAlu and most often in
important contexts. The first
addressed to Jesus
in John is that of the first two disciples, "Rabbi, where do you dwell?" (I A principal difference between Jesus and his enemies in John is that he knows where he is from and where he is
and they do not
servants can where Jesus is the
14:3, 4;
His enemies
but his true disciples and
In the Last
the question of
becomes central
While Jesus is in the world, he is
of the world and those who follow him walk securely, knowing where
they are
but in the dark hour of the
where Jesus has gone or how to follow him QWestlton of all
caught in the
cross, "Where is the Lord'?" In spatia] or
8:
8:21,
cannot go where he goes
his disciples do not know Mary
voices the
darkness of the scandal of the
the "where" of Jesus in John is not primarily
location. It denotes
the communion between
Jesus and God and between Jesus and his disciples. Where Jesus is is in the bosom of the Father. He comes into the world to
the pmver of divine
4 D. MoJlat, "La decouverte du tom beau vide On 20, 1-9), Assembltes du ;)eIRll<'Cur 221 1969) 90-100. Fernando F. in The Farewell the Word: The Johannille Call to Abide MIlnneap()hs: Fortress Press, 1991 has made a strong case for the of John 13-16 which many commentators have treated as a of discourses. I find I am not on the here since slj:(mtllcallt for my own argument.
158
"What is John?
filiation to his
He then
to resume his primordial
the presence of God and returns to initiate his
into that
in
Until the
until Jesus returns to his own, the darkness of the hour
final phase, that envelops all.
The answer to the question "Where is the Lord?" is
in two
in Part
One of chap. 20. In vv. 3-10 the Beloved Disciple, upon seeing the sign, the face cloth of the New Moses
rolled up and laid
comes to believe in
Unlike Simon Peter, who remains uncomprehending with
the
regard to what he sees in the tomb, the Beloved Disciple "sees and believes" indication of the presence of a semeion (a
(20:8), a virtually certain
in John.6 The Beloved Disciple knows that Jesus' historical presence among them has ended in his definiti ve ascent into the presence of God th""''''C1,h
his
on the cross. The
of Jesus is no
his earthly humanity or in the dlspenlsatlOn has
veiled in
of his physical death. A new
But neither disciple yet understands the
Jesus' resurrection
that
about
Jesus' return to his own. The first
of
the answer to the question "Where is the Lord?" is that Jesus is in God. His "",,,,. ... "'.... ,,.,,'u
is his return to the Father, his
of the glory that he had
with God before the world was made n01vye Ver is that Jesus who is 1
The second
of the answer,
in God has also returned to his own. "I go
away and I come to you," he had
in 14:28. The resurrection, the return
of Jesus to his own, is revealed in the encounter between Jesus and Mary lVIagmuefle in Yv. 11-18.
The Structure of John 20:11-18 and Its Position in the Tradition T"vo preliminary considerations which are the Mary Magdalene scene concern the the
for the
of
structure of the pericope and
of the Johannine account in the theological tradition history of the
presented this in greater detail in the article, "The Face Veil: A lohannine (John 20:1-10), BTB 8 (1983) 94-97. the present: Im[xlrtant to note that both verbs in this text are kai It could be follows: to you Iin resurrection or as the resurrection and on the cross I is my
",IU·UU"'''.JVll
Schneiders: John 20: 11-18: The Encounter
159
Easter Jesus
resurrection appearances. Structurally, the episode can be divided into three a thematic participle. The first section, vv. 1
each stands under the of that section. Mary
\vhich occurs at the very stands outside the tomb,
weeping. 8
HrClp/1'elsa, "turning," which occurs
The second
16, is
oC\\It"rl",>
in the middle of the verse as the
between Jesus' address to Mary and her response to him. This turning, as we will Ll""',","""~ away from
see, is not a physical action but a conversion of the the
that lie behind" and toward the glorified vv. 17-18, culminates in
The third
'"announcing,
which
occurs at the end of the scene when Mary goes to the community to proclaim that she has seen the Lord and to deliver the easier kerygma that he has entrusted to her. We will take up each of these sections in more detail necessary to situate this pericope theologically and Until quite
But
it is
eC(;lC~ilOJIO~ICaIUV
commentators have,
to a man (and
I use the word designedly), treated the appearance to Mary Magdalene as a or unofficial encounter between Jesus and his female follower, in which he kindly consoles her before making his official and public Easter appearances to male witnesses and commissioning them to carry on his mission in the world. 9 More recently. commentators, under the influence of feminist scholarship, have tended to this traditional interpretation, which
the
the raw sexism of content and intent of the
johannine text, because patriarchal bias and the ecclesiastical power blinded the interpreters to the apostolic identity of a woman witness and its potential repercussions on
Church order. 10
occurs four times in the {he verses of this section: II v. or 13; v. 15. <) See, e.g., R. E. Brown, The atul Resurrection (London and Dublin: 101 n. 170; X. Leon-Dufour. Resurrection de Jesus et message Pascal (Parole de Dieu; Paris: Seuil, 1971) 272; A. ap~)antlorls aux onze a de Luc 24, 26-53, in La Resurrection moderne (L.ectio Divina 50; Paris: Cerf. 1969) 76. For summary the tradition of and an excellent mall'sh,lHulg the data for see G. O'CoBins and D. Kendall, Ma.gd.lIeIle as
160
"What is John?
Although I cannot mount the entire
in this brief
it
should suffice to point out that the tradition that the fIrst appearance of the risen Jesus was to Mary Magdalene, either alone or with women companions, is attested in Matthew 28:9-10, in the Markan
of 16:9-10, as well as in reDlfCsent IiterariJy
John. It is most likely that John and Matthew, at
independent traditions, while Mark conflates a variety of traditions. In conjunction with the
of all four Gospels that \vomen were the
and/or exclusive witnesses of the
burial. and empty tomb, II the multiply
attested tradition that the first resurrection appearance was to must be judged as
authentically historical.
Magdalene
This is
so
because the Mary M,tgdialcme tradition rivaJed the Lukan and Pauline tradition to the effect that the Easter protophany was to Peter and would surely have been suppressed if that had been pm;sit)le. The
between Peter and Mary Magdalene is
detailed in the
extra-canonical literature of the first Christian centuries, such as The
Peter, The Secret
The
the Coptic
Mark, The Wisdom
and others which Fran((ois Bovon reviewed ;)~.tSlS"';)L;)
in a 1984 article in New Testament Studies.
that this literature
was declared heterodox less because of its doctrinal content than because of the i"rrlh~rr.;!'~~lno
priority among the to
community was to
in relation to Peter,
Magdalene. In any ca')e, it is clear from the text itself that
the Fourth Gospel intends to first Easter
and
Mary Magdalene as the
upon which the
of the
faith of the johannine
as Luke's community's faith rested on the appearance
the Gentile churches on that to Paul, and the Jerusalem community's
on the appearances to James and the Eleven. According to John, it is Mary
Witness to Jesus' Resurrection, TS 48 631-646. II Matt 27:55-56, 61, 28:1-8. Mark 15:40-41 47~ 16:1-8. L.,lIke 55-56; 24:1-10. John 19:25-30; 20: 1-2. Intc~resltingJy John is the state that the burial was witnessed the woman/women, this is the fact that Mary knows the location of the tomb on Easter mOlmlng. C0I1Ce}7tlOn, 101 n. 170), suggests that the tradition of the appearance to "minor" and not the basis of witness, was very historical. F. Bovon. "Le de Marie-Madeleine, NTS 30 (1984) 50-62.
Schneiders: John 20: 11-18: The Encounter M,l~diaJeme
to whom the
Easter Jesus
Jesus entmsted the pascal
161
k'"Pf'vorn~'l
in its
whom he sent to announce that Easter message to the community of disciples, and who fulfilled successfully that apostolic commission so that the disciples in John, unlike those in Luke \vho dismissed the testimony of the women prepared to
from the
tomb
24: 11), were
and accept Jesus' appearance in their midst that evening
(John 20:20). From every point of vie\v and according to every criterion developed in the New Testament, Mary Magdalene
in town's
the
apostolic witness upon whom the pascal faith of the community was founded. SEC110N
. HOPELESS SUFFERING AND SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS
Let us turn now to the first section of the Mary Magdalene episode. This is a highly symbolic scene. It is still dark: the pre-dawn obscurity noted in v. I seems still to preside at least over Mary's inner landscape if not over the
itself. 14
Only John places the tomb of Jesus in a garden and describes
ironic
mistaking of Jesus for the gar·deller. His address to her as "woman" and her action of
her tears into the tomb
word that occurs rarely in the New testament l5 Canticle of Canticles 2:9 in reader to the fact that thi s account in
' J ........
(Gen 2:15-17;
,~.,~.
in the LXX of the
the search for the Beloved-alerts the is intended to evoke both the creation
where God walks and talks with the first couple in the garden
and
Canticle of
salvation through a woman (Wen 3: 15), and the the time this
was written. was
understood to be the hymn of the covenant between Israel and Yahweh. In this of new creation and ne\v covenant, Jesus who is both the promised liberator of the New Creation and the spouse of the New Israel encounters the woman who
symbolically, the johannine community, the Church, the new
People of God.
14 See C. Combet-Galland, "L' Aube encore obscure: J>PP."....... senmoltJqlle de Jean 20, Foi et Vie (Cahier 26; 1987) 17-25. it occurs here and in 20:5, where it describes the Beloved .J",i,."..,," into the tomb before the arrival of Simon Peter, as well as Luke 24: 12 which r..LiHUIUV.
nOlHnlteroolaUc}I1 very
C1ep,enClent on John or on a common source.
162
"What is John?
But
is distraught, overcome with
the loss of the
sorrow. She is so fixated on
of Jesus, which she obviously identifies
Jesus himself, that she does not even
with
at being addressed by
messengers. l-ike the cherubim in Exod 25:22 and 38:7-8 who sit one on either end of the mercy seat of the Ark of the
these
"one at the head and one at the feet where the ""' ....'nu"'"'
her
in white sit
of Jesus had lain"
Jesus, a quintessentially positive f'nt'prf"\ri~:?~ in John's Gospel, but of revelation even
has spiritually blinded her, rendered her
when Jesus himself stands before her and him. The ev,mg,en:st precisely "vho he
HIYY"F>"'"
to her. She does not rec10gnllze identify Jesus as
in delicious
the gardeJler,
the
point
of her own materially correct identification. Jesus challenges her
trying
.... c,oJuj's
to re-focus her distraught attention from his
to his person \vith the
question, "Whom [not whatl do you seek?" her
15). But Mary remains fIxed in
interchanging "him" who is missing with the
is
which
just as she had interchanged "the Lord" and "the stone" in reporting in v. 2. In this first section of the pericope, under the
the body laalOlJ.!Sa,
that
of
blinding spiritual sadness and hopelessness, the evangelist
dramatically prepares the reader to
a new mode of Jesus' presence. To do
this one must surrender the obsessional fIxation on the physical presence of the earthly Jesus and prepare to cross the threshold from the economy of history into that of the resurrection. SECTION
2. CONVERSlON
The second section of the most
is comprised of a
in the New Testament. The utter
16 makes the point with
verse, one of the and
of verse
eloquence. ".Jesus said to her,
'Turning
she said to him, in Hebrew, 'Rabbouni.'" The turning, as has been not physical. Already in v.
after Mary responded to the
with a repetition of her lament that "they have taken away my Lord," we are told, "And
eis
this she turned back
Two things are to be noted. First, the "around" or "back"
ta
and saw Jesus usually translated
means literally "toward the
that lie
behind" or '"backwards. Second, as she turns away from the angels, she faces Jesus and
with him.
when Jesus
her name, she is
Schneiders: John 20: 11-18: The Encounter
Easter Jesus
163
face to face \\'ith him. Her '"turning" in v. 16 in response to his
<:u.".,u,-,,,,.:I.
now not qualified as "backwards" or "around" but simply as turning, is the second member of the "turning and turning "turning back, the apostasy and Jeremiah caJJtures so well. What
" the "turning that the word
sub
and
in the book of
16
spiritually, by insisting that the absence of Jesus' dead
body constitutes the absence of the
person of Jesus, is to turn back, or to
turn toward what lies behind, namely the
which came to a close
with the glorification of Jesus on the cross. In the historical context of the johannine cOlnnmflity it is probably also to turn back toward the synagogue, by the coordinates of
toward
toward
Moses as teacher of the way. When Jesus speaks her name, as most commentators have
he is caHing his own by name (10:3).
did
Jesus by the sound of his voice in the
not, as some have
ordinary sense of the word, for she had already spoken with without
him
I
heard his
It is being called by name that
effects the conversion. Jesus knows his own as the Father knows him and he knows the Father (10:
He caJIs his own sheep by name and they know
his voice and they foHow him
Consequently, the
makes
certain that the reader does not miss the signiHcance of Mary's response, "Rabbouni." He tells us she spoke in Hebrew and that the word means, "Teacher."
the Fourth
with the Prologue in
which the reader is told proJeptically that the Law came through Moses but that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ
. 17), a
question is "Who is
the true teacher of the \vay of salvation?" "Of whom are you (the reader) a "Do you look to Moses or to Jesus?" A choice must be dramatically presented in the
of the Man Born Blind, who asks his Jewish
"Do you also \vant to become his IJesus') OlSClpnes emphati~::aJlly
as was
choose Moses while the healed man chooses Jesus
and they and
The standard of this theme is the The Root in the Old Testament. with Particular in Covenantal Contexts (Leiden: Brill, 1958). D. MoUat ("La conversion chez saint Jean, in p\"lJPrnnrp du royaume Warole de Vie; Tours: Marne, 19661 55-78), explored the relevance of this to John's
164
"What is John?
his
try to remain neutral
of the New Israel, the
Il).h·Clf"ln,i ... ,",
Here, Mary, symbolic COlnnlUnlJly
and the
rer)re~;entatlve
makes the salville
and Jesus alone, is the Teacher, evc:n--acc()rc1mg to John-for the
choice: Je\vs,17
SECTION 3: THE EASTER ApOSTLE
The third section of the Mary Magdalene pericope contains the notoriously difficult
17, \vhich
with Jesus' prohibition,
translated
mOLl
most often as "Do not hold on to me" (cf. NRSV and NIV) or "Do not cling to me, followed
the even more difficult reference to Jesus' ascension to the
Father. If one puts
as I think we must, the temptation to interpret this text
in John in the light of Matt 28:9, where the women clasp the feet of the risen Jesus and worship him, and stick to what the text actually says rather than ....... b' ......'b
Mary's psychologicaJ responses, we should. read, "Do not continue to
touch me," or even more literally, "Not me (emphatic) continue to touch" but of the "me" at the
"Go to my brothers and sisters. The emphatic 14"""-" ... .-.,,,,,,
of the command and closest to the
which thus seems to
govern the pronoun "me" rather than the verb "touch,"
that what Jesus
is forbidding is not so much the touching itself but Mary's selection of the namely, the Jesus who stands before her as an individuaL What Mary is
to
told not to do is to
to continue to touch
that
to encounter him as if
he \vere the earthly Jesus resuscitated. The time for that kind of relationship is over. The
present
of "touch" does not
mean
" for which there is a perfectly good Greek
or
which John uses
in 20:23 and Matthew in 28:9.
"to touch" often means not simply
or even primarily the physical
one's hands on a person but
rather interpersonal kindness or touched other ", ... ,..!",,,-,,,,,,
touched the Evil One as in
John 5: 18, which is the only
the word occurs in the johannine corpus. In other that what Jesus is really
is
with himself from his physical or earthly exists because it is the
a I would
desire for union (which in any case no
Lord who stands before her in an
l7 For the this creates for the contemporary reader because its anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic cast, see the studies R. Alan Culpepper and Werner Kelber in this volume.
Schneiders: John 20: 11-18: The Encounter
Easter Jesus
165
appearance \vhich is temporary) to the new locus of his presence in the world, that
the community of his brothers and
the discipJes. "I am not yet
What then are we to make of the reason Jesus seems to
ascended to my Father"? If anything, this seems less a reason for not touching him than a contradiction. If Jesus is not
ascended,
the earthly sphere, it would seem that
if he is still present in
like the pre-Ascension disciples in
Luke 24:29, could be invited to touch him and
his bodily
But, as
of Jesus' gloriHcation
most commentators have pointed out, the entire
takes place in the Fourth Gospel when he is lifted up on the cross. It is virtually theologically, to understand Jesus in this scene as in between (whether
spatially, or
his ascension. The Jesus
somewhere
his resurrection and
encounters in the garden is clearly the
;-,",'> >L."",,,,,
Jesus. Although it would take us too far afield to develop the thesis here, I would propose to translate this part of Jesus' address to Mary not as a declarative sentence, "I am not yet ascended to my Father," as if this supplied some reason why she should not or could not touch him, but as a rhetorical question eX1De(:t1nlg a to the
that nll.coci""n.n
"Am I as
still) not ascended?" The proper ans\ver
you are indeed ascended, that
glorified." The grammar
of the sentence allows its translation as a
and
l8
and, in my
opinion, that makes much better sense of the passage because Jesus' ascension to the Father, Le., his
is precisely the reason
will now encounter
him in the community of the Church rather than in his
or earthly body,
\vhich may appear to be resuscitated but is not In of v. 17 would proceed as follows: Hit is no
a paraphrastic translation in and through my physical or
earthly historical individuality that you can continue to relate to me. After
am
I still unascended to my Father? Rather, go to the COlmnlUruty the new locus of
my earthly presence." Jesus continues by
I am
~~
.....
I " .... "
COlmnl1S!~10jnmlg
Mary
A.
to announce to the
\I
John uses or ironical QUt:SUl)nS whose answer is both to lead the reader into reflection. In this case, Jesus appears to be not yet ascended because he is with but what she (and the reader) must realize is that in reality he is now in a very different state, that
"What is John?
166 .....JV.,J'."''"'
what is clearly the
.I"' ••,," ...... ""
version of the Easter
IcPY'V° rrHl
The
message is not "I have risen" or "I go before you into GaHlee'" the message rather is that all has been accomplished. The work of the Word made flesh is complete and its fruits available to his
Y1J'wlP""".:J,
In the Prologue the reader \vas
told that the Word became flesh to
the power to become children of God to
those who believed in him (1'12-
Now that the work of Jesus is completed
by his gJ (Ifltl cation , those who believe in him have become children of God. They are Jesus' brothers and
his Father to whom he ascends is now their
Father. It is ImtJOrtant to note that 20: 17 is the first time in John's aISClplJeS of Jesus are called in this
that
that the
siblings. Since it is abundantly clear
that the circle of the disciples is not limited to males and Mary is
sent not to the
(a term not used for Jesus' disciples in John) or to "the
Twelve" (which is a term the evangelist does use, e.g., in 6:70 and 20:24) but precisely to the
OJSCIPI,CS,
a
the plural of "brother" in this verse is
collective noun in masculine form, inclusive of male and female siblings, as our English masculine collective "brethren" once \vas considered inclusive. We can regret the masculine form in the text which reflects the androcentric character of the Greek language and the culture of the
but in
and
it
we should honor its obviously inclusive ... "'........ ""'. The message Jesus sends to his
he says, His to my Father and your Father, my God and
Testament. My your God.
is hauntingly reminiscent of the Old
It recalls the \\lords by which the
entered into the covenant
the Moabitess Ruth,
of her mother-in-law, Naomi: "Your
be my people and your God will be my God" (Ruth l'
will
It echoes also the
prophetic oromu;e that in the time of the Ne\v Creation God will make a New Covenant with a renewed people to whom God and you will be my takes place in a
(Jer 31:3
"I wi1l be your God
The conclusion of this scene, which
reminiscent of both Genesis and the Canticle of Canticles
and in which Jesus, the true Gardener and the true Beloved, encounters the one who is searching for him, is the announcement that the work of Jesus is now complete. He ascends to the God he calls, by right, his Father. For his disciples this means that they are the first to participate in the salvation of the New
It is unfortunate that the NRSV and the NIV both retain the translation "brothers.
Schneiders: John 20: 11-18: The Encounter '-A\.,UUVJJ.
Easter Jesus
the first to be born not of blood, nor of the \vi1I of the flesh, nor of the
desire of a man, but of God (1:]
are now truly his sisters and " ..,..tn,,, ..,, through Jesus the new
sealed a New Covenant The
has
according to John, is divine
eternal life in the Spirit ~rtrl n u n " , up from within the believer and
167
forth for the life of the world
In v. 18 Mary Magdalene, now
given her full name as in v. 1, goes to
fulfill her apostolic mission. She comes who
third thematic participle. darkness and sorrow,
10-11)
and This is the epISO(le in the depths of "'JJJJ iLIJ',U
has been
turning away from the
dls:penSattlOln that lies behind to the new life offered to her in the glorified Jesus who lives now with God and in the temple of his body community, and she goes joyfuJly
which is the
that which has been revealed to
her. There is an evident redactional seam visible in this verse which the evangelist could
not have noticed and must have left for a reason. The verse says
literally, "Mary Magdalene went and announced to the Lord' and he said these things to her." In other
'I have seen the
the sentence goes from first
person direct discourse to third person indirect discourse \vithout transition or eXlpla.nallioln. Apparently, the source verse with which the was
was working
Magdalene went and announced to the disciples that he had said these
things to her." The
has opened up the sentence and inserted, in direct
address, "I have seen the Lord." This is precisely the "vitness of the disciples to Thoma'i in v. 25, "We have seen the Lord," a testimony which Thomas evidently as the f:aster I(Pf'vorn~'l In John's Gospel, bearing \vitness was eXI:>ccted to is
based on what one has seen and heard. Jesus lx1re witness to what he
had seen and heard with God he saw on Calvary (
The Beloved Disciple bore witness to what
In other \vords, to claim to have seen and/or heard is
to claim to be an authentic and authenticated witness. It
quite simply, a
credential formula. In the early Church it seems to have been particularly the credential statement for resurrection \vitnesses. Paul's ultimate self-vindication as an apostle
"Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (I Cor 9:
which is not a
reference to the earthly Jesus whom Paul had never met but to his experience of the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.
168
"What is John?
In other words, Mary
to what
cOllde:scemdmg male commentators would have us
of
is
all accounts an
official apostolic witness of the resurrection. She is the one who, in the johannine community, takes Peter's role of
the brothers and sisters once she
herself has been converted (Luke 22:3
She is the only person, in this
Gospel, to receive an individual appearance and a personal and individual commission from Jesus. The the Easter message is
and particular johannine formulation of
only to her and she communicates it to the Church.
Jesus does not repeat it when he appears to the disciples on Easter evening (20: I
He presumes it and, on the basis of
of the
he commissions them to live out \vhat he has accomplished in and for them by extending to all his work of taking a way of the sin of the world (I :29 and
Conclusion I have tried to establish two between the
in my interpretation of the encounter
Jesus and Mary Magdalene. First, Mary
presented by the Fourth
is
as the official Easter witness in and to the
johannine community. She is symbolically presented, by means of Old Testament allusions, as the beloved of the Lover in the Covenant mediated
the spouse of the New
Jesus in his
of the
New Israel which emerges from the New Creation. Symbolically, she is both the johannine
its glorified Savior and the official ,vitness to
that community of what God has done for it in the
of Jesus.
Second, the answer to the question, "Where is the LordT, is that Jesus is with God, face unveiled, in the
which he had ,vith God before the world ,vas
and he is intimately
within and among his own of the 11r8t and all
later generations to whom he has returned, as he promised, to fill them with no one can take from them. By the time the first Easter ends in John's Gospel, the
made in the Last
by the departing Jesus has been
fulfilled: "I will not leave you orphaned; I am world wiII no live. On that ( 14: I
to you. In a little while the
see me, but you wiII see me; because I you will
you also ,vill
that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in
And this saving revelation comes to us as it did to the first
disciples-through the word of a woman bearing witness.
Prolegomena to a Canonical Reading of the Fourth Gospel* D. My favorite
about
MOODY SMITH
controversies over infant baptism
concerns an empiricaJly oriented Christian, who when asked whether he "~",h~.v(~in.{.i,f.:,",1,
believed in it qm~sulons
"Believe in it? I've seen it!" His comment raises
about
that are important also for the
John. But I cite it because it applies of the New Testament
of
to canonical readings of John, or
I have seen, or heard, such
Probably
you have too. John Dominic Crossan has recently written a book on Jesus which, because of the content as weB as the title, has attracted a good bit of attention. l In due course Crossan appeared on the brief
of his
television interview
gave a
and answered questlOfls phoned in by '1IP"I"""" most
of whom of course had not read the book. A good many of them simply wanted to set Crossan straight. If you reaJIy want to know who Jesus was and what he thought,
read the Bible. Doesn't Jesus say that he and the Father are one
(John 10:30)'1 Doesn't he say that he is the \vay, the tmth, and the life, etc (John 14:6)'1 In other scholarly
such questions as Crossan was are
answered in the
to answer through particularly in the
To Frederick on his seventieth token esteem, and graltltu(Je for his stimulation as a and feHow reader of the of John. His Liberation Liberation in the Fourth (New York: Press, 1972) raised of how we should read that que:stl()fl of who is and made me aware for the first time of the [mIJoI1:an(~e I 1. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991).
"What is John?
170
Gospel of John. The caIIers were interpreting the Synoptic Gospels' of Jesus in
of the
of John. "That's
I'm interested in
"but
" We know what Crossan was saying, and would
probably agree with him. But the caBers were lead of
n"lrtr<-'1,v~l"
" said perplexed.
the
the canon, they were answering questions
Synoptic Gospels
out of the
drawing upon the Fourth Gospel. That has ancient
precedent! Clement of Alexandria saw in John a spiritual gospel, \\Titten in fuJI CO~mJ2:am;e
John a
of the other three. Calvin
that he found in the
to the other three. The church, in
then putting them together into one
the authoritative Gospels and
usually placed the Gospel of John last,
after the other three. The presumably to clarify
of
was clear enough. John was to be read .,'~~J"J,""""""
questions the others raised.
John and the Synoptics The Common l.c,;uc,nalry seems to break with the order of the canon by realc1mjgs from the
of John through the three years of the
lectionary cycle. Yet the effect is to encourage a canonical ,,,, ...cu ... ,.,,,
from the Fourth
read and preached not are, but
of John in that
among the other three. John is that
as the other Gospels
with them. One wonders what the effect on the preaching of the
Gospel of John, and the
may be.
In teaching a course on preaching from the Gospel of John with a colleague in
we have found that there is often a tendency for a synoptic-like
characterization of Jesus to sJip into the sermon based on a Oohannine text. obverse also occurred last semester when we taught
Sometimes it is
simply a matter of the historicist assumption-inappropriate enough with the SYlflOf}tlcs- cn~epmg into the interpretation of John. Naturally, my and I frown gently on this when it happens. Often it is
",\.lA.''''«j;;;'U'''
an eXI)re!iSlC)fl of
naivete. But it is partly something more or other than that. John, like the "v~~u", •.>,
tells the story of Jesus. and that
is laid
the others in
the New Testament. The readers, or preachers, naturally merge the narratives together in their consciousness. In other words, the naivete of the reader or orc:acJrier is the natural result of the shape and character of the canon. It was mainly modem and historical-critical
I.
that taught us to read the Fourth
Smith:
f-'r()lel?OYlneTU1
to a Canonical
171
Fourth
LT/>/v#.,_r>
Gospel, and other "JU'.;)IA,J.;), the ,vay ,ve do, independently of one another except where
considerations dictate othenvise.
M()re()Ve~r.
on one
of the John-Synoptics relationshi p,
dominant until
the
could
the one
claim that John
should be read in light of the others. because it \vas written in
of them
and intended to be so read. This is, in fact, the position of Frans an
l~p,'r\l1nt'1{
number of scholars.2 Perhaps the most skillful,
finely nuanced
of this
was set out
his commentary on the Fourth
and
Sir Edwin
in
which was written essentially in the
1930s. Hoskyns took the the
and of
that the Fourth
presupposed, if not
in the form we have
their substantial
content or tradition. There is something essentially correct in this, as most serious readers of John, including Clement and Calvin, "'iII attest John's historical and
relationship to the Synoptic
complex, and it is difficult to directions. One
",\1,,:lIJ'-".::I
be-eause the evidence the problem in a way that is not m1:S1eaOlng
that, on the one hand, the Synoptics. That
of John agrees
John seems to accentuate, amplify, or make explicit what is found or in the
with the
there are no outstanding contradictions, and for the most part On the other hand, John
su~~ge:ste:a
other kinds of problems for
the reader who knows the synoptic accounts. Not
is he alone in
he has a different
a
ministry, mostly in Judea, but
or calendar of the last supper and
One
could go on to enumerate the sheer differences in content as well as in the work and attitude of Jesus himself.
in relation to the
John
now Professor Emeritus at L.ouvain rehltJonSnllPs and in recent years to the re12ttIOll1ship "/J1fr",nlu' ""'V"'I"' .... '''. His works are too numerous to cite here. of and the present state of is his "John and the SVfloolICS: 1975-1990, in John and the (ed. A. Denaux; BElL 10 1; Leuven: Press, 1992) 3-62. paper, with the others collected in oresentea at the 1990 L.ouvain Colloquium on John and the ~VI110DIICS. Hn,,"-"\!'"'' The Fourth (ed. F. N. rev. ed.; London: Faber & Faber, 1947).
"What is John?
172
creates fewer difficulties for the tneolclgH-1tn than for the student of the narratives. Yet, to say that last is indeed an oversimplication, for at some points John Even the way the name of
seems to presuppose what we read in the Jesus Christ is introduced in the
(1.17) may
that the reader
knows who he is. Actually, "Jesus Christ" occurs in John. To
here and in 17:3
from Acts and Paul, it virtually functioned as a proper name. prepares for the naming of the name, but the OrC)IOlme meaningful only to one who already knew the
name, as we do. (The now mcreasmglv common view that the added to the penultimate form of the been
was
tIts this view of how it would have
If the Fourth Gospel presupposes the Synoptic», the prologue would
also be read in light of them. But such a
is not, strictly spe:aKlng,
necessary. Possibly the prologue was intended to be read of
and the
n ..{,.I{~('. . . P
the background
or of commonly known Christian belief and tradition. Of course, when
read for the first resolved
the
it unfolds an intriguing
But the mystery is not
of Jesus (l: 17), unless one already kno'rvs something of
who Jesus is.
Canonical Reading Actually, this discussion illustrates the
If one asks from a historical-
critical point of view exactly what is presupposed
the prologue, a definitive
answer is scarcely attainable. It makes good sense to view the hymn that extols and
in a cosmic
what is already
namely,
that when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son (Gal
~ylt10rlnCS,
as a This
see D. M. Smith,
Fortress Press, 5 See, for J. Ashton, the Fourth (Oxford: Oxford Ini\fP,.,,,tu Press, 1991) 84, 286-87. The most consistent reDtresentatl,le on the North American scene has been R T. Fortna. See his The Fourth
Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present 1988), 28-29, where he maint<:lins his earlier Inl\fPr
Press, 1970).
Smith:
to a Canonical
f-'r()lel?OYlneTU1
173
Fourth
LT/>/v#.,_r>
of the prologue makes excellent sense, not only in the light of the rest of the
of John, but also in
we mean
of the New Testament
This is what
a canonical reading. When the prologue is read before a Christian
COI:1greg,Ul(m on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day as the appointed reading, this is the way it is heard. Whether or not the evangelist intended it to be heard in this way, I believe he would nevertheless have applauded and
<;:lnr,rnlJPr!
this reading
and Now to return to the question of what the Gospel of John historically. At the conclusion of the Temple
presupposes
CI<~an.SH1lg
the author refers
to Jesus' resurrection as if it were something al ready known to the reader. The coming of the Spi.rit is
referred to during the narrative of Jesus'
appearance at TabernacI es
The repeated references to Jesus'
coming hour of his glorification
or the
seem to presuppose that the
reader knows of Jesus' death and needs to be
into a more profound
understanding of its meaning. Smaller items: Jesus' encounter with the Baptist is Mary and Martha are mentioned in II: 1 as if
recounted in they are already
the tria] before
reported in the
is
alluded to, but not narrated; in the trial before Pilate the Jewish condemnation seems to be assumed without having been to presume
of the
In other
John appears
of Jesus as well as early Christian tradition.
All this comports well with the view that John is the last of the canonical Gospels and written with the others in view. while such a vie\v makes perfectly it is not a fl,,,,..,,,..,,,.t,, But at least the sense in many presupposes
of the Christian kerygma and story, if not necessarily the
documents that \ve have in the New Testament Yet, the question of a canonical reading does not depend on canonical knowledge, that other canonical books. Canonical reading is a intention or
John's
of
for us, whatever the
of the author and his intended readers. of John is now natural for anyone who falls under
Christian cultural influence, what used to be called Christendom. Thus Harold Bloom, in the introduction of his edited volume of essays on the literary interpretation of the
seems to view John as the epitome of what
174
"What is John?
offends, while at the same time stimulates, in the New Testament. As a strong mu;re,ldIIlg of the Hebrew Bible, John surpasses Paul, although Paul is on the same track, not to mention the other
This
John is quite understandable,
canonical reading of
the role that the Fourth Gospel
has occupied in Christian canonical interpretation of the Ne\;v Testament Canonical
is also a common phenomenon outside the realm of biblical
interpretation. Recently,
Wills has made us aware of how one document
can influence the interpretation of another and thus change or define the course of American constitutional interpretation. (Not
the field of
constitutional law affords interesting and informative paraJlels to biblical interpretation.) In a recent article on Lincoln and the Gettysburg maintains that "Abraham Lincoln transformed the battle of Gettysburg) into sornethmlg rich and words.
reality [of the
Slr:in!,J't~--:Hlll
l-incoln's immediate purpose was
Wills
he did it with 272
practical and political. But
Lincoln also "knew the power of his rhetoric to define war aims. He was seeking occasions to use his words outside the normal round of proclamations and reports to
So his own purposes were more than momentary and locaL
Lincoln was "a student of the Word, as Wills calls him; he knew and intended that this address should have a broader resonance. Yet, he scarcely could have anticipated its long-term effect. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address became a kind of canonical event (my not Wills'), Afterward, our speech changed and the nation's primary documents were read differently. (For one thing, and perhaps telIingly, after Gettysburg "the United States" became a singular, no longer a plural, the outset was the new nation "conceived in
Lincoln's theme at and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equaL The speech ended with the hope "that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
l-incoln, writes Wills, was a revolutionary: "He not
See Bloom's mtlrOQUctofV article in thc book he edited, entitled The Critical (New York: Chelsea, 1988) 1-15. 7 G. Wills, "The Words that Remade America: Lincoln at 57-79. The is found on p. 57. Monthly 296:6 (June Ibid,,58.
presented
'-'V.>I-'''''.1,
Modern
The Atlantic
Smith:
f-'r()lel?OYlneTU1
to a Canonical
175
Fourth
LT/>/v#.,_r>
the Declaration of Independence in a new light, as a matter of founding put its central the Constitution,
equality, in a
favored
but of
(although the Constitution never uses the
Gettysburg Address Lincoln accorded a ne\v status to the Declaration of independence and
the way
about the Constitution, much
to the annoyance of States' Rights advocates and strict constructionists ever since. Perhaps the Gettysburg address is best described as a crucial hermeneutical event rather than a canonical one, but the two are not unrelated. In fact they are related. The establishment of the canon \vas the crucial Christian .. f.r",,£, hermeneutical move "hD,""""''''' the way the f ...
the New Testament were to be read.
IVI()re4:lV(~r.
the inclusion of the
John in the Gospel canon exerted an important influence on how the other Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were read. It would perhaps be unwise to argue, or to
<>tt'~rnl"t
Gospel of John is to the New Testament as l-incoln's the United States Constitution. For one
to delmOlnsltralte that the Address is to
John is a part of the New
Testament in a way the Gettysburg Address is not part of the Constitution. Yet one
consider that the
Address is a part of the national canon
of Scripture, including also the Declaration of Independence and the t:onstltultloll, by which the nation thinks to live. As in the national consciousness.
it plays a central role
the Gospel of John has played a crucial
Ibid., 79. See also Wills' more extensive treatment of the lIf~I[tVSiIJUIr2 Address: Lim'oba at The W:"ds that Remade America (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1992), from which the Atlantic article is excerpted. of the of John will also be interested in Wills' Students of the observation about the form and Address (Lincoln at 172-174). In the text of the Address, he uses lx)ld face, italics, and uncierlmulg to show that "each of the bound to the and the Iword orl element Moreover, this reliance on a few some words in different contexts, the compactness of the themes is The spare vocabulary is not because of the interfused constructions 'Plain was never less artless. All these observations are true of the lohannine pro,lo~~ue. Wins elsewhere shows Lincoln's indebtedness to classical and biblical One wonders whether the Address was influenced the prC)iOI.!ue John's
"What is John?
176
role in Christian consciousness and in
what
Christian is to
countless miBions of people who through the centuries have considered themselves fo]]owers of Jesus. The words of John and of the Johannine Jesus determine the \vay Christians understand themsel ves and their Lord. -The Word became flesh and dwelt among LIS. (I: 14) (3: 16) -God so loved the world that he gave his only Son -You will know the truth and the truth will make you free. -I came that may have life and have it (10: 10) -I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live (I J -I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but me. (14:6)
Whatever else Jesus Christ may mean to Christians, to many jf not most of us he is defined by such to fuJI
as these. The confidence that Jesus in John
what the synoptic Jesus
\vhile it cannot
need not be dismissed as
demonstrated
the Christian community it can
be
uninformed. Within
be dismissed, so deeply is the historic
Christian consciousness imbued with the
of John. In
the canon, John quickly assumed a
not
a
of
in determining how
believers and preachers would understand Jesus in the other Gospels, but also how he would be understood in the development of church doctrine. The ItlJlt;:,U
of the Nicene Creed and the issues addressed in the Creed of Chalcedon
hark back to the Gospel of John in remarkable ways. (Thus John affects not only the canon of faith as
its Ne\v Testament parallels and antecedents, but
also the canon of faith that was instituted in the
Gospel of Jolm as Central Canonical and Hermeneutical Event All that we have been discm;sll1lg seems to point in the direction of the central role of John as a hermeneutical instrument in the formation of the canon. Even those modem
who doubt John's
on other Gospels or his
knowledge of such germinal predecessors as Paul tend to somehow
this
located in its presentation of the mission of Jesus and the
message of early Christjanity. I am thinking, of course, of the two twentieth century
as mid-
of the Ne\v Testament, Rudolf Bultmann on the
Continent and C. H. Dodd in EngJand.
Smith:
f-'r()lel?OYlneTU1
to a Canonical
LT/>/v#.,_r>
177
Fourth
It is clear that for Bultmann the Johannine literature rep~res,eHlLed
and
I-< ....
"~'~IJ:>L'
the essence of the New Testament presentation of the revelation of
God in Jesus Christ. Appropriately, John appears as the third of four major of Bultmann's
the New
the final part is devoted to the
development toward
Catholicism. Moreover, Bultmann's
well as exegetical, magnum opus is his commentary on the
as of John. 10 It
is John who understands most clearly that what has happened is a making known of God as the light and humankind in the precariousness of existence before God or nothingness. It would be wrong to speak of a zenith of the development of New Testament for Bultmann eschews both the concepts of development and the notion Rather, in ....t ...r.C' .."c,,~,t that John stands on the shoulders of his toward the end of the first century, John presents his understanding of the New Testament ......".<:>1""",1"." "'lith to its '''~''~''Vl"'U and its inseparably related anthropology. Thus John becomes the canon within the canon. Bultmann has often been criticized for this
he
such a
or allowing it to happen, but in
in a venerable tradition of Christian
and
of C. H. Dodd. Dodd's
Something similar could be said, mutatis
project \vas perhaps not so explicitly theological as Bultmann's. Yet Dodd turns to the Fourth
at crucial points to conflrm his view of the essence of the
New Testament message. Thus in his programmatic
The
JeVleLOvmems, Dodd saw in the Gospel of John not
culmination of
in the New
the
but the best, and
historically most teliCI1:OUS, view of Jesus' eschatology. II Jesus did not announce an his own
apocalyptic
but rather the presence of the kingdom in
Dodd's assessment of John's
,Yn,!'V't·l<:>rlf'."
is also reflected in
the weight of his own scholarly publications, which culminated in two
also, The N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches~ 11 C. H. Dodd, The 65 ..78.
the New Testament (trans. K. Grobe); New York: of the the ]ohannine R W. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971). and Its (New York: Harper,
178
"What is John?
monumental volumes, one on the interpretation of John's
the other on
of historical tradition in that document. 12 For Dodd, as well as
the
Bultmann, the Gospel of John is an implicit canon within the canon. They are not by themselves, as some other treatments of the
of the New
Testament confhm. There is another side of the picture,
nnllfP1,/pr
and that is the role the other
and other Ne\v Testament writers may, or should, play in the mt~~mret:atl(m
of the Fourth
This role is not
that
in the
realm of the purely hypothetical or within the ambience of some now passe Ii beral
It has very ancient roots that reach back to the
process of "'.......v
... '4'WH'V. . ,
in which John was
GC"'''l/i,~,ntIH
of the
a relative late-comer.
There was no New Testament canon that did not include the Fourth Gospel. At
we do not have any such canonical list. Yet the very resistance to that
Gospel, as represented
Gaius of Rome, and perhaps
at the end of the
COJlsl~;tmg
of the Synoptics but not
second century implies that a gospel canon, John, was
however
independently used
or even if Luke used Mark and
a na'icent canon of the UV\"U"'r-,
If Matthew and Luke
'JOv',nn""..
There was
" H I f...
Ma~ttnew
u"n ...
such usage
a "standard" way of
the mission and message of Jesus that the Fourth Gospel put under
severe strain. Polycarp in the 130s and Justin Martyr in the 150s attest the
12
C. H. Dodd, The Intl~rnretI1.ti(m Int1JAr.o.h!
the Fourth and Historical Tradition in the Fourth Press, 1963).
be called the canonical dominance of John is reflected in the fact that the or the Johannine with New of that John represents the Testament n'''''''''''PI'h'JP from which the whole is to be viewed. See H. Conzeimann, An Outline & Row, New Testament (trans. 1 Bowden; New York: to Its Witnesses: G. KUmmel, The L T. Johnson, The Jesus-Paul-John (trans. J. E. 'rhe New Testament: An earlier editions of R. A. and D. M. Smith, Anatomy New Testament: A Guide to Its Structure atul (New York: Macmillan, 1969 and 1974) followed the same pattern, John last In the third and editions (1982, 1989, 1995), however, we broke away from this pattern and put John in its in the canon.
Smith: f-'r()lel?OYlneTU1 to a Canonical widespread use of the the
tradition,
of John, When Marcion, roughly a
his canon he chose as his
179
Fourth
LT/>/v#.,_r>
..... 'I.,.,norutf'
'-J",,",""""'''',
but not formed
.,,"".n"" .....''"','...,
a version of Luke, not John.
one
have thought Marcion's dualism \vould have commended the Fourth Gospel to him.) wi th Tatian's Diatessaro/1, probably to be dated about 170, do we arrive at a "canonical" use of the Fourth , .. v.».,,,,,, I ... tn,"",,,,ti .... olu enough, Tatian was a former student of Justin Martyr, who used the
of John
if
at all. When Irenaeus argues for the
Gospels, his arguments from
the four winds and the four corners of the earth seem be that he is
a case for the Fourth
newcomer to the developing
enough to us. It may \vhich was a relative
canon. The evidence for the
hesitation about, the Fourth Gospel may be
but so is
rel4~ctllon
or
cOlltelmpOratne~Dus
evidence for its second-century use in orthodox circles. That John was used by Valentinian Gnostics is clear enough, as the commentary on John, and Irenaeus' polemic
Truth, Heracleon's
Gnostic
of John
That its popularity among Gnostics (and Montanists) slowed its acceptance into the canon cannot be proved, but constitutes a good and infonned hypothesis. The point is that John encounters some resistance because there is developing canon with which it is in some be
a
at variance. It needed to
with reference to the Synoptics before it could be used to explain
14
1. N. Sanders,
Christian
"the view, WI(iest)reEtd which was first rescued for the mainstream church by the This, however, is not Sanders' view of the Fourth He as the effort of an author with access to ancient traditions to state the in terms that would be to (Alexandrian) (85) and that it had wide acceptance in Asia Minor when Irenaeus in its acceptance as for he received it: "This use of it marks the flnal cmlHengt:~a the Gnostic the and vindicated it as the it has held in Catholic ever since" (86-87). See also C. K. veritatis, a Ac,cordiflr" to Sf. John (rev. ed.; Westminster, 1978) Barrett, The 123-25,131, who n5l~,U'~lInJ
180
"What is John?
them. Thus, Clement ext:,laiIJs it as a spiritual Gospel; Eusebius notes that John was composed with
of the others to
Jesus' early
derides the growing industry with which John was harmonized with the others. Such efforts to explain and
the Gospel of John
or resistance in some quarters. Moreover, modern
hesitancy from Bultmann to
Brown, and latterly Boismard, have seen in the final redaction of the Gospel of John evidence of kmnvledge of the . . . 'llnnrUtf' to reconcile the
UU1sm;;J:S'-(jUJ
indication of an effort
and Johanni ne
Raymond E. Brown has recently made an important suggestion about the relationship of the First Epistle to the Gospel that also bears significantly on the question of canon. 15 He views 1 John as not only subsequent to the GospeJ but deliberately designed to guide its interpretation. First John's emphasis upon the audibility,
and palpability of the word of life (1: I) underscores and
interprets what the
UUF,"'u~~
meant when he wrote, "The word became flesh and
dwelt among us." As Hans Conzelmann pointed out, the beginning
in 1
John is the beginning of the Christian tradition, not the primordial in the Gospel. The beginning of the tradition is its
as
The
was
dearly directed
Christian opponents whose Christology verged in a
docetic direction
First John cordoned off the road leading to such an Kasemann's su~~gestl(m of a naively docetic
wa'i already anticipated and counteracted Brown's
is ingenious, and
detail in his commentary on the
the alert author of the Epistle!)
of course,
with erudition and in
We cannot here do it
But
if correct, it contributes another important piece in the puzzle of the Fourth Gospel's
that the Epistles, particularly I John,
Bro\\'n is
are intended to
or direct the reading of the Fourth Gospel. One might go
beyond Brown, but not, I think, Brown's intention to say that the Epistle intends to say \vhat a canonical read
of the Gospel must be like, and before John \vas the other, Synoptic,
In other
there
wa'i already coming into being a Johannine canon that anticipated the fuller canon of
Christian v{ritings.
15 For Brown's sec his The COI'nmunity Paulist, 93-144, where he sets out basic historical commentary The (AB 30~ Garden NY: lJo ubl4eday, 1
is based.
Smith:
f-'r()lel?OYlneTU1
to a Canonical
Of course, once the and
acclept{~a
181
Fourth
LT/>/v#.,_r>
canon was
sornetnmlg that was already
ha'menml~
established
at the beginning of the
third
was in the very nature of the case read in concert with the
other
Kasemann reflects upon the \vay in which John was harmonized
with the Synoptic with
16
continues to be-as a Nevertheless, he himself
but one
an interpretation of John that
shows why such a harmonization-dare one say a canonical was a
for the
?~M"l?~r,rHn.n
the
John
universal church. The charismatic,
of Kasemann's reading was scarcely the Gospel the catholic church read! It may be an to that docetic
was dropped.
it was developed in terms of the
doctrine of the two natures. The charismatic aspect was somewhat domesticated, institutionalized, and channeled. Yet it continued to inspire charismatic \vithin the church. The
aspect was fully embraced, developed, and even
made normative in the great ecumenical creeds, especially the Nicene creed. Thus,
K~isemann 's
heterodox Gospel
the criterion of
but only as it was read in correlation with the Synoptic
""~'-)'''IJ''''''~'
Conclusion So should a canonical
of the
of John place it at the center of
the canon and a]Jow all the rest to be read in
of it? Jndlers:tarldably that has
frequently happened. But we are also in urgent need of reading the Gospel of John in light of the other
not to mention PauL The early resistance to
the Fourth Gospel, the
to
its interpretation, even the
early efforts to harmonize John with the other Gospels, bespeak a sense of the need for
the Fourth Gospel not alone, but in concert. That need may
theologically the attractiveness of the
and now
more
widely espoused, view that John presupposes, if he does not use, the other Gospels. It is not
for the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount to be
subsumed under the Incarnate Mount adequately
Only the Jesus of the Sermon on the
or explains why there should be an Incarnate
E. Kasemann, The Testament A 17 (trans. G. Krodel; t"nIlaa,elplnm: Fortress Press, 1968) 74-78.
in the
182
"What is John?
or who the Incarnate as I
is. Such a statement as I have just madeit "viII be-is intelligible in a consideration of canonical
readings. Canonical realolIlgs go back to the beginnings of the New est<:lmtmt, at least to the g;ul:!1:enn,E'> of the various documents. To ....£~.·""".HL~ them is a leg;ltnnalte historical task. To appreciate them may be a task of them is the f',,..,tt,,,,,i ..,o task of tht~OI()glcal t:;)l..t:gC:SI:S.
criticism. To propose
of canonical rather than canonical criticism We have 11llemlOllallY because canonical is, and has been, Christians who were unaware of canonical-or any other kind of-criticism. Nevertheless, I want to the and the canon-critical and work of B. S. Childs, best-known to New Testament students his The New Testament as Canon: An Invitation Fortress Press, Also the more historical! of J. A. Sanders (see, Torah and Canon oriented Press, 1972)). Only after I had delivered this paper at the 1992 SBLAnnual did I become aware. the courtesy of the author, of E. E. l."emcio's article, "Father and and John: A Canonical in The New Testament as Canon: Son in the A Reader in Canonical Criticism. (ed. Robert W. WaH; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
PART II THI<: GOSPEL OF JOHN AT THE Cl.OSE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
Coming Hermeneutical Earthquake in lohannine Interpretation ROBERT KYSAR
In the course of the twentieth """""""1 experienced one
of the
after another- the
earth under our feet. And the future one" may be
IT,'t·lnrl"f'''lr..:
of John have
of the henneneutical
to be no less tumultuous. The '"big
to come for readers of John. Of course, predictions are
cheap, but my reflections on the
as an invitation to consider the future. I propose that in the at least in North I ranls-s,ectaf1~m
11rst, the
century,
of John "viII be
at least two essential
are aroused by
features of the Fourth
LH,",IIL,'-II'
of the
the
reshaped still more and done so
and
of John at the close of this century serve
Those two
and sometimes contradictory exclusivistic over
the
and inclusivistic themes; second, the ambiguous contrasted with
absolute truth-claims. I offer these reflections from within the context of my own Christian concerns and my role as an interpreter for the church.
First Question: SectariUlzlTrans-sectarian Themes The first question has to do with the Fourth Gospel in the context of the _ ..."'.~,+~
versus the
scene in North America and evolves around the sectarian
lrall1S-sec:tartan
themes: How will the sectarian nature of Johannine
Christianity function for a church that finds itself in a sectarian rel.;tticmslhip \\'ith its culture? This
of course, assumes that in the next century the whole Christian
church in North America will be forced to take its place as just one more religious
in a fully pluralized culture. The 11nal remnants of the
Constantinian era of the church in North America will fade away, and the
"What is John?
186
church wiII find itself in a kind of sectarian relationship \\'ith its culture. By sectarian I mean that Christians \vill constitute a social
min,,,,-iflC!
in the culture-
a marginal
will tend to understand themselves over
world. In such a
as this, the Gospel of John is likely to sound newly
relevant. Its sectarian language and ideas wiJI appeal to a church under
the and
offer sanction and even empowerment for that kind of mentality. The outsiderinsider distinctions implied in so much of the Gospel may encourage a new other-worldliness. The essential
n ..
,an'-'"~'''
is whether the Gospel of John can be interpreted in which it is infamous)
ways that appropriate the best of that sectarian stmin
without succumbing to what I take to be the worst of such a perspective. Can we find empowerment for a mission to the world-a mission that subverts the powers of injustice and oppression, on the one hand, and refuses, on the other hand, to be seduced by a hostility and hatred toward others? Can we think of ourselves as sent into the world that God so loves, and can we say no to the texts that invite us to regard opponents as demonic? But will the church also be able to read and appropriate the
trans-sectarian motifs? Will the Johannine
witness to the Creator's love of the kosmos sufficiently qualify the Gospel's sectarian stmins? Will the often-muted stmins of mission in the Gospel drown out the implicit hostiJity toward the church's oPIPOJlents'! Inherent in this first qwestllon is a second part that focuses on the exclusive versus inclusive tension of the Gospel's narrative. In a remarkable way, this Gospel often sounds so very exclusive and sectarian
love
one another).
But it also witnesses to a radical inclusion of at least some of the marginalized (for instance, the Gospel's attention to women and Samaritans). But in this ironic contradiction the Fourth
may provide sanction and
empowerment for either the church's inclusive stance or exclusive posture toward others. Which will it be? My tlrst than
about this
of
e>r.r,'rorh
the importance of how
emPhalses does little more will be read and
understood in a new cultuml context. By what process will the church determine which side of these opposing motifs should
its life, or in what kind of
balance will they function as authoritative? That process will need to produce some clearer and bolder distinctions between the "normative" and the in the text. A canonical reading of the Gospel wiIJ also be required,
The
Me'tal1!10r: Another
lVIlAtKU,fj,l
3: 1-15
'UCLAcL"''':
187
so that the whole of the canon functions as a corrective to the contingent character of some of the 10hannine themes. A courage to stand at times the text and to practice a kind of hermeneutic of suspicion that challenges the text's cOIltmlgel1cH~s \vi1I be needed. At the same time, the hermeneutical process \vill need to aHow the text to shape Christian life and witness in ways consistent with the Word made flesh.
Second Question: Ambiguous/Absolute Truth Claims My second question is related to another polarity in the
namely, the
ambiguous and the absolutist claims for truth. It may be put simply: Can the laU~U':t~"-
of the Fourth Gospel continue to function in a
In the
''-'''''IU'UJI
ahead of us, the media is likely to become the most decisive
factor in shaping human consciousness and
language. The question is
then, how will that reformed consciousness read the Fourth
Can that
and
of the
and those images stiJI convey the presence of
a transcendent reality? In a curious way, I believe, the very ambiguities and polyvalence of the Gospel of John may become even more relevant than they have been in the past. My belief is
admittedly, in a guess. A guess that in
a culture dominated by the visual media, drowning in information, truth will become
more
In such a
Has it not
become so?
where truth is experienced as and
This
the Fourth
declarations may all take on a fresh quality. more clearly through its ambiguities than it has been
allowed to do in twentieth-century culture. The the
quality of much of
will have an increasing ring of truth about it, I believe.
1UU5U'"'5'"
and
the
of the Gospel, which has so often stopped us in our tracks,
may ......,'''1"1<,, us frames of reference for life in a new culture. But what of those truths for which the Fourth Gospel makes absolute claims with ncar-dogmatic ,·",-t"",nh.,'!
How shall that 10hannine feature be read and heard in
'''i'~n''i_l.r''.
'·.··r .....r'" North America?
If the ambiguities of the language and
1tn~.oPlr'\l
of the Fourth Gospel take on
a new power, the absolute claims for truth in the same Gospel may gradually appear more and more problematic, if not anachronistic. At much is true: The way in which the
has served as a
I think, this from
188
"What is John?
which the
of the church were
out one after the other cannot
survive. With no little
fear and trembling, I
christoiogicai and trinitarian
so
formed in the ancient church
under the intluence of the 10hannine
may become threatened. We
Christians wi11 no
that the
be able to document our view of Christ on the basis of
the 10hannine text-at least not in the way we have done in the past. We will no longer be so comfortable in reducing the Johannine discourse material to creedal statements. That ease with which we once dipped into the
waters of the
Gospel narrative for rationale on which to crystallize faith statements wiII be disturbed. What \vas read as creed will be seen for what it is, namely, polemic How, then, will this Gospel function as a resource for Christian
in
the twenty-first century? 10hannine language may help us revise our understanding of and method as a whole and may .....,,,,,,,1<",,> a more profound appreciation for the symbolic nature of all articulations of faith. As 10hannine language is of
rec:ogm2~ea
so then wi11 aU
as parabolic
fashioned in the midst
of ,,,,,,,,,,,,,JU,, truth be
as
metaphorical, pointing but not describing. The authority of scripture for theology, I
may come increasingly to be located not in propositions but
in
that hint and tease at ultimate
and that
consequently are vulnerable to varieties of responses. We wiII grand
but for controlling and fundamental
not for or
one
prefers) formative stories. Still, there will be no such thing as a single authoritative interpretation of John-no such thing as a true reading of the text. Instead, the church will be forced to
of
the
found in a range of readings
and truth
from a multicultural body of readers. We wiII
be forced to redefine biblical authority in ways that more honestly tenuous and culturally influenced character of all
the
In such a way we
may be able to claim an authority that liberates and empowers rather than oppresses and controls some for the benefit of others. COIu:luding Remarks
Whether or not the church and its scholars will succeed in such an ambitious enterprise remains to be seen. The church as \ve know it today may splinter even
The more \\lith the The
Another
MQrkuitf1
'-'/>/V#H."
3: 1-15
189
of the various . ..,...,....... ""w of biblical texts, including John. of the
formidable. But, in summary, I am
of John in the future century is that the Fourth Gospel may
featured role in the drama of the church in the America. It may be cast in that leading role for two reasons: its
a
century in North of
the issues inherent in an early Christian sectarianism and its .....,..,... .."',U'l. of the nature, function, and authority of
language.
'--'.U.'L&.I.JL~~
Ten
The Gospel of John as a Kinder, Gentler Apocalypse for the 20th Century J. RAMSEY MICHAELS The appropriateness of our discussion today is evident that John's Gospel can be dated at all, it is most often own
to the extent near the close of its
and at the threshold of what came to be called the pOS:l-apOS:WJIC
age. Then too, the close of our century is also the close of a millennium. Even though John of Patmos is not its author or implied author, the Fourth
does
for its readers something akin to what a new millennium is supposed to do. It turns them momentarily away from the present darkness and ushers them into a transcendent realm, a new dimension of
where '"the light shines in the
darkness and the darkness did not overcome it" (John 1 Ushered into a new dimension? In the 1880s there appeared in England a little work of fantasy in the manner of Lewis Carroll, entitled Flatland: A Romance Dimensions.
an author
himself only as "A Square. I The title
speaks of itself. Flatland describes a two-dimensional world in which women are lines, working-class men are triangles, professional men are squares, and priests arc circles. On "the last
of the 1999th year of our era" (p.
the hero, "A
Square," meets a spherical stranger from "Spaceland" who leads him into "the Land of Three Dimensions": darkness~ then a An um,pe,ikable horror seized me. There was Slcl(enmg sensation of I saw a Line that was no Line; that was not I was not When Jcould flnd voice, I shrieked aloud in agony, "Either this is madness or is Hell. "It
I Citations are from the sixth edition (New York: Dover Publications, the seeond edition (London: & Co., 1884).
based on
"What is John?
192
"it
neither, Dimensions: open your eye once
nn"'JI""ln",'
it
Three
(p.80).
The rea] author of Flatland was Edwin A. Abbott polymath, Shakespeare and Bacon scholar important works on the Fourth
W6), Victorian and author of many
for
the article in the
nC)l Clc'oe.(ua Britannica (1880); the Johannine material in the article on Gospels for Biblica (1901); Johannine Johannine Grammar (l906)~ and Book IV 150 pages) of his massive but now almost The
totaH y
1910; perhaps the
Contributions to the
was what put us off!).
There is no better reference
than A bbott for
the end of the
His collaboration with P. W. Schmiedel in
twentieth
Biblica helped expose a conservative
the audience to
nH1lete~en:tn-,;;el1ltur'Y
German critical scholarship on John. The result
was increased "n"_P\.J,, ••"Ul about the Gospel's historical moved even William an
a
which
away from his earlier commitment to authorship by wrote in 1920, ''I'm afraid there is one important point on
'rvhich I was
Fourth
Abbott
moved in the opposite direction, writing in 1913, I find that the Fourth than I had The
of its nature, is closer to of it .... appears to me to throw new Christ, and increased
claims on our faith and
Whatever their dISagr'eelments, both sides at the turn of the century believed that the dominant issues in the study of John's background, and historical
Conservative
alongside the text a subtext or subplot about the John the
were authorship, created John-or
Gnosticism in Ephesus. Not-so-conservative
scholarship had a similar subtext But within this
that no one named John was involved. o n,r'''','>,''' " I»",,£, held their own for
a time. Abbott's studies of Johannine vocabulary and grammar supported the
Cited in W. F. Howard, The Fourth 1961) 7. Also cited in Howard, Fourth
in Recent Criticism (London: 35.
1.A'''V:'UJ.
Michaels: The
as
193
Gentler
literary unity of the Gospel, laying a foundation for later defenses of its unity by RuckstuhI and others. Yet, at the same time, Abbott and others helped open the door for German higher criticism to have mcre2lS11llQ influence on the world and thus eventually for an
emphasis on
and displacements in the study of John's
sources,
find their programmatic
All these
in Rudolf Bultmann's commentary of 1941.
Mark Stibbe argues that, like the Gospel of John itself, "studies of the fourth the twentieth century exhibit a kind of indusia, approach being dominant from about 1900 to 1930, 1930 and 1970, and I
with the
into eclipse between
a resurgence since then.4 I am not so sure it is that John's
in the late
influenced
in those early years by C. H. Dodd's chapter caJled "Argument and Structure" in The
the Fourth
remembered for his extensive work on the
Dodd is best 's background, but his
analysis impressed me even more. Dodd is still worth
Surely with
Bultmann in mind, he wrote: I conceive it to be the duty the j,-.t".rnr,,,t,,,r at least to see what can be done with the document. as it has come down to us before attempting to Imrlrn\/p on This is what I shall try to do. I shall assume as a nrn.\!.",nnClI '\lnrle,no hu ...."tIn "'''''' that the present order not fortuitous, but devised sOi1nettod'v-evl~n if he were a scribe his best-and that the Quc~su(m (whether the author or another) had some in mind, ne(~Css,anly irreslJOnsible or UJUU~"JlJJ5''''Jn,
In short, Dodd turned our attention from the author
multiple authors)
toward the text. This of course did not prevent him from ,............... ,,," the text for earlier traditions about Jesus in his 1963 sequel, Historical Tradition in the
Fourth Other scholars followed Bultmann in looking for sources behind the Gospel
4
5
M. W. G. Stibbe, John's C H. Dodd, The Il1t,c>rnrr;t,cltii}11
In"lpr'~lh!
1-3.
the Fourth
Press, 1953) 290~ for Bultmann's answer, see his review translated in Harvard
Bulletin 27.2 (1963) 9-22. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth In"lpr'~lh!
Press, 1963).
"What is John?
194
and redactional work beyond that of the might be. Although Bultmann's "revelation discourse" did not carry the day, his source" eventually grew into a Signs Gospel in the work of Robert Fortna, who went so far as to write a commentary on the
and the Fourth
simultaneously.7 Bultmann's "ecclesiastical redactor" continued to provoke
onto least 6:51-58 found its niche within the last of
Raymond Brown's five
in the
an imagined Johannine
8
of the 10hannine tradition in Brown, like Dodd,
to have it both
ways, with a unified Gospel as the product of a long and complicated development in the "community of the beloved disciple. The work of Brown, along with that of Louis Martyn,lO led to new subplots to the Fourth GospeL Now one could read
with, and under" the
other stories about a le\vish Christian
of Jesus
for survival against
"the Jews" in an unidentiHed synagogue somewhere in the Mediterranean world, with one eye on Gnostic secessionists and another on stray followers of John the Baptist waiting in the
Like would-be
created a "world" behind
was it in front
10hannine scholars the text, an
social
Beloved L/h>~'l/~"- had
world that intrigued us all. Brown's The Comn'lulirity
as its subtitle on the cover, although not on the title page, "The Life,
and
Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times." Yet our debt to Raymond Brown is enonnous-even if all his reconstructions were to crumble. Brown gave us the reference point from which to look again either at the
text or at the Johannine tradition behind it, and New
Testament scholarship will surely continue to do both. But our topic today is "The Gospel of John at the Close of the 20th Century, not "The Johannine
7
R T. Fortna, The Fourth and Its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to PhIladlelpJrua: Fortress Press, 1988), Ac£:on;,(mg to John (i-xii) (AB 29~ Garden NY:
Beloved his reconstruction of the lohannine (AB 30: Garden NY: DOlubJiedav.
dp\)'plnnpd
and
in the Fourth
Row, 1968). A revised edition apr)ealred in 1979.
(New York: Paulist Press, still further in (New York:
and
Michaels: The
as
195
Gentler
Tradition at the Close of the 20th Century, and I am comfortable with the priorities set by that title. The subtexts and subplots, sources,
and
displacements are all very interesting, and the famed ambiguities or
nru·, ..",,'
remain, but for me the task at hand is more or less what Dodd said it was forty years ago. The problem is that some purely literary approaches to the Fourth still driven
are
source and redaction theories \vhich supposedly were bracketed in
the interests of a synchronic
Even Dodd, who did not advocate a "11
surely a leS2.ltnnalte
option, but one that should not be allowed to close out other
described chaps. 2-12 as "The Book of
too quickly.
a decisive break at the end of chap. 3
the end of
There
for
John the
testimony to Jesus and preparing for Jesus' own self-revelation
to the world. Moreover, the theory that John 1:1-18 either was or contained a distinct hymnic source of some kind tended to lock in the notion that these verses were a unit to be set apart from the narrative SC(Ja:r:iu.e
treatment as '"the Prologue.
within this so-called
(l
of the Gospel and given the narrative
with its echo a few verses later (l: 15), was
viewed as no narrative beginning at all, but
an "interpolation" or
"parenthesis. The question of whether the true "Prologue" or "Preamble" is I:] - I 8 or
thought) J. I -5 is a reader's
John
not
something settled once and for all either by the nature of the text or supposed sources. rest of the
even when chap. 2J is no as an "appendix," 20:30-31 are stm almost
a literary conclusion to chaps. whole. Femando "11nal farewell" in Such examples
its
from the read as
or even in some sense to the Gospel as a of these verses rather as a transition to Jesus'
comes as a welcome altemative to this
N"r·<;:I<;:ll,"nf
that narrative or reader response criticism of
John's Gospel does not always have to follow the "tracks" left
source- or
redaction-critical theories. What happens when we as readers
Fourth
out new tracks through this ancient
(nternrc'!tatwfl. 297. "The Final Farewell of Jesus: A of John 20:30-21 :25, in The Literary (Semeia 53; cd. R. Alan and F. E Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 167-90.
"What is John?
196
Gospel? Is there any less diversity than \vhen some of us literally rewrote the text ourselves (through source, redaction, and displacement
and generated
subplots that interested us more than the text? Probably not. We can display our clalshlmg
ldeol()gu~s
just as well
the text
UH.LI .... " ' . .
response criticism and the like, as we did in the older 'Nays.
any
answer to the question of the social or theological concerns about John's Gospel or its relevance at the close of the second millennium must be a highly personal one. I will keep mine simple. More than ever, John's
of the world we live in looks like a very
realistic one. The world is indeed a place of darkness and characterized in John's story of Jesus-this in and of apartheid in South
just as it is
of the end of the cord War
and in spite of prospects for peace in the Middle
East and Northern Ireland. Rightly or
more and more Christians in
America and elsewhere see themselves as a
or oppressed minority: "If
the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated Although not an apocalyptic lmlPulses that push us toward
the Gospel of John
(15: to the same
at the turn of the millennium.
Yet there is a difference. The Gospel of John points us toward a resolution that is not
beyond or after the present world
coming of the Ii ght. Jesus and "believe"
but planted \vithin it by the
a revelation to his own, not to the world (J 4: 19,
is to
the world wrong"
and "know" (I
so that the world will
that Jesus is from God. Whether this is a
judgment or a transformation of the world as we know it is a matter for detlnition and ongoing debate. Perhaps it is after all a bit like Edwin Abbott's harrowing journey from Flatland to the Land of Three Dimensions set to take place on December 31, 1999. As it happens, I have a contract for a commentary on John's Gospel that is due just about then, but I doubt that either my \,'ork or that of my academic colleagues will affect very much the continuing
of John's GospeJ on the
church or on the American public. Abraham Lincoln was wrong when he said, "The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but the words may be more
in our case. Scholars have never controlled the
interpretation of John's Gospel and never will. This ancient the redundant but profoundly
phrase, "born
which gave us has
proved through the centuries to have a life of its own, entirely apart from the
Michaels: The
as
197
Gentler
fashions of academia. As Christians in America become a smaller and smaller minority, not only in
but in actual
there is the
the Gospel of John may draw them closer to each other scparalC them more and more from the
"vay the
of John could become a "kinder, century.
that
at the same time,
values of the culture. In this for the
Eleven lohannine Theology as Sectarian Theology R.
GAIL
the
O'DAY
of the Gospel of John at the close of the hventieth
would like to focus on the place of the
of John in New
Testament theology in particular and the Christian constructive theological task It strikes me that there are hvo areas in which the label "sectarian" . . . . I" . . . '..,'""'"
on Johannine SCftOUlrSfUp. One relates to the historical and social
circumstances that contributed to the particular theological expression of the Fourth
The second, which is my primary interest
isolation of this particular theological vision in New Testament theological
is the later conversations. In
and in Christian theological work more
broadly, the Johannine theological vision is often to fit other
restricted, or reshaped
Some of this is the result of Fourth
scholarship
because we are often so fascinated
the
intricacy,
of this Gospel that we tend to treat it as a "vorld unto itself. We "vorry
and
about things Johannine without
"the beloved
into the
broader theological conversation. Yet. the more
cause of the isolation of the Johannine theological
voice lies in the hold of the Pauline
vision-with a little Synoptic
Gospels thrown in-on the determination of "normative" New Testament theological C\lrun"'clc
in Western
In particular, the power of the Pauline-Augustinian has shaped the way the Fourth Gospel is available
for theological conversation. With the
of Rudolf Bultmann,
most Ne"v Testament theologians are not versed in both Paul and John, but tend to hear John only as a side voice.
200
"What is John?
Post-modernist "" ..,' ... "."" of Christian tradition has pointed to some of the limits of the Western
largely in Pauline
and there is an urgency "at the close of the twentieth century" different theological voices and models that more
approximate the
within the New Testament theological 'rvitness. The
of John is a
powerful voice within the biblical tradition that offers resources to deal with the current theological crisis.
is that the Fourth Gospel's theological
voice needs to be made available for the broader
conversation.
I offer one iHustration of the theological possibilities when the Gospel of John is taken as a central voice-and not a secondary voice-in the theological conversation. In the remainder of the paper, I will review the death of Jesus from the Johannine conversations
and alter the
how including that voice in contemporary landscape.
John 12:20-36 is the most concentrated Collection of
on the death of
Jesus in John and therefore provides the appropriate vantage
from which to
reflect on the
of the death of Jesus in John. Before looking at the
Johannine understanding of the death of review the
theological conversations. tneOI()~H~S
it will be helpful to
of atonement that have shaped and continue to shape It is conventional to speak of three atonement
that have had the most influence on Christian understanding of the
death of Jesus. These three models are commonly identified as: (I) the ransom or "classical"
in which Jesus' death is understood as the act or ransom that bought the world its freedom from sin and
See, for of
ini'JAr.oih;
. A
the
Post~Modem
Press,
A fuller discussion commentary on the , 'V''',,,,,.,J''U Press,
the issues addressed in this section can be found in my of John, The New Bible. vol. 9 (Nashville:
D. atonement foHows the pattern sug:ge~'leu thcfrOllgh review of of the atonement in the Faith: Christian North American Context Fortress Press, 4J3-434,463-480. The most influential statement. of this view of the atonement for the contemporary the Three Main church is that of Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Idea Atonement (trans. A. G. Herbert; London: S.PCK, 1953).
lohwmine c .. l"u,tit .. tir~"""'""
YI/hnf/"nu
as Sectarian
201
or sacrificial victim model, in which Christ's death is understood
as a sacrifke necessary to atone for human
and
and
the "moral
influence" theory, in which Jesus' death is understood as a model of moral behavior because it reveals to humanity hmv much God loves them. 6 None of the traditional atonement
a
that
accords with that offered in the Fourth Gospel. Theologies of ransom or substitution are \;:l\'!IJI~JI\;:,
absent from this
understanding of the cross. For
John 10: 17- I 8 makes quite clear that Jesus is not a victim at his death
in John, but is in complete control
also
Abelard's theology of
Jesus' death on the cross as the demonstration of God's love Fourth
's
"£"T,"''''''''£''''~!
but as the discussion below "viII
('~H"\fllrp"
part of the
,;:JU!"fiO,''''~'
overlooks
the demand for human response and decision that is an essential part of Jesus' in John.
In
1",;)I"1,'>1"I."n
on the Johannine understanding of the death of
important to begin by ''''''Vl,"' ...n_~
rennernb(~nrlg
it is
that theologies of atonement are in actuality
of reconciliation: they attempt to explain how God and humanity were
reconciled to one another in Jesus' death. There is a
tendency in
theological conversations in the contemporary North American church to subsume all models of reconciliation under the umbrella of "sacrifice. Sacrifice is one way of understanding to feminist
"'''''.JU\..Ul'L4U'JU,
but not the only way. The resistance
of the substitutionary model of atonement is a disturbing
"1"""11"""
of the hold that this model has on popular Christian imagination.
Feminist
su~~gestl()ns
of alternative models are labeled as a distortion of "the in John 12:23-36 "''''HH."r an tradition" - heretical or worse. Jesus' alternative model of reconciliation, one that is built around the restoration
5 The most influential of this the()lmrv of atonement. may be found in the works of Anselm and Calvin. The proponent. of this unclers.tallldllllg of the atonement was Abelard, but t.his achieved its popularity in the liberal North American churches the works of the Social and others who looked to Jesus as a source for moral
7 The response to the of an alternative model of atonement Williams (Sisters in the Wilderness. The Womanist God-Talk Orbis Books, 19931) a case in
202
"What is John?
In John 12:24 Jesus' death is described as both necessary and oecause, as a result of it.
is formed ('''much
The discipleship
teachings, vv.
which in the Synoptic traditions define discipleship
exclusively as
up one's cross, instead define discipleship as serving Jesus
and make dear that the Jesus. The
of such service is restored relationship with God and
prediction in 12:32 also focuses on relationship, that through
Jesus' death all people
\\'iII
of vv.
be drawn to him. Finally. in the concluding
is described as 'JV,HJ,,",
'''''U'V''''Uh
children of
this new relationship to God and one's fellow human
beings is described in the metaphors of new birth and new or eternal life John 1:] 2-13;
7; 6:51 ~
Jesus'
of this new life, because
is the final step in the offer
Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension God's
relationship to the world itself is
changed. The world that lives in
OP1PosHlc)fl to Jesus ("this obliterated
Jesus'
and its power is
31). Jesus' death has this effect, not because it is a sacrifice
that atones for human sin, but because it reveals the power and promise of God and God's love
to the world.
What is striking about John 12:23-36 is that the connection between Jesus' death and the life of the
community is repeatedly stressed. The faith
consists of those who redetine the meaning of life on the basis of Jesus'death
The faith community is the fruit of Jesus' death for those
who believe that leads to the repeated expressions of temporal urgency in 12:23-36
for
the frequent use of "now" in these
It is
critical to believe in Jesus so that one can share in the gift of his life, the gift that leads to eternal
to the confident assurance of God's and Jesus' abiding
presence. For Jesus' death to effect reconciliation with God, then, one must make the decision to believe in Jesus. That people, but one must decide to
Jesus' death offers reconciliation to all this offer. This element of tension between
the divine initiative and human response is
in all the dominant
theologies of atonement, and, as a result, the relationship between the human and the divine is skewed. That
there is a tendency for discussions of
atonement to favor either the side of divine initiative human embrace of God's love
'Ull.:>VIJll,
s;:tcn.twe) or of
influence), but in the Fourth
the
lohwmine focus remains \;:/ldIJI\;::'!:'!\;:U
"~""~''''''''''''''J
YlOFl//Hnl
as Sectarian
203
on the inseparable interrelationship that is most fully
in the Incarnation.
At the heart of the Johannine understanding of the death of Jesus is the recognition that the death of tells is of a is an
of Jesus' relationship with God that began "at the
For the Fourth ('ll1~'iH",hr
with the life of tells. Jesus' death
on the death
be~;mJrHn,g.
then, a theology of reconciliation does not focus but on the Incarnation itself, the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus. and on the interrelationship of God and Jesus in love that the Incarnation reveals. The Fourth Gospel, then, makes two important contributions to the conversation about reconciliation. reconciliation that takes death is the ultimate (10: 16-1
it
rel(UlcmSJ'1w
su~~ge:sts
on~gOlng
a "vay of understanding
as a serious theological
Jesus'
of his relationship to God and to his own
The decision to believe is the decision to become a partner in that
relationship, to become a member of a community which is bound to God and tells as they are bound to one another, and whose relationship to one another is an extension of the God/Jesus relationship. Second. the Fourth Gospel insists on the Incarnation as the point for any conversation about atonement and reconciliation and does not isolate Jesus' death on the cross as the sole agent of reconciliation. Jesus'
the events of his
in the Incarnation
but the Incarnation itself is the locus of
reconci liation.
complete what
,'t".,....-
' h n ..
Twelve
Important Aspects of the Gospel for the Future LUiSE SCHOTrROFF
I identify
as a feminist theologian of liberation in the context of
Gennany or, more broadly, western Europe. I have participated consciously and as a Christian woman and theologian in my context through the second
<:If'£'i';PI,;
In these remarks I should like to address three
half of the twentieth of the
of John that appear to me to be important for the future: (I)
the question of anti-Judaism;
the character of Johannine messianism; and
the relationship between women and political resistance.
Question of Anti-Judaism First,
how can we
in future, with anti-Judaism in the
of
John, or, to put it another way, with those texts in the Fourth Gospel that can be read as anti-Je\vish? I read the
of John as a document
communities after the year 70 most part, of Jewish
CE.
from Christian
The Johannine communities
of Je\vish
but contain other
for the \vho are not of
The historical context of these communities is sharply defined
conflicts with other Jewish groups and socia] institutions, with respect to which the Christian communities find themselves in the minority. The Christian communities feel themselves threatened by the Jewish aware that the majority Jewish
.~Vlf~""JUU'lIU,
They are
in turn, is solidly control1ed and
intensely threatened by the Roman
the conflict between the Jewish
and the Jewish Christian
can only be caned tragic, because in
the situation between the two Jewish-Roman wars the struggle centering on the Torah as the center of Je\vish life and the quest for solidarity against Rome \vas a matter of life and death for everyone. Even if I do not locate the
of John in
U'~"",,",lJ",
I would like to
206
"What is John?
describe the situation of Jewish and Jewish Christian people in Jerusa]em in the year 135
as an illustration of the harsh reality 'rvithin which both sides found
themse] ves at an earlier period in the life of the Johannine communities. Eusebius
that until the Roman overthrow of the Jewish resistance led by
Bar Kochba in the year 135
there were circumcised Jewish Christian bishops
Hist.
in Jerusa]em
Thus, there were communities made up of a
of Jewish Christians, under Jewish Christian leadership, that did not reject male circumcision. Some of these
with the rest of the
Jewish population of Jerusalem, were viciously slaughtered, while others were driven into exile. After this Roman conquest, it was the \vi1l of the conquerors that there should no
be a Jewish population in Jerusalem. That also meant
the definitive end of the Jewish Christian communities in Jerusalem. We can most certainly relate the internal Jewish contlict over the messiahship of Jesus reflected in the
of John with the conflict over Jesus the Messiah that
Justin Martyr mentions in connection with the Bar Kochba revolt Justin states that Bar Kochba punished Jewish Christians Eusebius's Chronicle of the 17th year of Hadrian
with death; see
133
if
Jesus. Thus, from the point of view of Jewish meant the
of the
1.31). refused to
this controversy
of Bar Kochba in favor of the meSSHinSnIp
of Jesus and thus the refusal to
on Bar Kochba's side (Eusebius, Chronicle
of the 17th year of Hadrian). This did not mean that the Jewish Christian communities sided with Rome. Those communities, at least the ones in Jerusalem, were just as much victims of the Roman genocide in the second Jewish-Roman war as were the adherents of Bar Kochba. The Gospel of John was probably written some decades before those events and not in Jerusalem. But it is rooted in this historical situation of the Jewish people before the second Jewish-Roman war. The internal Jewish conflict that is evident at every point in the Gospe] of John also meant, from the Christian point of
the actual
of an
the
of their
own Christian position. The dualism of the Gospel of John, which is very close to that of the Gnostic movement, \vas an obstacle to what I would call, from our present
the necessary solidarity with the
Jewish population.
However, Johannine talk about "the Jews" and their consignment to the
207
the Future
Schottroff:
Jesus as Messiah only became
darkness if they do not anti-Judaism in the
after
"vhen the GentiJe Christian church
regarded the Jewish Christian communities as merely an insignificant sect. There was no
a Jewish Christian church \vith which it needed to contend. anti-Judaism in the
The
of John is immediately apparent today,
in my own context, whenever the
corTe~;POn(lmg
texts in the
of John are
read in worship without any critical cOlmnlerltmry In my context it is particularly brutal because most German
have no need to confront any newish
people just as was the case for the Gentile Christian church after 135 C.E. and the Roman gerlOClde of the Jewish people. The mass destruction of taws by Germans during the third Reich and the revival of German anti-Semitism have made the Gospel of John a .v~,,,.,...... ~,,, ...
book in my context. By its mere existence it
Christian and German anti-Semitism
From my
peI'sp~ctive
and in my context, the only option is to use the Gospel of John to maintain awareness of the murderous injustice of Christian antisemitism and to criticize it and thereby to walk the long road to solidarity with Jewish and Jewish Christian people then and now.
Character oflohanlzine Messianism how can we
clear eXiDre:ssion to the liberating power of
Johannine messianism? Johannine messianism differs from the messianism of the rer:~res~eI1lted
in the Gospel of John. The
struggle
long for a liberating messianic
6: 15) , The Jewish
Roman
as suppresses
both the messianism of the people and that of Jesus' adherents in order not to the very existence of the
to Roman genocide (11
is not of this world" (1
to Pilate: "My
Jesus says
This statement,
~VF,"'Ut ....
with Johannine dualism as a whole, is often interpreted in the sense of an
A distinction is drawn between a Jewish political
a-political messianism and a latter is kept
Christian
so that the religious truth of the
and distinct from any political consequences. "Not of this
world" then means, for example. Christian
within a small group or
conventicle which is shut off from the outside world, which wiJI have nothing to do with the real struggles of the people, and whose God cOITes:polnds to a that is deliberately withdrawn from politics,
208
"What is John?
This view of the
that corresponds to Johannine messianism does not fit who do not openly confess Jesus as Messiah are
the sharply criticized
Jesus, in tum, does not separate himself from
the political messianism of the
It is true that he is
of the Jews" in
a different sense from that desired
of the Jews.
In particular, Jesus' road to his
shows how Christian
is to be
understood in the thought of the Gospel of John: while not "'"''"" ... .,'''"' "from the " it is active on behalf of the world and the Jewish people
also 3: 16;
Moreover, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus' death is not a political misunderstanding; it is a
on behalf of the whole people. Like the
other Gospels, the Gospel of John stands within the Jewish tradition of martyrdom as the way to a political liberation of the people. The difference between it and the messianism of the people can be described as a choice between liberation through armed rebellion
Rome or
martyrdom
and a lived faith in the God of IsraeL Also from a Christian
there is
no
the conflict with the Roman Biblical scholarship often
O'("Jf~rlllm,f~nt
and the Roman army.
the central
of the
story in the Gospel of John. However, western reception of John contains a strong tradition of interpretation of the
of John as the text of an a-political
conventicle and/or an otherworldly Christianity. Under the influence of Rudolf Bultmann's interpretation of John, which dominated in Germany for such a long time, I adopted this interpretation of John in my first scholarly encounter with it, of an otherworldly
even though I offered a
I am attempting to understand the text in the context of its historical ':'U,"IUUVU,
from a political and social point of view; as a
of
I read the that of the Johannine
communities.
In \vestern
the history of Jewish and Christian martyrdom is
almost universally interpreted as an to a different understanding of the
tale of masochism. For me, access of the
and the
martyrdom has been opened by Latin American liberation Fourth Book of Maccabees. The
of and the
women and men murdered
the
military dictatorships in Latin America are risen and living in the hope of their people. The Fourth Book of Maccabees interprets the death of the women and men as a 111l17'i:tt7Ylflf1 an '''''''In ..... vu for the soul of the
Schottroff:
the Future
people stained by sin. Through their death, the power over the
209
and his army lose their
The people for whom Jesus died,
according to John, consist of the Jewish people and the world, the humanity that God, whom God
and toward whom God
turns.
Womell alld Political Resistallce Finally, what is the connection between the fa'icinating traditions of the women in the Gospel of John and that Gospel'5 tradition of political resistance? I call many of the women's traditions in the though on closer
of John
thc picture also contains some dark
even Let mc
make this explicit by using John 4 as an example. What is tas,cmatulg here is the narrative of a theological
between a nameless Samaritan woman and
Jesus. Fascinating are the deeds told of this woman-of which more in a moment. The dark
I see mainly in the history of
4: 16-18: male
a few femaJe interpreters as
of the Samaritan woman as a dark
can be expunged
of John read the
of sexual lust and unbridled passion. These social-historical inquiry.
A widow or divorced woman had to make sure that she found another patriarchal owner (husband), because her social and economic opportunities were very restricted if she remained unmarried. Babatha, a Jewish \voman we encounter in the materials from Nahal Hever, found it necessary, as a young widow with a
to marry a man who already had a wife. Apparently, in spite
of the fact that she had some kind of economic basis of her own, she saw no alternative to life as the second wife of a man who was evidently much older than she and who died soon afterward. Thc Samaritan woman probably had a thoroughly typical woman's this dark
in
behind her.
can be eliminated through some social-historical
reflection. She was a victim or, at most, a an agent
in a patriarchal
understands herself as women. It is more
that
difficult to eliminate the dark spot represented by the way in which Jesus' Samaritan followers despised this woman
Nevertheless, her actions are
tas,cUllanng: she allows a Je\v to drink from her water jar; she she dismisses the man
17) with whom she
him in
who did not even
marry her; and she abandons the water jar that she undoubtedly carried several times a day back and forth between the well and the village. Her hard
210
"What is John? women
11p'J4'~I,"n"'{1
twisted backs
she casts from her. She
her
water-is a
that
as a woman married many
and she becomes the messenger of Jesus, the
the word in
Samaria that he is the savior of the world. A "voman's
like this is often read as a
outside political
in the
care- far from Roman is no such unreal
happening in a place
in the world of family and personal and the history of Jewish resistance. But there
Babatha was
had hidden, like many other Jewish
murdered in a cave where she seeking
from the Roman
army. The Samaritan \\loman lived not many miles from that cave. Through her «"'~IUII".
she called into question the
of patriarchal oppression of women.
In the eyes of the Roman authorities and Roman of death. Rejection of a crime
she was therefore
and sutlle(;tlcm to men was
the state-as we know from the book of
as the Acts of
Thecla, and other sources. The Samaritan woman went even further. She stood in
with a Jewish Messiah in a world in which the '''',.,''''''''''. SusplCIOn
of Jewish messianism was punished with death, on order of the emperor. The Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, like the temple in Jerusalem, was aes:trnvea both by Titus and by Hadrian
I
When the
Johannine communities told the of this woman, they walked with uplifted heads-a perspective for the ... ;,,,n',f_ •• r..,. century.
I Eusebius, 4.23; H. G. Garizim and l{eJIIgJons:ge!)chllehlthcJhe Versuche and Vorarbeiten 30; Berlin and New York: de
1971
The Gospel at the Close of the Century: Engagement from the Diaspora F. The question
the ,,,jO,.u ..,,"'.u, ......'" and relevance of the Gospel of John
at the close of the twentieth
demands of the critic an open and frank
dialogue with the text. Such dialogue calls for the ground rules of the conversation to be established from the outset, especially since one of the partners in the conversation- indeed the focaJ
absent from
the table, the real author of the Gospel. All one has. in effect, is the implied author or, more accurately still, the readers and
HIIII""''-'
author as constructed by the various
including oneself.
I come to the dialogue at this point in my life with a reading of intercultural 1tlF"~'n'\ ultimately in what I call a hermeneutics of the f , ...
Before
to the conversation itself, I should like to
with a
few comments regarding the overall contours and ramifications of such a hermeneutics and reading so that the character and tone of my conversation with John is clear from the n,;","unn,.,,,,,
I'For the henneneutics of the
see 'Toward a Hermeneutics of the '-"""'''JJ'J'''. in This Place. Volume I: Social Location and Biblical in the United States (ed. E E and M. A. Tolbert; Fortress Press, 1994) strategy of intercultural criticism, see wroward Intercultural Criticism: A from the This Place. Volume 2: Social Location and Biblical in and M. A. Tolbert; MllnneapC)!ls: Interpretation in the United States (ed. F. F. Fortress Press, 1995) 303-30. For the "In the World but Not /ltlflrl-Hi(nf"I'tlir American of It: Exile as Locus for a Hon,/no\l' Promise and Cfu1Ue.nge Fortress Press, 1996) tot1thCI)mlng.
A Hermeneutics of Otherness and
"What is John?
212
Character of Dialogue with, the hermeneutics of the diaspora is rooted in and addresses my own
in and of the
and
At its core lie the
of
otherness and engagement. The first concept, that of otherness, is grounded in and reflects the C"Y
1"'''1''1.,,1''''<''
of otherness on the
and
cc individuals from non-Western civilizations
who reside, for whatever reason, on a permanent basis in the West. It is a concept with a
side to it,
marks
conveyed by its placement in quotation
such otherness implies a biculturalism with no home, no
following the and no face. From this point of we find ''In'ATTlI''-'' of colonial discourse and practice, in the position of np,r"YHltn?~tnt aliens and
",t"'~nf1"""D
in the world: as
and defined
face-
less; voice-less. The second concept, that of "'llt5'lE,"'1l1"'HI-, "", .. un,.., rooted in and reflects the npl·I.,~rl{," of the non-Western immigrant or in the nest, represents the positive side of otherness, best conveyed perhaps by its placement in a different font, whether italics
my actual preference, or bold (otherness). Such and face: it r'C>I£"'.t'.:.c in otherness embraces biculturalism as its very having two homes, two
and two faces. Such otherness also holds that all
reality-aU homes, aU
and all faces-is construction
both
as such, has
and contextuaIity; that there are many such realities or
and that these worlds or realities, as constructions, can be questioned, and altered. From this
of view, we find ourselves,
dynamics of decolonization and
in critical
and face in light of our own U.U~.Vf;'U'"
the
in a position of critical engagement
in the world: as self-affirming and self-defining home,
analyzed,
not only and
our own but also en;ga~~ea
with all other voices and faces.
Such a hermeneutics involves a corresponding
strategy, which I call
intercultural criticism. Such criticism caBs for an aor)rotlch to the text as an to be Q"L~nn.u!I"",1(u",1 reSIJeClled. and other rather than an "other" - as a engaged in its very otherness rather than overwhelmed or overridden. To be sure, the task envisioned is not at an an easy one. Indeed, if in contemporary life, as the as such others
well teaches us, it is
"otherness" that prevails, even
to defend and define themselves, how can
otherness be expected in a situation \vhere the others in question lie long silent
213
at the Close and can no longer define or defend themselves'! In in which one has to resist at alJ
it is a highly utopian task
incredible odds, a reading of others
as "others" in the light of one's own social location and agenda. It is \vith such a formidable task in mind that I pursue intercultural criticism:
-First, intercultural criticism remains embedded in modernism, insofar as it approaches the text as something which is both historically distant and culturally remote. As such, the text is seen in terms of or esthetic,
or
rhetoric, and
a
and cultural or political construction.
-Second, intercultural criticism is also embedded in postmodernism, insofar as it is preceding and
n,,,,,,p'JPr
aware that a text is not something out there, a reality
M-'~""~
interpretation, but rather
and interpreted, a "text." As
that is
read
it is highly conscious of the fact
even
when attempting to treat the text as an other, the resulting reading or interpretation is in itself a construction on the
of a reader: a poetic,
rhetorical, and ideological product in its own Third, intercultural criticism is embedded as well in Liberation Theology. Such an attempt to dis-cover and re-create the otherness of the text is undertaken not for the sake of historical or antiquarian interest-a questionable proposition in and of itself within any view of historical research as inextricably contextuaJized and interested- but rather for the purpose of critical engagement with the text. The
attitude, therefore, is not one of reverence for the text
but rather one of dialogue and struggle with the text in the light of one's own reality and
ext=.en~ence.
In the dialogue with the Gospel of John that follows, two made quite clear:
it is with my own reading and interpretation of the text-
my own "text" -that I tlnd and universal the diaspora that
should be
in
with any sort of
second, it is from my own social location and
in
undertake the dialogue- not from any sort of ideal or
universal
just as I am perfectly content to admit that
there are many possible interpretations of the text, so am I quite that there are many possible evaluations for our context at the turn of the
."'I",......... ur-.,
to admit
its .,.h.....'''''...,.,''"''''' and relevance
214
"What is John? Dialogue with John
With the ground rules properly set
I proceed to the conversation itself.
I limit myself to three
that I see as fundamental to the "vork: (1) its
characterization of the world;
its ideology of chosenness; and
its view of
life in the world.
Characterization of the World. Despite certain Gospel's depiction of the world
",roc,.t",.:.
elements in the
example: its creation by the Word of
the love of God for the ,,'orId; the human journey of the Word of God; the """"fH''''''
mission of the children of God in and to the
picture of the world in the Gospel is profoundly
the
np,c>
Thus, prior to the
coming of the Word, the world is said to be in darkness; despite its creation by the Word, the world is described as in the power of supra-human evil
with
the coming of the Word, hatred of God emerges as its overriding and distinguishing characteristic; before the aH<)ge:tn(~r
of the Word, the world is
excluded from the prayer of petition and intercession on the
of the
Word. From the perspective of the diaspora, the world of
life emerges as
divided: overridingly hostile, but calling forth fateful and inescapable, yet
and
hopes of and
change; a world of ultimate
and endless defiance. On the one hand,
therefore, there is much in John that resonates with the the
and
of colonia1ism and
dictatorship, domination and
and civil
to put aside
of the world. It is very difficult as well for anyone who has the experience of emigration and
",:. ...<:> ..<.t",o ...
of
the world as fundamentally evil and unjust. It is very difficult for
anyone who has had to live through the the brutal
for
from one's home and resettlement in
loss and dislocation,
sOfnel)()d~y
else's land, to
the bitter reality of the world. For anyone who has found himself or herself thrown into both sorts of the world in terms of
and
it is
and
hard to think
On the other hand. there is also
sornethIn:g mlJssmg in John. From the diaspora, such a stark view of the world is counterbalanced throughout
a clear and irrepressible thirst for
wellbeing, a desire to make the world a more which to dwell. And this, I must
and
I do not find in the GospeL
and place in
215
at the Close
Ideology of Chosenness. This characterization of the \vorld is accompanied a self-characterization of the followers of the Word in the world in terms of an
of
an ideology of
we are the
of the
world, the children of God, the ones whom had loves, the ones in whom the of God
the abode of God in the world-in short, the chosen ones
of God. In other
the Gospel presents human beings in terms of
oppositions: world versus those not of the world; children of the evil one visa-vis children of the
those in darkness versus the enlightened ones.
From the perspective of the 11."'''''....'", .." there voice and face as not of the enlightened: in
po~;se~;SJcm
to be sure, a perception of one's
as somehow set apart and
of that
into the world as construction that only
someone in the margins can truly possess. In this regard there is much from the harper that resonates: the utter otherness of the Word of had in the world. At the same time,
there
on the basis of hard experience, a profound
suspicion of all engulfing lU'-'VI\JF,''''''''
over/against
in the end, with any
and totalizing
of chosenness, one is never too far from
a Herrenvolk concept, a concept of
manifest
In this
I am
there is much in the Gospel that repels.
View of Life. Given such characterization of the world and such selfcharacterization on the part of those who it is not surprising to find in the
themselves as not of the world,
no basic charter for change in the world
and transformation of the world. The call in the end is for
and strategic
and endurance in the face of OOloreSSI.Jn. for eyes to be fIxed on the real home, the real
of the chosen ones: the house of the Father, where rooms
have already been
for their use and enjoyment. In the
one
continues, under the harshest of circumstances, to attempt to bring light to the to attract people to the circle of loved ones, and to engage in love for and service of one another. From the perspective of the dlaSPC)ra, there is much here that attracts: our position in the world, the call for patient and
abiding and enduring
Such is the message, for of the farewell discourse of Jesus in 1317, in which a vision of the status and role of the children of God in the world Word; see my The drawn the reader the eyes of the Farewell We-Jrd: The Johannine Call to Abide Fortress Press, 1991).
216
"What is John? finds resonance. It
'rvhich we can readily
after all, a call for a
a
a home-a call \vith
At the same
there is much here that
disappoints: it is not on an other-world that we want to fix our eyes but on thisworld. We remain very much in this world; we know that it is not the way it is by the will of
and we wish to
it, alter it, transform it, with
in mind. We look for a worldly
wellbeing and
a worldly
and
a worldly home as well.
Conclusion In the end, I find myself both nodding and shaking my head as I read the Gospel. Out of my own praxis, I find myself in view of the implied author: how can one
sympathy with the point of of the presence of
and weB being, in the world? Out of my own
I also find myself in
with such a point of view: speak one must, over and over
profound all
for change and
for wellbeing and
and for a God who needs to be very much present (l1asP()ra. then, the
problem, remains unquestionable; its r/;)I';'\I~lnt""' in terms of its must,
From my
of the Gospel, in terms of its assessment of the
be radically questioned and
century, I can only go so far with it
solution,
resisted. At the tum of the
'hn~"'-~"
Fourteen
What Have I Learned about the Gospel of John? D.
MOODY SMITH
As we ",,,,,....,vc.,,h the end of the twentieth century, and the second mi1lennium, can we confidently assert that we now understand the Gospel of John better than ever before? Or did Irenaeus at the end of the second century
understand
it better than we do? The latter is perhaps a moot question, because if he did we presumably wouldn't know it. belongs to not I
J.!"!" ...l .....U
that \ve do
.••
understand better than Irenaeus, if only because our interests and questions are different. I want to take this opportunity to say what these question in Gospel in now
more personal \vay, "What have I learned about the Fourth forty years of marinating in this
The first serious biblical,
the Fourth
Barrett's commentary.2 As I
and C. K.
expensive
worth it. These were followed a year or so later and then his Das
and its nrc,ole:rns
books I purchased as a theological
student were C. H. Dodd's
New
are. To put the
but we)]
Rudolf Bultmann's
t:;,v(~mf,:ellum
des Johannes, over which
C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation Fourth Press, 1953). 2 C. K. Barrett, The to St. John: An Introduction ~vith COI'ntnentary' and Notes on the Greek Text (London: S.P.c.K., 3 R Bultmann, New Testament (trans. K. GrobeJ; 2 vols.; New York: Scribner's, 1951, 1955), esp. 2:3-92. 4 R Bultmann, Das vafllgel'LUl1ls des Jolumnes Kommcntar libel' das Neue Testament 2, 15; Vandenhoeck & 1957}. f'\e::I"I/~V-"/lIlr'r~v R W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches, as The I
In"JP",olh!
"What is John?
218
I was to labor important but Gospel in
I hope not tiresomely. All of these \vere not only purchases, and they have informed my
of the Fourth
ways. What have I learned? Nothing that no one else knows,
and a few things that some colleagues of
erudition are determined not to
know. Notwithstanding a lack of consensus on some crucial make bold to
out the most significant things I know.
I should say at the outset that I do not know who wrote the Gospel of John and believe that the author, who has none too humble an estimate of the value of his work, has purposefully and successfully concealed his identity. Dodd left the door open to the tradition of Johannine authorship. Barrett became morally certain John the Apostle did not write this Gospel: Bultmann, who doubtless shared the latter view, showed no interest in the
In the very nature of
the case, it would be extremely hazardous to predicate
upon a view of
Johannine authorship, traditional or other. It is not a matter of UI"Jf',UIU""UH"""", "''',',lfP'l}'''' that the Gospel claims that it is based on an eyewitness, or "'l,c'Ult'tn""" testimony. Although historical criticism does not take this claim at face value, it must nevertheless be
with
Now to the things I know.
What I Do Know About the Gospel H1S1VR1CAL SE171NG IN THE GOSPEL
This
invites historical
auc~suons,
and cries out to be understood
historically, that is, in its original historical setting, which is importantly related to Judaism. As a divinity student I heard Professor W. D. Davies say that he believed Paul kept the law all his life. I rushed up after class to protest, politely of course, in the name of the doctrine of
faith alone. Professor
Davies reminded me, equally politely but firmly, that Paul must be read in his own setting rather than that of the Protestant Reformation. Seeing John in its historical
has until recently meant
it as a
sort of culmination of the development of New Testament theology, or of theology within the New Testament. To see John in that way has seemed reasonable to a host of After
particularly, but not only, in the modern period.
Clement of Alexandria thought that John wrote his spiritual Gospel in
light of the other three, which set forth the bodily facts. Calvin saw in John the this background Bultmann,
Smith: What Have I Learned about the
219
Klimmel 5 and others seem quite reasonable, indeed,
as they
treat John as in some sense the culmination of the development of New Testament ,n£."I£"'.. 1
Yet there is
at least
about this view of John, saw. It is not "..n
historically speaKIHj;?;, as BuItmann
John mttmuomul builds on earHer Christian 'rvitnesses and know the
..."".,,,
obvious that
urrlllrlOI.:
Did John
Opinion remains divided, as it was in Bultmann's day.
Bultmann thought not. If he knew them, did he have a write with them in view? As Hans Windisch John's knowledge of the other
"n[,,,!<,.rl
view of them or it is possible to
without COllcedlflj;?; that he approved
them or wrote as he did \vith them in view. Did John know and build upon Paul? Bultmann saw a fundamental theological kinship, but did not think it possible to interpret John as a development of, or on the basis of, PauJ.7 That John reads well as the culmination of Ne\v Testament
""'L',''''''"""
does not mean
that John wrote with that purpose. To maintain that position may, in
make
it difficult to grasp John's actual historical (and theological) setting and purpose. For
who smv the Gospel addressed to an educated Hellenistic readership
(with perhaps some
with Judaism), or for Bultmann, who saw in its
Gnostic roots a means of exposing a profound understanding of human eXllste:ncc~,
the historical
if not universal.
and purpose of the Fourth Gospel were ...,.......,"'.
LI. . ,
those who have seen in the frequent references to "the
Jews" as the enemies of Jesus an indispensable clue to the Fourth Gospel's J. Louis
and Raymond E. Brown have made the most
5 W.-G. Klimmel, The the NeYIl Testament AClcorrtUl'£ to its Witnesses: Jesus-Paul-John (trans. J. E. Nashville: I>V'ui",'....vu /!,Vj~m);~eUst die ii/teren H. Windisch, Johannes and die Svn:omflker: ergtinzer oder ersetzen? untersuc:11lIngt!I1 zum Neuen Testament. 12;
/!'Vlmgellt~n
J. C. Hinriches'sche
1926).
Bultmann,
New Testament,
2:9:
instead, a fjgure with his own originality and stands in an atmosphere of theological thinking different from that of Paul .... and this independence of John emerges all the more clearly one in fhat Paul in spite of perceives ditTerences in their mode of thought and terminology.
220
"What is John?
noteworthy contributions. Bultmann's view that "the Jews" of John symbolize unbelief may well contain its
of tmth. Yet the
held assumption,
rooted in antiquity, that John is the latest of the canonical Gospels tended to exclude the possibility that these references to "the Jews" were actually a clue to It seemed unlikely that these were "real" Jews. John ,vas
its original assumed to be a
gerle111tlc~n
or so beyond the point of the mpture between the
parent, Judaism, and its child, Christianity, a point marked by the work of the "UJ'JJL,'~
PauL Yet this view assumed, ,\'ithout sufficient justification, that the so-
called
with Judaism occurred
assumed that a
It also
and
written toward the end of the first century would no longer
reflect this mpture. Both assumptions are dubious. It is now
believed that the
of John is a document that
reflects in significant and revealing ways the early relations and mpture between synagogue and church, whether or not the reconstmctions of are in every detail tenable. Quite
or Brown
John intends to encourage believers
in Jesus in his own time and place to
themselves, and, if
are still
within the synagogue, to come out. On the other hand, it is a
nnl... r',HII>·n
with "the Jews" in the time of
that John when there was
little or no tension in his own time, to encourage Christians synagogues to break with them-that
that the
peaceably in
~UI:::'J;:,\.,~t'"
a contlict that
non-existent at the time of its
is ample
evidence in New Testament times of tension between Christians and Thus it is essential about the
"~,,,,,,,,uU"b
held that the Martyn-Brown
captures
of JohnY The
is a controversy document, not
8 first set forth his view in York: & Row, 1968; revised and enl'lfg(:d Aocor'dlfl!f! to 1979). Brown's view was first in his commentary, The John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (2 vole.; AB 29, 29A; Garden The C01nmunity Doubleday, 1966, York: Paulist Press, <} See my assessment. in 'The Contribution of 1. Louis Martyn to the of the of John," in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John (ed. R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa; Nashville: 275-294, esp. 285-291, and A. Meeks the statement of magnum opus of John Ashton, /na'erstar.~aillR the Fourth Press,
Smith: What Have I Learned about the a
HU""",HL_U"b
221
document, although it may, in fact,
to~!etJtler
essential elements of Christian belief in 'Nays that have become The historical setting of the Fourth to say about its more
and express
,:'l"Ifll1r.nfl
also has something
JIF,JU"L""~Uo"
anti-Semitism. There is no doubt that "the Jews, or, some Jews, are the villains in the Fourth Gospel. The
presentation of them
however, a specific historical situation of conflict.
We do not hear fl"'o'o'f""" from the other side, the in their own documents, although it is not quite correct to say that we know nothing of them. In the Jews are rer:wes~efllted as defending monotheism, the law, and their status as children of Abraham. Of course, John does not present them in a favorable but his presentation is not an unrecognizable caricature. To take John's negative references to '"the Jews" and apply them to Jews in every time and place is to make an identifkation and application the Fourth would have never imagined. Yet the fit between "the Jews'" rejection of Jesus and Judaism's historic positions is so that the view that "the Jews" reolresent historical Judaism and unbelief seems a reasonable one. An historical view of Johannine origins thus defuses anti-Semitism, but the key issue is how and for what purpose John is read: to condemn the OPlporlents of Jesus or to affirm the salvation and life that believers tlnd in him? the latter accords more with the Gospel's purpose. Yet the other is also present. The community of interpretation remains crucial for understanding the Ilu:am,ng of "the Jews" in the Fourth Thus in some circumstances John has been read as an anti-Jewish book. Perhaps more ba'iic conceptually than the portrayal of the Jews in John, hmvever, is the underlying dualism, found also in other documents such as the Johanni ne Matters and the Dead Sea particularly the Community Rule. (The opponents of the Qumran community are, of course, not called '"Jews, but the level of is no less TeHingly, "the Jews" are nowhere to be found in the letters of John, but the dualism remains and the intensity of hostility is undiminished. The enemies now are not Jews but other, heterodox Christians. In all probability Meeks \vas profoundly correct to see in John's dualism not so much cOflceiPtual borrowing from other sources, whether Jewish or Hellenistic, as a reflection of a social and
1991), offers further confirmation of the
ImJJorl:am~e
work.
222
"What is John?
religious situation of alienation and hostility.lO the roots and effects of such dualism are cruciaUy important, not
for
John, but for
understanding something about ourselves and the human condition.
If John is in some signiHcant sense a Jewish Gospel, it is also an independent GospeL To say this does not in principle exclude the possibility that John knew Yet John cannot be adequately understood as a SUIJplemlentatlon
other
or interpretation of the other canonical
,,"~,-,'''P',",''~
or of any other Gospel that we
know or possess.
In my own study of John's relationships with the of
was at first enormously
important. 1l
the commentary Hoskyns'
that
John wrote in order to put a proper theological interpretation upon the n""'1'",1rnu"c of the Synoptics, or
similar to them, to prevent them from
misinterpreted, is initially quite attractive. John may reasonably be taken to clarify the Synoptics or to make what they imply. Yet such a
,",j~IJ""""
runs into difficulty because at important
points, or in signifkant ways, John contradicts the Synoptic narrative or departs from the Synoptic
of Jesus.
Thus Hans Windisch could maintain that John kne\v the Mark, probably
(certainly
Matthew), but departed from them quite
deliberately to go his own way. This remains a viable view in my ...."'.. . ,...... n. Indeed, if John conjured seriously, and
with the
it is more
plausible to think his purpose was to displace them rather than to affirm or supplement them. John seems to have gone out of his way to contradict, the other canonical
if not
John does not accommodate his account
to them in any way. When Percival Gardner-Smith proposed that John was simply
of the Synoptics,12 however, that seemed a more likely
W. A. Meeks, "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism, JBL 91 (1972) 44-72. II E. (ed. F. N. rev. cd.; L,ondon: Faber and The Fourth Faber, P. Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the ,'\VI1'nntTr InnJ"I"Olhl Press,
Smith: What Have I Learned about the
223
including C. H. Dodd, who made the case
possibility to many
in his monumental Historical Tradition in the Fourth M()re()Ve~r.
'JVJ/J~h
the contacts between John and the Synoptics, while real, seem to
lie at the
or later
rather than at the center or core of the tra4jltlon.
even where the accounts run parallel. The works of BuJtmann, Robert Fortna l4
and
that where John and the Synoptics are '''''''''',",''1<'
with the same event
the Triumphal Entry, the
the Death of Jesus), John's narratives- while are not readily
dealing
the Trial before points of contact-
as having been derived from Mark or any of the
Synoptic accounts. John's account does not depart from the in ways that may be described as
or synoptic,
Johannine.
Of course, John's total structure or plan, while bearing the broadest similarity to the
differs from it in
ministry, the
of Jerusalem and Galilee, the
etc. In the public ministry, the
the
Tnr,f>p_vp~H"
of Passover,
of contact with Mark or the Synoptics
appear haphazard or difficult to comprehend. Thus scholars such as Bultmann, Fortna, Rudolf Schnackenburg, and Ernst Haenchen-whose aor)ro'lcl1les. methods, and results often differ in principle and detail-agree that John's contacts with the other canonical Gospels lie at the periphery, and presumably at the later
of development, rather than at the core or center
of the traditions employed. One
,n"·"tfo:\l"\"",,
encounters the qwes£ll.on of what sources or traditions John
C H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Press, 1963).
Ini\fP,.,,,tu
14 The commentaries of Brown and BuHmann have already been noted (see nn. 8 and 4 above). See Fortna's most recent The Fourth and its Predecessor Fortress Press, 1988) passim. 'rhe works of BuHmann, Brown, and Fortna are noted above nn. 4,8, and 14). See also R. The to Sf. John (3 vols.; Herder's TheologIcal COllnmlentIlfV on the New Testament; trans. K. C D. Smith, 1968-82); and E. Haenchen, John and G. A. Kon; New York: Herder and Herder; A Commentary on the (2 vols. ~ ed. U. Busse; ed. and trans. R. W. Funk; Hermeneia; FhIlad,elpJlua:
224
"What is John?
used, if not the
Here critics from R. P.
to Frans Neirynck17
that it is better to work with knmvn sources than with hypothetical
have
ones. In principle this seems an unimpeachable whether the
Yet the question of
actually are the sources of the Gospel of John cannot be
on the basis of even this Razor. On the one hand, themsel ves; at
that is, in the name of Ockham's sources other than the
do not present
they are no longer extant On the other, efforts to
Johannine passion narratives or other parallel accounts as the
the of the
Marcan (or Synoptic) narratives face signiHcant difficulties. as we have noted. Of of the Fourth
course, efforts to uncover the narrative
in the
passion narrative or else\vhere, often agree on some points, but diverge on others. For
the attempt to delineate or excavate a
beneath the narrative surface of the
source (or
has met with some agreement, and
mixed success, among a number of scholars
Bultmann and
but has
not
that
met strong resistance in other quarters. 18 It is agreement is far from complete, even among on sources other than the
from
who believe John relied John had a miracle source(s) or
traditi ons and an
very
wri tten. Our
inability to agree on the nature and extent of such a source does not imply it never existed.
our inability to reach consensus on any number of
historical-critical issues does not mean that they do not exist or that to
are, so
out of bounds to There is, of course,
the possibility that John's use of the
finds its closest parallel in the way the authors of the
RP. 535-542. Frans
"Professor
VOOOe~n01Jgh
and the Fourth
Gospels used
JBL 64 (1945)
has been set forth in number works, most in his debate with Boismard, Jean et les Examen critique de M.-E. Boismard (with the collaboration of J. Delobel ct aI., BETL Louvain: Louvain Press, 1979). See also his "John and the 1975-1990, in John and the (cd. A Denaux; BETL 101; Leuven: Leuven 3-62. «lIrlnri~:ino in the Louvain school, of which Frans "'''','r''.~,~v is the there. See now G, Van Belle, The and Critical Evaluation Semeia HYJ'JotJ'tesis (BEll. 116; Leuven: UnIVersIty Press, 1994).
pvlp"c'u,.hl
225
Smith: What Have I Learned about the the ~Vllot:mcs. or all the canonical conventional dating of the
"JlV'.:tlJ',,"',
for that matter.19 Because of the
"'n"""'r"!nn~H
in the second century or later,
of the canonical
their
conclusion.
the late dating and presumption of knowledge of the canonical Gospels are interrelated.) Yet it has recently been Gospels are
that certain apocryphal
If not, then
not later than their canonical
do
need not presuppose them. On the other hand, if they are later, they
not regard the canonical accounts as canonical in the sense of fixed or immutable forms of narrative. Rather
are still subject to
or midrashic
in the case of cert.:'lin Old Testament books or narratives: cf., for
elaboration
example, the canonical books of Chronicles and the pseudepigraphical In either case, the
Testaments of the Twel ve Patriarchs and the Book of apocryphal
are not controlled or constrained by the canonical, much less
the
or
Gospels, in the same \vay that even Mark
",",,"Il. . ""UAlU,,,
Matthew and Luke.
It is not necessary to prolong consideration of these intriguing possibilities. the apocryphal Gospels offer two, alternative parallels to John's use, or
If John, like a few of the apocryphal
of the
did not have access to the
the Gardner-Smith
simply is affirmed. On
the other hand, even if all the apocryphal Gospels' authors had access to the canonical
there could be an interesting parallel to the case of John and
"-,,,".:11"'>'''',
the Synoptics. In neither instance would the Synoptic Gospels exercise control over the Johannine or apocryphal narratives. Both of the latter would have to be seen as
remarkable freedom over
their antecedents. It could
be maintained that this later position fits the observation that John, like most apocryphal Gospels of the reader
as we know them), seems to presuppose on the part of the
This may be true, but if so, that
only raises the further question of whether the Gospel invention
let us say, Mark -so that
itself was the sheer of that
means
of Mark-or, alternatively, whether Mark availed himself of a prior
See D. M. Smith, "The Problem of John and the :\Vflonucs in Light of the Relation between and Canonical 'W~h)F""d, John and the ::J)'fitOJ;Jl'lCS, 147-162. For a full statement of this see 1. D. Crossan, Four Other Shadows on the Contours Winston, 1985). IJ""HJVU,
\JV.'VC.J.
226
"What is John?
tradition
the necessary order and content of any narrative of Jesus' of the story would not
ministry. In the latter case literary
J""'LlU',/U'~"Ulf,t,
imply a
at least not within
JOHANNINE COMMUNITY AS DIS17NCTIVE
Independent traditions behind the Fourth ""''C""u,''''~.
~''''>J~''''''
as well as the synagogue
oespe2lK the existence of a distinctive Johannine community. If John
embodies
their existence implies a traditioning
community. And even if John somehow presupposes the Synoptics, the dL~."" ...f .....,,,,, from the narratives do not the of selfliterary
conscious and
but look more like what might
happen in a traditioning community. Of course, the very existence of the Johannine Epistles means that there ,vas a 10hannine circle of churches if not a 10hannine school. I think both. The Johannine circle is a cert.:'linty, even if the letter writer is the same as the evangelist, as tradition holds. But I think it more likely that the letter "'riter is not the same as the evangelist. Indeed, it is far from certain one author wrote all the Ietters.21 If not, then the evidence of a Johannine school increases. All these authors talk, or write, the same. They is similar.
and even their
the generous
community into all truth pm;se~;SICm
issues cast up by the Fourth
especially 1 John, as Brown has amply shown. 22
are dealt with in the For
the same theological v()(;ab:ulary
of the Spirit-Paraclete, who would lead the may well have led to
claims of
on behalf of divergent doctrinal positions (I John 4: I
thus
creating a severe problem, not only of doctrine, but of authority within the That the latter sort of problem existed is amply clear from 2 and 3 John as well.
h .. ;,r .. ,.,,;hl
lohannine INew Testament l'I'''',nln"n!· Press, 1991]) demonstrates the rel(,ltlolosl1lP
cornpllCxllty of the relations among the and hence the tilt'hr'lllhi See also her The Second and Third Bal:lun'OWld tamourJW~ T. & T. Clark, 1986). (AB 30~ Garden NY: DOlubl1edav. passinl, esp. 69-115.
227
Smith: What Have I Learned about the ED171NG
If the Gospel of John is the ......
".,111,,,1
a
of a ,",VIUUIIUJU
or school, within which
deal of theological and related debate has gone on, it will not surprise us
to discover that this fundamental document
of the community has
been edited, perhaps reClCaltedlv from this consideration, the evidence for the redaction of john is
Quite
stronger than in the case of any other Gospel, or, for that matter, in any other New 21 is unquestionably a later addition, whether
Testament book.
the
original author or a later hand. Probably the latter. If 14:3] were followed by 18:1, no one would ever miss the
15-17. In
14:31 anticipates 18:1, not
"Arise, let us go hence
following
said these
things, Jesus went out with his disciples across the Brook Kidron."
6
with its Galilean locale, fits after John 4 better than chap. 5, which is set in Jerusalem. Were
trallspose:d at some point in the
's redaction
Although the matter of whether 6:52-58 is a later addition, and to what purpose, is still debated, it certainly marks a shift in
and focus that warrants
such a view. Possibly, some of the statements that seem to be editorial corrections, or at least emendations, were in fact added by a later hand 18:9). Occasionally the redaction may have been intended to Johannine account into line with the
21.
the
21 :24-
but this is not always the case. Seemingly, the redaction would have missed many
to make the Fourth Gospel account accord with the others.
In any event, the view of Brown that the redaction took
in a Johannine
milieu, or community, and was not a means of bringing this idiosyncratic Gospel into line with a
orthodoxy (Bultmann) seems on the face of
it plausible and probably true. 23 It may
as Brown
that chap. 21
intentionally reconciles lohannine Christianity with other, apostolic Christians, but his conception of this as an inside job rather than an without tIts the character of the redactional
"'H(4lJ~,..,,,,
from
as well as their nature and
tone. The redactional elements, insofar as they can be identified, do not reveal a
style or vocabulary. Whether they
I bi d. , 108- 112. Bultmann (The
manifest a different
John: A Commentary, 700-706) way of SnOWHH! the difference between chap. 21 and the rest of the rlnfPropnt character and purpose.
empha.sIZI~S
"What is John?
228
theological
the sense of an
debate. At least it is not obvious to It is a curious
attention to the
one- is a matter of
U''''VU:F.'''IUUl
aJlI,;;A\;';~I,;;~I,;;::t
that they do.
as John Ashton points out,24 that Bultmann never paid ~" .. ,,,,, ...
'H ..
of the
milieu of the Fourth
'rvithin a Christian community or cOlmnlUJlities. as much as he dealt endeavored to explain, its
and
background, and even its
relation to the putative
sect. Thus it is perhaps not surprising that he
seems not to set the cOlmpOSJIHcln of the
and the redactional process within
a common community. As far as I can see, in principle nothing stood in the way of such an attempt, which one might have expected, given Bultmann's meticulous effort to understand the synoptic tradition in its historical context. THE GOSPEL iN
CONTEXT OF
NEW TESTAMENT
Having tlrst said that John cries out to be understood in its historical context, I must now maintain with equal seriousness that John cries out to be interpreted in the context of the New Testament. CX~i:'!getes
as diverse as Clement of Alexandria,
maintained or implied that John is, theologically keystone of the canon. John
and Bultmann have "lJ"'Ll"~'''I'',
to
and
\vhat is
dlstm,:;Uy Christian. This is particularly true with dogma. Ernst Kasemann's indispensable
the culmination or
to
of John as
indeed,
accurately strikes an
and theological note.
what Christians- initially his own
~"""V"J'"",I
John intended to say
believed in the face of
contradiction and opposition, initially from Jews who had once shared the same community. The value of his accomplishment has Christians, but there is also a dark side
been apparent to
appropriate metaphor in view of the
light-darkness dualism of the Johannine literature). This dark side is ultimately related to the polemical character of the 10hannine books (including Revelation, if it be included). The character of the
convenience let us confine ourselves to it-is in
turn intimately related to \vhat seems an inevitable
E. Kasemann, The Testament 17 (trans. G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968).
of human existence,
in the
229
Smith: What Have I Learned about the alienation and hostility \\'ithin
within
communities, and among communities. In such a crucible of alienation and hostility Christianity was born. In
this dimension or aspect of existence is
finally caught up in a definitive way in the crucifixion of Jesus himself. The one who teaches and
vt,\'"llJiIJUI.Jv,:)
love is
up in the contrarieties of human
existence and succumbs to them, or so it seems. Resurrection faith is, among other things, belief that this is not the last \\lord, but rather that God has another word. The Johannine Jesus is then the supreme expression of that divine love that calls human beings to
loving God and
and exemplifies that love in a deflnitive \vay (1
one another. He teaches 15:
Thus he is the true
light who enlightens every human being (I :9). Yet because the light is so pure, true, and
the darkness is al1 the more incomprehensible, and those who
choose darkness rather than evil
can only be condemned, because their deeds are
Historically, these people are first "the
become heterodox Christians (l John 4: 1-3~ 2 John that contains the purest
rvu'1r~v~1
" but very quickly they Paradoxically, the Gospel
and distillation of God's love in Jesus at the
same time contains the harshest condemnation of those who have rejected that love and now seemingly stand over A
deal more could be
it and outside it. but I confine
to a few comparisons of
the Gospel of John with other New Testament books or traditions that helpfully put John in a broader perspective.
1. Both John and Matthew present Jesus
a Jewish background, after
all his proper historical milieu. It has frequently been suggested that Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels, probably because Matthew presents the most Jewish Jesus. If John has sometimes been
as the least Jewish Gospel,
that is because his Jesus seems not to be Jewish at all, but the Jews' opposite number. Yet John knows \vell that Jesus \vas Jewish hard to
Nevertheless, it is
a more anti-Jewish depiction of Jesus' fellow Jews than that
found in Matthew 27:25 ("His blood be on us and on our children.") There is obviously also something
on between Matthe\v's
and the
synagogue. On the other hand, Matthew's Jesus himself takes a quite position toward biblical, and even Jewish, tradition
n£"''''''"II.'*
for example). He
debates not about the "whether" but about the "hmv" of scriptural interpretation
230
"What is John?
and certainly would not have spoken of the Imv as
law"
John 8:
a more accurate picture of Jesus'
There is little doubt that Matthew
teaching, the issues he addressed and the positions he took, than does John, who concentrates in a narrow and, strictly "1"""""JHi'i, unhistorical manner on Jesus as a teacher of christology who argues about his own status and
with Jewish
opponents. The Matthean Jesus stands within Judaism, albeit as a figure of unprecedented authority, and addresses issues of common concern. Exactly these which concern human expressions of piety, care for others, and obedience to
are matters which have a broad appeal and interest to people generaJly.
They are not related to the
Jewish-Christian issues and debates about
Jesus' claims and role that dominate the
of John. Put
the Gospel of John to interpret adequately who Jesus
we may need
but we also need the
Gospel of Matthew (and Mark and Luke) to make inteHigible and humane the claims made for Jesus in the Gospel of John. 2. Paul, on the other hand, is similar to John in his unremitting concentration and faith. Li ke John, Paul does not purvey the actual
on issues of
concrete context of Jesus' ethical teaching, although he may know
e'vl ...." ..... !'E!
about it and on occasion seems to allude to it. For example, in his two citations of Lev 19: 18 (Rom I
Gal 5: 14), Paul may reflect kno\\'ledge of Jesus' love
command, although he does not attribute it
to Jesus. Nevertheless, Paul's
interest seems to be elsewhere, on what God is effecting for humanity through Jesus. Yet just at this juncture, Paul which are
differs from John at several points,
For one thing, Paul sets the salvation event within
the framework of God's covenant relationship with his people Israel. In
so,
he makes it quite clear that he intends to interpret the sending of the Son (Gal as a
,",UJUIlJll(.lU
event \vithin that
but not as the cataclysmic
abolition of it. Moreover, he refuses to announce the abolition of God's promises to Israel, his people, because they have refused his offer of salvation. Christians tend to interpret Paul's "All Israel wi11 be saved" (Rom 11
to mean they wil1
accept Jesus as Messiah as a response to the (Gentile) Church's preaching. Paul, seems not to want to put the matter in these terms. As to the Christ event the
Paul, as is
and
concentrated in the death of Jesus. Usually, Paul
sees of the
effect of this death in cuItic or juridical terms. Yet Paul clearly views it as an act
Smith: What Have I Learned about the of God's love and compassion (Rom
231
in which Jesus actively participated.
While the death of Jesus was a murderous act, it was carried out not understand what they were doing (I Cor
men who did
not by men who saw the issues
plainly and yet decided against Jesus (1ohn 19: 14-16). Thus in Paul 's thought, the death of Jesus effects not division and further alienation and and reconciliation, as he states in 2 Cor 5:
"'""hlt,h!
but peace
where God's action in Christ
clearly means his action in Jesus' death. Paul never tires of emphasizing the regefl(~ratJVe
power of Jesus' death (Rom 6: 1
situation (Rom 7: U'."F>'"UF>
that it
into being a new
The interpretation of Christ's work as making peace and
unity among
set forth in Eph 2, while perhaps
what tact wrote, understands and
beyond
Paul's theology of the cross
There are then essential dimensions of a theology of the cross that are
in
John and need to be supplied from Paul. Yet in John Jesus' death is the revelation of the
of God, and owe does have Jesus say, "I, when I am lifted
the
up from the earth, will draw all people to myself' missionary thrust in John (
There is a universal,
that stands in some tension with the
characteristic sharp dualism. For the most part, the fulfillment of the
His death underscores the gulf that
Jesus from his enemies.
3. Hebrews, like John, portrays the through the
Jesus' death in John is
or the Jews' , enmity. He dies in defense of his own. and covenant, established
as superseding the old (Heb 8: 13). In Hebrews, as in John, Son was God's agent in creation. The Jesus of Hebre\vs is for the
most
the exalted high priest, the heavenly Christ, as in John. Yet for Hebrews
as for owe the incarnation is indispensable and its
unequivocally stated
John 1: 14 and Heb 4: 14; 5: lA, 7-10). Christian
have, I believe,
tended to interpret the laconic assertion of John 1: 14 in light of Hebrews' elc'quent testimony to what it means to be human, and to suffer. Here Hebrews fiUs up what is lacking in the Gospel of John, as does the First Epistle 1: 1-4 and 4: ] While both John and Hebrews take what might be described as a negative attitude to the Judaism
\\'jth them, there is a
John seems to urge bel ievers in Jesus to come out, separate
difference. from the
synagogue. Hebrews, if interpreted along traditional lines, urges Christians not to revert to the synagogue. (I am aware that this interpretation of the purpose of
232
"What is John?
Hebrews is no
so
The point is that the Gospel
held as it once
of John seems much nearer to the historical point of geflUJfle
h,,.,,lild,!
and breach,
Hebrews appears farther removed, There is remoteness rather than Whatever persecution may be
is not anticipated from Judaism or
Jews. The heroes of Israel are assumes his
>0-""'-'-'_1
of faith for the
as the pioneer and
and Jesus
of their (and our, the
faith (
He endured hostility from sinners (l
~U1Derses,s1O~n
for Hebrews seems a more
~"'hH"U",7
not Je\vs and ..... Up;,.','".:l,
matter, than a point of still-heated debate and conflict. There is a sense in which Christian
is in the very nature of the case sUIJerse5iSI()llI:st in its view of
and relationship to Judaism. At least it was so viewed by ancient Jews. Otherwise, there no Christianity. Yet on this
have been
we have something to learn from the Letter to
the Hebrews, which takes a somewhat
and calmer view of these matters
than does John. My point, in conclusion, is very simple. John does bring into clear focus
unn''\l..t~llnt
issues of Christian theology. For good reason John has
seemed to represent the essence of distinctive Christian ChlrtstOI()gllcal doctrine. There is nothing wrong with that. In
it is helpful, not
only for Christians, but for others \vho want to know \vhat Christianity is about. Yet when the
of John is taken out of the context of the other canonicaJ
Gospels, and the New Testament generally, it conveys a truncated view of what early
much less Jesus of Nazareth, \vas about. To put matters the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount warrants the claims made
by, or for, the Johannine Christ. So John needs now to be read in a canonical from that context its claim to authority is
and even
"vithin that context do the claims of the Johannine Jesus carry authentically Christian significance and conviction.
Postscript This essay
as a lecture, delivered from brief notes, in which I put aside
all considerations of balance and bibliography and simply asked, "What have I learned'?" More than half a year later I moved from the oral to the written
in
tradition-historical fashion,
and have tried to reconstruct,
and
state a bit more carefully what was said on that occasion. As I nmv contemplate what I said, I am struck
how old-fashioned and
Smith: What Have I Learned about the
233
conservative it must appear to those now working on the forefront of lohannine research, who may
that the author has not read much, or been
the
or so years. To the
what he has read, in the last
much affected
it \vi1l become apparent how traditional in the sense of
reader as to historical and
my own interests and commitments are, is that we are presented with a given, the Gospe],
My fundamental which we are
for what it was in order to understand and assess
its meamng, which is aptly described as revel2ltor'v as it models and invites theological reflection. a
in the
l\/fr~rp,~'Jtc>r
I have corne to realize that the discernment of
is not necessarily grounded upon foundationalist
philosophical
of faith. Not of faith
but may itself be a
as commitment to established doctrine, but faith as the expectation of hearing what one would not otherwise know or could not otherwise believe. Historical research and reflection stand in the service of such .......,. ''',I-!' Natura])y, much recent work on the Fourth Gospel bears upon this interest and asks about the literary character of the Gospel,
concern. One it is to be
27
or how it functions as
revelation. 28
about how
The question of what is
presupposed by the Gospel now moves from lIl\'eslug:atH)ns of a century ago to contemporary sociological and anthropological theory, for which such research is
no means irrelevant. 29 Yet my own
assessment of the usefulness of such research cannot be divorced from a perhaps inchoate,
fundamental, determination to hear the text and to learn from it
about God and
Quite possibly the proof of the
of such
hearing then lies within myself. But, of course, not within myself only, for then
Fourth
A
in Literary
Word: The lohannine Call to Abide (Mmnleai){)jJ:s: Revelation in the Fourtll Narrative Mode and nU'OIO'}ZlCal Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). J. H. An Revolt: John:~ in Social Science PhJladlelpJrua: Fortress Press, 1988). Note the earlier work of A. Meeks; see n. 10 alx)Ve.
234
"What is John?
the danger of autism or solipsism \vould be unavoidable. One and hears the
of John within the context of a
reads of hearers and
readers who strive to understand the text and interpret it among themselves. On the one hand, this can mean-but does not hears,
and
mean-that one
the
within the Christian church.
like the Bible gerlel1lJ1y
churchly text of interpretation is intimately
connected \vith the call to read John within the work is by no means
In that case, historical
as it takes account of past interpretations
all the way back to, and incl uding, the origins of the text. The Christian interpreter has an
interest in knowing what the text has meant, and
even what the author intended, even if those
are not to be
identified with the revelation of God through the text, which is and
a present,
event.
On the other hand, hm,ve'/er. the
as a part of a corpus of
of
ancient literature, may also be read and interpreted in other communities, with other interests. Preeminent among these is the Society of Biblical Lherature, whose .. n''''.''',,,,~,,,. constituency, and eXloe(:tatI0J1S have become quite different, even in the several decades in which I have been a member. Perhaps in order to put this sort of difference quite simply, Krister Stendahl coined his nov{ n ..,'\1u.rh.,,,1
distinction between what the text meant and what the text means. The
former
then be
as the
of SBL and the latter of the
church, or churches. But things
appear more complex. Professional
members of SBt, now conjure with the question of what the text means in relative independence of what it meant. While Christian theologians and theological
engage the
of the present
of
biblical texts, they have, as we have noted. an interest in establishing that those present meanings all importantly relate to what the text meant. Thus there may be a fruitful overlap and interpretation with the still interests of the professional
historical and literary
(One might.
ponder the
significance of the change of the Society's name several decades ago when was dropped, so that SBL,E became SBL,.)
If I were to offer an alternative to Stendahl's distinction, it would have to do "meant" and with control rather than and present control and \vhat is the purpose of control? Professional
··.".~n""'n'
as
Who is in .nt,,, .....,,..,,,t,:>,.,,
of biblical texts in the scholarly or academic community have as their proper
Smith: What Have I Learned about the purpose and
to control the text. that
235 to
phenomenon of ancient or modem culture. The shall master the
of
it, whether as a is scientifk: that we
The theological or churchly
seeks to understand the text in order to be controlled
t;)\t;;~(?lt;;
it. Such
has a
deal in common 'rvith preaching, properly understood. The
is not to
stand outside or above the text in order to explain it, but to stand within or under the text in order to be
it. Whether there is any common interest or
between such attitudes and approaches is not an insigniHcant question. Obviously, I think there
but this is far too
and important a subject to be
aired fully here. Certainly it deserves continuing discussion from either side.
Conclusion Reading Readers of the Fourth Gospel and Their Readings: An Exercise in Intercultural Criticism
F. In a study such as this one, concerned as it is with reading and how different readers of the same text, in this case the Gospel of John, approach and that text, it is appropriate if not
.nt,prn.r,.t
for me as reader to outline my own
approach to the reading of these readers and their respective readings of the Gospel. In so
both the rationale and contours for the mapping of these
readings wiJI become clearer. In what
therefore. I begin with a number
of preliminary comments about reading, its constructs and stfi:l(e:gleS~ then turn to an fln~lIIV,I, of the various constructs and ,tr:Mpolf", these different interpreters of John and the results of such stntte~~Jes and constructs; and conclude with some reflections on the exercise as a whole. In the process, not only \vill the enormous
of
to the Fourth
Gospel become quite obvious but also the enormous range of opinion regarding its interpretation, significance, and relevance,
Reading-Strategies and Constructs I begin,
with some remarks on reading as such, first from the
view of my own of
constructs and
and construct and then from the
of of view
in generaL
READING FROM THE DIASPORA: INTERCULTURAL CRITlCISIH
I have described my
for
in terms of intercultural criticism
and its underlying theoretical orientation and elan as a hermeneutics of the diaspora, a hermeneutics of otherness and engagement. I Both are grounded in
I For intercultural criticism, see "Toward Intercultural Criticism: A Ke
238
"What is John?
my own reality and eXjDCI·teIICe of the .........,F"" ... ' '\'ith its
cOlTe~;polnding
of mixture and otherness, a variation of Liberation
fh?'·nlt'Hlv
and thus
presuppose a social-reader construct-a reader from the dia'ipora of nonWestern civilizations
in the West and a reader with overriding
sociocultural and sociopolitical concerns and commitments.
By way of
lllt!rodlucUOln. a few words about the hermeneutics of the diaspora in order. with
to the element of
aim in this regard to look at the
I should explain that it is my text, written or otherwise-as an
. ' - A L - · ..... 1
not as an "other" to be controlled and
other to me as much as overwhelmed V",F>''''U'''''''' other to be respected and
its pla.celneltlt in quotation marks) but rather as an in its own terms
its
highlighting in italics), This is an exercise which I regard as highly utopian and ultimately elusive,
what I consider to be a fundamental ethnocentric
tendelflcy to read the other in our own given the ever-present need to with its own
re(:o~:mJ~e
f"'Y:~"""""'f't"IP
and 11 Kc:nes:s.
also essential,
that one's world is but one version of
and location. Second, with regard to the
element of engagement, I should further
that this search for otherness
entails not only acknowledgment of and respect for such otherness but also en.ga~~enneI1t
with it, a critical dialogue with liberation in mind. In other
the purpose of such an exercise in criticism is not simply to survey and describe the other but rather to converse and struggle with the other in the light of one's own context and a14l.,uua. Out of this hermeneutics of the
cl'
there emerges a ."LA...... ,'''"
with three basic interrelated and interdependent dimensions in mind.
a
lnt<'!rf)ret,Uw'n in the Global Scene (ed. F. F. and M. A. Tolbert; MllnneapC}lIs: Fortress Press, ron:nC()mlng: 1995) 303-30; for the hermeneutics of the OI3SpC)ra, see "'l'oward a Hermeneutics of the A Hermeneutics of Otherness and in This Place. Volume I: Social Location and Biblical and M. A. Tolbert; MllnneapC)!ls: Interpretation in the United States (ed. F. F. Fortress Press, 57-73. See "Two Places and No Place on Which to Stand: Mixture and Otherness in Journal and Culture 27 1992) Hispanic American 26-40; and "In the World but Not of It Exile as l.."Ocus for a of the J'-I<J'''lA>IU, Hl.lma,/1lr American Promise and (ed. A. M. Isasi-Diaz and E E "p()rnVI~t· JVHmleal~oH,s; Fortress Press, torthcommtl~).
239
Fourth of the text in
as a literary,
and ideological
construction in its own right. Such a reading constitutes not so much the retrieval and reconstitution of a text but rather the production of a "text" on my own part. Second, a and
of all such
including my own, as
constructions in their own right. Since a text is conceived not as
sornethIn:g "out there" but as something that is
read and interpreted, any
or interpretation of it, including my own, is ahvays a and location. Such inter-"textuar'
with its own
I might
offers a
certain measure of protection in the search after otherness, insofar as one repeatedly comes across any number of readings of the same text besides one's own.
a reading of the readers behind
" including
as literary,
rhetorical, and ideological constructions in their own
Since a text is
regarded as something that is ahvays read and interpreted, the real readers behind such
their constructs and
become as
as
either the texts themselves or their "texts." Indeed, within such a reader also functions as a text, with its o\vn location and
np,I'<:'n,~~,'tn!'~
In this particular essay my focus of attention will be not on a Gospel of John as such, the production of a "text" of the although I do carry out such a task as one of the on the SH!llIl11CalIlCe and role of the
the of the on my part,
in the
at the turn of the century; nor on a
reading of my-"self' as a reader, as a text, although the present section does provide elements of such a reading; but on a .v,"",""",}',":>
of the Gospel
of different "texts" of the different readers from different
and social locations, and with different purposes in mind, though also with a common interest on a self-conscious approach to the interpretation of the
It
an
and
on my part to see how
my own partIcIpatIOn as both reader and editor in the of "texts" on my part will involve critical only in the examination of the various sense of a the different real readers in To engage in critical with these different real readers their would be as well as unfair, in the of my
240
"What is John?
the Gospel is read, interpreted, and evaluated in the dose of the twentieth century,
scene, at the
readers who not only live in the aftermath of
the theoretical and methodological explosion in biblical criticism but who also take into serious and self-conscious consideration the question of
the
Gospel. READiNG CONSTRue1:")
STRATEGiES:
A ,'WAPPING
For such an "'in""""."",. an overall sense of the different reading constructs and strategies available to readers of the Gospel is in
Most important among
these for my purposes here is what I \vould call the universal-reader/real-reader
In other I am particularly interested in how the real readers represented in these pages address and deal with their own status and role as real readers in the which I shall use as the primary axis of
mtlernlretatllon. and evaluation of the
""~\.J"lhfl.
At one end of this spectrum lies the universal-reader construct: uncontextualized or without location. neither historically situated nor culturally conditioned; a perceptor and describer of
and value-free. At
the other end, lies the real-reader construct: thoroughly contextuaIized and located. historically situated and culturally conditioned; a constructor of subjective and value-oriented. Both
it should be emph::lslz:ed,
are constructs: while a universal reader is patent1y a construction of real the real
howsoever conceived, is also a construction of real readers-that
is to say, it is the way that readers choose to construct themsel ves at anyone t ime
their social location and perspective.
In addition to this
axis of inquiry, a number of other axes, secondary
but nevertheless 'rYI"'C","f"."f for my purposes, are not only
but common.
For criticism in biblical criticism, see: R M. Fowler, "Who is 'the Reader' Reader Criticism?" in Reader to Biblical and Secular Texts (ed. R Detweiler; Semeia 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 5-23~ S. D. and the The Theoretical CnaUI~nf.!.~e Innrpr."r\/ Press, 1989), esp. Criticism: the Reader, in Mark and Method: New in Biblical Fortress Press, 1992) 50-83; Studies (ed. J. C Anderson and S. 1). Moore; "Reader Criticism. in The Postmodern Bible (cd. The Bible and Culture Press, 1995) 20-69. Collective; New Haven and London: Yale
241
Fourth While some intersect naturally with the real-reader pole of the others do so with
nrllm~II",!
to the universal-reader
Real.reader COllstructs. Real-reader constructs may be analyzed from two different points of view: the social-readerlindividual reader axis and the compliant-reader/resistant-reader axis. First, real-reader constructs admit of two basic and the social reader, and thus one can
of a social-
readerlindividual-reader axis. At the individual-reader
of the spectrum. the
emphasis is on the reader as an individual subject, with the focus on psychological location and the psychological issues of the individual in question. the
of individual-reader constructs is
which is further complicated by the options psychoanalytic theories to be used in analyzing
a situation psychological or
PS'vCtllOl<)~ICaJ
location. At the
social-reader end of the spectrum, the emphasis lies on the reader as a social subject, a member of distinct social groupings or communities. with the focus on social location and the social issues of the gf(m(HflJg(s in question. of social-reader constructs is
a wide
on which social
dimension(s) of identity is highlighted-socioreligious; sociopolitical; SO(:lOt~aUlCa1:lOrlaJ; v,",,-,vU'''.
race; gender; sociocultural; and so on.
real-reader constructs can also be classifIed
or extent to which they
or
the
to the degree
the claims of the text, thus
rise to
axis. At the former end of the spectrum,
there is the reader who
submits to the claims of the text as an ideological
construction; at the latter end, the reader who will have nothing to do with the text and its message. Ulliversal-reader Constructs. Universal-reader constructs may be examined from a number of different perspectives. such as the process of reading; the knowledge of the
and the experience of reading.
First, there is the firsttime-reader/multipJe-reader axis with a focus on the process of reading. A firsttime-reader construct approaches the text as a fresh reader altogether (largely paralleling, therefore, the .... ~'~ .. nltO£~'''·
.. a •.-."",,,, '"
of the text; attentive to the details to this information lack thereof) as it is dispensed
kno\vledge point of
of the n~lrr~lt£~i'
of what has trans[)Irf~d in the text up to the
speculating about future
in the text. The
"What is John?
242
multiple-reader constmct approaches the text as a seasoned reader-\vith previous and extensive
of the text attentive to the whole of the
narration and aware of patterns and cycles in the text; reacting to the text as a whole; having knowledge of the text from beginning to end. While the a high value on temporal sequence and slow-motion
firsttime-reader pole
. ..,..,........... the multiple-reader pole favors V,",'-,"'I1''',
arrangement and fast-motion
there is the historical-reader/textual-reader axis with a focus onto
knowledge of the reader. A historical-reader constmct approaches the text as if living in a different time or culture, usually pretending to match those of the text in question; the textual-reader construct approaches the text as if it were the reader that the implied author had in mind into composition of the text. While the former construct tends to construct is put
on information external to the text, the latter by the text itself.
from the information
there is the naive-readerlinfonned-reader construct with a focus on the of
A naive-reader constmct approaches the text with no
information about the subject matter whatsoever- whether from a historical, or social point of view-while an informed-reader construct comes to the text \vith a claim to considerable
in such matters. While the former
construct emphaSizes mnoctmce, the latter values sophistication. I would conclude
that in all of these reader-construct axes
there is a broad central section or middle range; in other \vords, the choices presented within each axis of
U;Ul.H'J''''''U
and inquiry are
no means binomials
or alternatives but multiple or options. The reading constructs and
ctr-:;ltpCltPC
In
available to readers of the Fourth Gospel are thus numerous and "V hat
I should like to examine both the
Gospel and the reflection papers on the but again with
papers regarding the
in the light of these various axes,
attention to the that of the universal-reader/real-reader.
What is loh1l? With the rationale and contours for this exercise in intercultural criticism on my and
properly set forth, I turn to a critical sm.:ne~~les ao()pte~o
and actual readings produced
professional readers of the
of the a
There are two different kinds of readings.
The first type has to do \vith self-conscious different
constmcts of acztoemu;.:,
to the question of reading the Fourth
from a number of and consists
243
Fourth of
to,getnjer in a first part entitled,
extended position papers in all,
"Readers and Readings of the Fourth
""~\.J"IJ"'I.
The second involves comments
by real readers on the significance and relevance of the
at the turn of the
century and brings together six brief reflection papers in all, brought together in a second part entitled, "The
at the Close of the Twentieth
result is a kaleidoscopic overview of approaches to the
" The as well as of
interpretations and evaluations of the Gospel in the contemporary scene and hence an excellent barometer of biblical criticism today as seen through the focus of Johannine scholarship. READERS AND READINGS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
Although the position papers have been divided, for heuristic purposes, into the two
of "Litemry
much
and "Theological Approaches, I alphal)Ctl!caJ basis,
to engage these papers on a
not
only the porousness of the distinction itself but also the character of the proposed
Ethical
cnaulem~es
'rvith
to the
primary universal-reader/real-reader Culpepper opts
the
to the
such axis
invoked,
for a real-reader construct in his approach to the
This real reader is of the social-reader
and reveals a
of
all
ultimately interrelated and interdependent-a real reader with SO(:lQI'ellgI01us. SO(:JOt~dulcal:JOrlal,
and sociocultuml dimensions.
First and
Cui pepper oresents himself as a Christian, with the
following points in mind: within the Protest'lnt tradition; a member of the Southern Baptist church; and a child of
missionaries, who grew up in the
southern cone of the Americas. From this socioreligious perspective, Culpepper is specifically interested in the
as a docwnent
"text that
shapes the chamcter and content of one's religious beliefs" -and points to a fundamental shift, a
in his own attitude toward the
as a
document of faith. This pilgrimage is presented in terms of a binomial opposition. On the one hand, in keeping \\'jth the Protestant principle of the centmlity of Scripture, Culpepper points out how, for most of his life, he never qw::stJom:d the chamcter of the Gospel as a document of faith-a text that conveyed the essence of the Christian other hand, he reveals
to all peoples at all times, On the
in the light of the
pluralization of U.S.
244
"What is John?
culture, he has begun to wonder about its relevance as a document of faith for Christians in contemporary culture. Such considerations provide the force behind this first essay.
In addition, Culpepper also comes across as a thoroughly acquainted with the
academic
history of interpretation. Such a
he unfolds in terms of recurring challenges to its status as a document of faith: in terms of theological orthodoxy, involving its and Montanists alike;
use
Valentinians
in terms of historical accuracy, having to do with
the rise of historical criticism in the 19th century and its challenge to traditional aPIDrOlacJhes to biblical In other
more recently, in terms of ethical relevance.
this is a document of faith with a
of
crises-
a text that has survived a number of earlier challenges and is now faced with a third and very different challenge, a text once again in
of losing its
authority for believers. Finally, Culpepper describes the present crisis affecting the Gospel in tenns of three broad sociocultural concerns. His ..
JJ.... ,,".F:,.:J
are mixed,
to thoroughly opl;imistic. First,
from very
out of a post-Holocaust
context and prompted by comments and reflections on the part of Jewish scholars regarding the hostility of the Gospel to\\'ard
Culpepper agrees that the
anti-Jewish character of the GospeJ is quite profound and cannot be at aJl circumvented. His response is quite pessimistic in this
aside from paying
closer attention to the actual translation of the Greek term hoi Culpepper can only argue for
awareness of the
Judaism. Second, faced with recent
anti-
on the part of commentators from
marginalized social groups whether the Bible, including the Fourth Gospel, has anything to say to such groups,
Culpepp<~r
answers much more
a
number of recent studies do indeed indicate that such is the case; consequently,
5 At the same time, it is Culpepp(~r's that, from a historical of view, the is not anti-Jewish as such, insofar as it reflects conflict within the synagogue itself and thus comes from in which Christians and Jews are not distinct~ (b) the first Christians were for the most part Jews; and (c) what the opposes is unbelief not Jewishness as such. The problem is thus not with the as such but with the and use of the Similar with certain variations, wiB be both Schottroff and Smith.
245
Fourth Western
there is need for traditional hermeneutics of SUSOIClon with face of such
i nt.prrlrf'>jrpr,;: -
to their own contexts and
exercise a
ag~~nc1as
in the
a hermeneutics that deals openly with issues of power and in the light of dialogue with individuals of other r"llIOIl'~II"
privilege. 6
traditions and the concerns of non-Western middle-of-the-road
Culpepper adopts a exclusivism in the Gospel, with
a view of the Gospel as contradictory in this
while undeniably
presenting salvation in terms of confession in Jesus as projects the
the
also
of the cosmic Christ as the light that enlightens every human
undercutting reveJation.
ti
any claims to Christian
on God's
7
In the end, therefore, Culpepper's certitude of earlier years has given way to a
remains open: the firm of cautious
In
the
can still function as a document of faith for Christians in a
pluralistic
but it all depends on how the Gospel is interpreted, how
Christian believers
to the new ethical concerns
to the fore. For
Culpepper, therefore, the real reader must also be a resistant reader. As such, Culpepper calls for a hermeneutics of ethical accountability-for critical methods that are own
about location and interests, aware of the text's and open to the voices of the
and attuned to the
effects and implications of criticism. Only then, he concludes, can the Fourth Gospel remain a document of faith for Christians in a olutraljstiic
Anti-Judaism and the (Werner H. Kelber). As in the case of Culpepper, Kelber not only has recourse to a real-reader construct but also works \vithin the axis of the universal-reader/real-reader. Such a construct is more intensely social than that of Culpepper. In other Kelber reveals little of himself as a reader in this essay, portraying himself
From the point of view women margulahzed social group, both Schneiders leave a and Schottroff will agree with such a while int~'rnT'f·lp .." of the great deal to be desired. the itself does not. This issue also the issue sectarianism, and Culpepp(~r comes dose to that of itself offers directions in this Both Michaels and I a more somber view of exclusivism/sectarianism in the while Michaels sees it as dimension, I it and darlgerotlls.
246
"What is John?
instead as a member of a collective reaaet'Shlp of Christian theologians and rea] reader within a
and socioeducational
community of interpretation. This collective
is further constituted on
the basis of certain sociohistorical and critical developments: first and foremost, a
context in which Christian theologians and
have no
choice but to deal with the anti-Judaism present in their foundational texts; ~,",,",,vU'''''
a contemporary critical scene in which
deal with the
allegiances of such texts. As such, Kelber, like
Culpepper, is
concerned with the ethical dimensions and ramifications
of the Gospel, but only with
to the question of the Jews and anti-Judaism,
With regard to anti-Judaism in the indeed. While as a text of
are called upon to
In')'~H'I"hl\J
Kelber draws a stark
portrayed, even
me:OH)gICm
point of view
spirituality, grounded in a high 1"~ln/'r:"'~'!f~"" of the
as a document of love and truth, as manifested fullness of metaphysical presence
and
the sending of the Son and the Kelber argues that the
possesses as well a profound sense of anti-Judaism and that such anti-Judaism is no means incidental or
to the text but rather fundamental to and
inherent in the metaphysics and theology of the
As such, it is a
dimension of the Gospel that cannot be readily excised or intrinsically tied to its of the
and
but remains
programme.8 The purpose
is to bring to the surface this underlying connection
between the spirituality and the anti-Judaism of the Gospel. with In so doing, Kelber engages in "V hat one may ca1l '''''"''-'''''6'''''''' specific recourse to the concepts of identity and otherness, both with regard to
On this Kelber far more radical than ,-"Y"JAoFF".' UU1VUI=~1I C'ul[>epper does uUllImltely argue that there is no way to or the ant.i-Jewish character of the on the and recommends an awareness of this dimension of the he does nevertheless argue, on the one hand, that the part of readers and does not preach hatred of the Jews as such and, on the other, that its anti-Jewish can be somewhat mollified by attention to the of translation, with regard to the hoi Joudaioi. Kelber about hatred for the Jews and sees aU attempts to deal with the anti-Judaism of the that fail to see it as fundamentally interconnected with its meologlcal ambitions as circumventing the issue.
247
Fourth
the metaphysics (the
the descent of the
of the
and the ethics (the
in the
into the
the mission of believers and
non-believers alike) of the Gospel and with a special focus on the
In
characterization of the Jews and its relationship to the in a
metaphysical and
the
Gospel draws a distinction between insiders and outsiders, between love as ".:>,'r (,,"u.nn as the standard for intra-Christian conduct and of the other as demonic as the standard for extra-Christian the embodiment of such others. In so
junction: "''''J''''''''
Kelber
of difference.
as a real trader at this crucial
out the problem in fuB
\vhat he as a real
with the Jews as
Kelber argues, the longing of the
Gospel for identity ends up by trampling upon any
In the end, unlike
''''H''U~'U'',
he does not go on to
whether individual or social, would or should do
\vith such a foundation text. In other
the
of
anti-Judaism in John at its most fundamental level, he no reading cr"~lU"('''1 for the u ...,'-"''',.." ..... or interpreter to address the nrl',hl,Pfn to interpret the Gospel in a post-Holocaust context, to deal with issues of identity and otherness in the contemporary world. 1O
while the real reader emerges as very much
of a resistant reader, the ramifications of such
and
are not
pursued.
In effect, as he points out in the Epilogue, Kelber argues for a criticism that goes historical, the lines of feminist criticism with respect to of dominance and submission are constructed in the text, to of and difference (the "them"). If Kelber argues, historical, and reader of the concerns have served continue and reinforce the traditional as a document of the Spirit, of love, and of truth. It is a posit.ion similar to the one I take. In this the end result not unlike his own deSCnl;Jtlc~n what in a historical critical of anti-Judaism in the Just as historical criticism leaves one at the end with a keen sense of the of the conflict-a sense of the distant past but no more, does this type rn(tl{'~lltv of the anti-Jewish and point of viewa keen sense of its ethical ramitkations but no sense of how to vis-a-vis foundational text in the present. On this I would the critic must take a <)
248
"What is John?
The Readers and Mf:~al1~m~!S point of view of the dominant axis of the
From the IInll'll/-'r.;:~I_Fl:,~{llprj'rl:'~II_rl:.~(lpr
Koester
is-in contrast to not only Kelber and Culpepper but also all other readers as well-rather firmly lodged within the universal-reader pole of the although he does refer OC(:aSlomlli to £,r,.,nt.:.>Yorvu''-''-';' real readers. In encompassing both "popular" and "scholarly"
.::""./·t"urn
such
constitute the
point of departure for the study: while many find the Gospel meaningful and en:ga~~m:g,
they do so in a myriad of ways, with almost as many
r,:'Q,rl"'HlC
existence as there are readers. At the same time, Koester readers would argue
the
of all
in
most such
(and corollaries thereof:
aJl readers as equally competent and a text means whatever a reader wants it to mean) and jor the need to distinguish between incorrect '~"'''''''J'i-I;J.
Thus, it is the
of multiplicity in interpretation that provides
the basic elan for this altogether. In other
and adequate
with a response sought in a different kind of reader Koester not only reveals nothing about himself as a
real reader but also, finding
of the Gospel to be aU over
the interpretive map, assumes a universal-reader construct as he
to look
for some sort of controlling reader-construct. In search of this construct, he has recourse to the secondary axis of the 'rvhile
the value
of ancient-reader constructs as advanced by historical criticism, he variation of the textual reader . . . . 'f.lU ...'Y
by literary
for a
namely, the
reader a la Wolfgang Iser.ll This reader Koester depicts as follows: a
1I The argument historical-reader constructs is an argument of rather than an either/or argument. '1'0 wit: While it is the aim of ancient-reader constructs to establish parameters for a proper reading of the text contemporary readers to enter into the world of the first century, to understand the his own terms, and to look for the discrete readers addressed the ev.m£~ehst (the "intended" readers), the fact remains that our do C:onsequt~nUy, while historical research must playa role in searchmg for an ao(:quate I'Tlf'l~nlrlO' of the text, in the end it can never cornplete,lv guarantee the me.mulg of the text. nTI10m;O-lrea,uer construct tied the text such and thus greater control can be exercised contemporary readers in its delineation and characterization. Nevertheless, its formulation is without proper of the sociohistorical context and thus without a proper exercise historical research.
Fourth
249
reader \vho responds to the network of structures within the text; who thus possesses what is necessary for the text to exercise its
and who can be
identified at a basic level by observing what the text assumes the reader to know and takes the trouble to I mjmeOJl3lle, I 2 .\,.
While textually based and hence more
such a reader remains nonetheless a
to contemporary
insofar as what "it" knows presupposes a particular social and historical
context and hence historical research. In the case of the Fourth
,-,\1,:>IJ\,.",
Koester goes on,
and historical
studies make it imperative to speak not of one implied reader but of several such 11111,"".''''
readers. In other
the Gospel appears to have been \vritten for
readers "vith different follows: Samaritan;
This position is then further elaborated as
the Gospel presupposes different kinds of ethnic readers as well as different kinds of n " " " n1"'<,lnlh u":.1 readers
only
readers DelOnglUrg to different communities within the same area but also readers residing in different geographical
As such, the Gospel addresses a variety
of Christians from different backgrounds. of readers from the
the
of view of
also presupposes a from the .....'v... ,,, ....,..
informed to the minimally informed. In this regard, the Gospel offers not only the possibility of adequate the possibility of
at various levels of understanding but also
in
with a belief in the
of Jesus
as seemingly the apex of the scale. At this point, Koester clearly invokes as well the secondary axis of the naive-reader/informed reader, \vith a cOlTe5;po'l1(lmg classifkation of the different
readers
this spectrum. Third, the
Gospel offers as well recurring examples of incorrect understanding. Thus, while a scale of
understanding is
a range of incorrect
interpretation is also offered throughout.
The
here is quite in orientation, as confirmed his to the effect that readers die when the reader uti yes n are contained are d.e~nr()ve,(j: in other words, the in the text, a creation of the author and in no way a creation or co-creation of any real reader. The reader is "out there" -a fact or datum to be recovered. Of course. it such an foundation that the construct the oresented as a controlling device in For a tho1roll,ghly mti:!rpret,;lhc)O of the reader, see Newheart. 12
250
"What is John?
For
therefore, the construct of the
readings of the same time,
with its Iitemry
a sound and proper "vay of adjudicating
and historical dimensions,
within the maze of
At the
the particular chamcter of the
construct in John,
with its spectrum of readers and scale of understanding, a mnge of adequate interpretation is granted. In other words, within certain interpretative pammeters, a plumEty of interpretations is possible. In the end, to be sure, this spectrum of readers and scale of
have been identifjed in the text and
outlined
adopted by Koester-an infonned
the universal-reader
reader well acquainted with historical and litemry
,f',."'"
.u""'uu.., .... v ....
as well as a
Christian reader, a reader with profound socioreligious and socioeducational concerns.
When compared to the readings of the
Culpepper and he Fourth
Koester's a
offers
that calls for ever
advanced by
a different
of
understanding on the part
of its readers so that they can ascend from minimal to maximal levels of understanding and a Gospel that seemingly
no resistant
sort from its readers. Koester's vision is one of comprehension, not of dialogue and The Power the three previous
of any reflection and
""'"'>.i'''''''
(Robert Kysar). In contmdistinction to takes up a
at the center of the
universal-reader/real-reader axis. In his attempt to focus on the strategy of the author, the use of the light of this
in that
and the
of the reader in
he chamcterizes as a non-formal reader-response
l3 Although not mentioned as such, there can be little doubt that for Koester authorial intention role in What else could be for progreSSnie scale of readers at the same time, for ac1(~Quate meamng, and for out certain kinds of and mt~!rof'etatlorlS the author, it would seem, whether real could exercise such control in and At the same time, of course, the text itself and such boundaries for becomes a sort of super-text: proper for of a vertical sort, uI1<1er:stalndlng; and open to ever greater and
Fourth proposes the contemporary
reamIll2
251
reader construct: an innocent for the very tlrst time. I4
the
This is a construct, as he himself explains, with a double footing. On the one hand, the construct is the product of a real reader, an alter ego of Kysar himself. Kysar describes himself from a of social nL"f'cn,f"l"fHI';'C'
As a rea]
affluent and empowered; white and male; in the these it is the latter
and in the church. Of
socioeducational and socioreligious
dimensions-that comes across as the most 'rYI""",..1<:>11''' by far.
from the point
of view of a Christian academic in the Lutheran tradition, the a source of authority in the community, with academic inquiry undertaken in the service of the church. On the other real
though a product and reflection of this
the construct is also a type of uni versal reader. Its contours are
circumscribed as follows: particularly interested in of and recourse to the
of faith; having
narrative up to the point of
careful and sensitive to the nuances of the text; vulnerable to the text and its influence. Although
the real reader's extensive
of the
Gospel and its history of int1em retatic::m. the construct is nonetheless envisioned 1
as a fruitful Such a
opening up a fresh reading of the Gospel.
1\,.c(.lbUjJrj",.
focused here on what he calls the di,tlo;gm!-discourse of John
Nicodemus and Jesus, may be characterized as a
3:] -15
in
slow motion, recording in detail the sequential and shifting reactions, both [""'>..,,~""'.
and
of the firsttime reader to the narrative
author. IS The result is a
of the
of the unit that leaves the tlrsttime reader
situates himself within the middle range of the universal-readerirealreader axis recourse to the axis. 'rhe reader he concocts thus a contemporary real reader (himself) who to read as he were the text for the very first time, a universal reader. 15 This may also be described as at the narratorinarratee level of narration, with the latter as though fictive natTatee the first time the narrdtion of the narrator. Such a narratee DOtnH)V-1OOllfU interaction at the level of narration ,nuohr,nn Jesus and Nicodemus, as recounted the narrator. In so he claims, with the level of the author/implied reader, except, in my for the section on the of within the Gospel. In fact. arg~uitlentatIon, with its dose attention to hnjsw:stIc and detail as well
252
"What is John?
disconcerted and
without understanding-a reading without closure,
hooked and determined to read on and reread the passage in the light of all that follows,
reading in search of closure, convinced
of the vital importance of the passage. This
experience is said to come
about as a direct result of the many metaphors employed in the course of the pmiSage'-lTlet2lPh,ors whose full meaning remains beyond grasp, ambiguity and polyvalence, but whose
their
is without question, given the
focus on the kingdom of God and eternal life. At the
therefore, the firsttime
despite a keen sense of disappointment and alienation, continues to read, because he \vishes to understand \vhat is required in order to enter into and see the
of God and have eternal life. For Kysar, this metaphorical quality and experience of the passage applies to
the \vhole of the
In
in which
the author is said to create a metaphorical phenomena arc
with transcendent
thereby disrupting the reader's worldview (defamiliarization) but at the same the way for a Within this
time
transformation of this worldview ,::'e>r'£'H,"fL1"tY\
the metaphors in a stacked or cross as crucifixion-enthronement As a the
the author is also said to arrange
manner, culminating with that of the
insofar as all metap,holrs
a sense of direction is offered to those of John 3: 1 15: kingdom of
God and eternal life-are to be read in the light of the cross. Yet, a sense of as \vell, insofar as with each metaphor comes both dariHcation and obfuscation. In the end.
there is advancement in
understanding, shedding light on the whole of the narrative and its metaphorical but no final resolution or closure. for
as for Koester, there appears to be no room or need for any
type of resistant or critical
of the Gospel.
Both are convinced of the
narrative strategy, a very notion of the "author" - the author, presuplpm;ed: someone seemingly in control of the metap.horlcal creation, its and its effects. There seems to be shift in in this with the reflections on the to follow in his reflection paper of the second part. There argues that the least) two sets of directions to the readers, the first to do with rc.lo,tu"~0h"r. to the world and the second with to the nature of truth. While the pre:senltath)n at this seems to be in terms cornpr'el1t~nSlonl amlJlgluty, the formulation
253
Fourth
vital importance of its message, and both call for a fuller umJerstaml'mg of this message. The form of the message, hm,ye'/er. is conceived in rather different ways: seemingly
in
V ...... BIl'!",
and beckolllmg for
Instead of a scale of meaning devised the author with a variety of readers in mind, with nrf',Ort"\:!\:!l.A" this scale seen as not only a but a desideratum,
speaks of a metaphorical world elaborated by the
author with understanding and ambiguity, direction and polyvalence, at its core. The result is
in understanding, even 'rvith n certain apex in mind
but without
resolution in the end. Consequently, this is a text
that
and baffles the reader, orienting and disorienting, a text that- to
antllCIP~ate
his later reflections on the role of the truth-claims
with a good measure of ambiguity. Although
.... ,,"'...... , it seems clear from such a the faith-community, such as
in the contemporary
that an interpreter in the service of himself, cannot but keep both dimensions of
the Gospel in mind- striving for resolution, and finding some, yet having to settle at the same time for
The
and inescapable
and Feminist
amDl~~Ul1:Y
M.
With
Schneiders there is a full and explicit return to the real-reader pole of the universal-reader/real-reader axis. From the beginning she
herself as
particularly concerned with issues of spirituality and feminism-a rea] reader with explicit socioreligious as well as sociocultural
and
commitments \vith
she
to issues of
First, as a believing
looks upon the biblical text as rp\}'pl~,tAf'V
and
experience as personally transformative.
such a
as a feminist critic,
she is concerned \vith androcentric and patriarchal bias \vherever it occurs, whether at the level of the text or its history of position as a believing critic, her goal is to
Thus, from her the text in such a way as to
bring out its transformative power for readers; at the same as a feminist
her
is to counteract
from her stance and androcentric
bias wherever it exists. This twofold approach she describes in terms of
there appears to be itself.
terms of cornplrefl,cns:lOn
different lines, both !.!ro'lmcjcd
the
254
"What is John?
"feminist
and its reading strategy as a "transformative feminist
reading:' 17 Two general
govern this reading
complete or integrated reading of the text in
The first is to seek a not
in terms of its
individual units or passages but also in terms of their narrative contexts as well as of the text as a whole. The second is to be faithful to the text while interacting with contemporary
concerns. Both principles can be seen
at
work in this study of John 20: 11-18, the resurrection appearance of Jesus to Mary Its focus is clearly on a female chalracter. Mary Malgd.aJene, as \vell as on the androcentric and patriarchal bias evident in the interpretation of this character at the hands of male biblical critics-informed male real readers. Thus, until quite recently, the traditional interpretation of this unit would look upon this first resurrection appearance of Jesus as a minor and
appearance, an
attempt to offer consolation to a distraught female disciple before
his
official and public appearances to the male disciples in order to commission them to carryon his work in the world. However,
a literary
of
the passage-an integrated analysis with a focus on narrative structure, character development, and theological content-Schneiders sets out to counteract such rampant bias by different
in
presented as the official who proclaims the Easter
that the text itself calls for a
through this first appearance, Mary Magdalene is witness to the Johannine community, the one entrusted to her by Jesus and the one upon
whom the pascal faith of the community is based. In this particular case, therefore, Schneiders shows that the bias is not in the text as such but in the mt~~mret:atl()fl
of the text
a virtual monopoly of interested male
18
so
Such an approach is further characterized as in nature, open of and theoretical orientations (historical, and in the service of transformation. An unspoken of this line of argumentatlCHl would seem to be that there is a to the text and its that male have not and a that COllSCllOUSJy feminist ap~Jro(lch In other words, Schneiders comes dose here to a rather objectivist view of the text with "out there, but a which mayor may not be retrieved. At the same time, she comes close as wen to norHdeologlcal, insofar as it is said to recapture "the content for her own apI)ro'lCh 17
Fourth
255
much so that an official ap()st()lic witness of the
church, qua woman, has
boon completely overwhelmed in the process. For Schneiders, the Easter
entrusted to and proclaimed by
M,lgOlaJeme as a result of this appearance is that Jesus is not dead but alive, and risen, with God but also present from now on in the community of disciples, the children of God in the world. In
with her goal of producing
an integrated reading of the text at aU levels, Schneiders further points out how such a message fits both within the immediate context of the passage, the resurrection narrative of John 20, as well as the Gospel as a whole: the unit I~JI1VI,''''''
to a basic question
the narrative context. "Where is the
Lord?" - he is both 'rvith God and the children of
in so
accord with the basic aim of the resurrection narrative in the
to
announce the fate of Jesus after death but to explore the meaning and effects of Jesus'
glC)fIIICcIU()fi
for his r1'''f'.n.,,,.,, in and through his resurrection appearances.
The reading is transfonnative in two ways. It is transformative from a feminist point of
insofar as it rehabilitates the word of a \voman with dear rami1ications for
official and order.
shows how the Johannine
proclaims a Jesus that is both glorified and
present within and among his other
church
it is transformative from a spiritual point of view, insofar as it including our own. In
of aJI
what was true of the first generation is also true of ours: as
' f i r..... ,,,,,,
Jesus is present within and among us as welL We too are the children of God in the world. For Schneiders, therefore, as for Culpepper and critical and resistant
of the Gospel. Such a
not on the question of anti-Judaism,
there is need for a however, is focused social groups, or
accords with her own deslcfllptJcm of the text is not ,-.h.,<>£,I',1,; the text and its express caution in this issue comes partlclilarly to the fore in this Schneiders' challenge to a 10ng-s:ralJlmflg tradition of on the basis of her own access to the content and intent of the text. "P"''-l ..f l , _
256
"What is John? but on the issue of
and, more specificaJly, on \vomen as a
ma.rglnalize:d group within the Christian church, faced with androcentric and patriarchal bias either in the text or in its interpretation. As
resistance may
be directed, as is the case here, not so much at the text itself but at the way in \vhich it has been interpreted. At the same time, for Schneiders there is need as well for a spiritual reading of the text, a reading which looks upon the text as revelllltOfvand
as
of Christian believers of all
and thus
the lives
Indeed, the resistant reading is
ultimately in the service of the transformative: how could the presence of bia'i women be considered ..~,>"CAI'J,t{,"*,1 and transformative? how could the Jesus be present in a community where female disciples are marginalized
the male disciples? That is why the
described as both spiritual and
proposed is
the character of the texts in some
cases and the character of their interpretation in most cases.
The a
and the Canon (D. Moody Smith), Like
Smith takes up
within the central range of the universal-reader/real-reader
of a very different sort
On the one hand, he does have recourse to
contemporary real readers. In so as a reader but
but
he discloses little of himself
rather in terms of a social-reader construct-a
reader'shlV of Christian hellevers within which he
('£"'"nC."'.11~".
situates himself. On
the other hand, he also has recourse to a variety of historical readers of the
It to note in this how much Schneiders on the status and role of the in the world as those in whom God and Jesus dwell, the for their sake, for the sake of both the female and the male children of God. Indeed, that a feminist, Jesus, the Christian readers of the undertaken, so that all may be transformed. Yet, it is at this of anti-Judaism ramifications of such a message come to the fore: not (New Israel; New Covenant; New Moses), whose specter she does in exdusivism (New Creation; the Children of God; but also the issue of the Teacher), which remains dormant. In other words, within this framework, what is the status and role those who do not believe, in whom Jesus does not dwell, and who are not members of the children of God? Is a resistant in order? Is a and "".",,,.,.,,,'! These are that a transformative, feminist in the proper and much-needed rescue of women full members
257
Fourth Gospel, both ancient readers in the
original or intended readers as well as subsequent centuries of the
as well as
contemporary 10hannine scholars). In so academic
he speaks as a professional,
a critic \\'ell-informed in the
of the interpretation of the
Gospel. As such, Smith operates with both a real-reader construct and an by bringing the
universal-reader construct.
axis of the
historical-reader/implied-reader, \vhere he takes up a solid end of the
at the former
to bear on the primary axis of the universal-reader/real-
reader, he ends up at the center of this axis-a real reader with clear SO(;lOlrengl()uS and socioeducational concerns. What
these two concerns
~v,..,,,,~u,,",,
is his argument for what he calls a
canonical reading of the biblical texts, a reading in the light of the New Testament as a \vhole, with
In
Fourth
reference in this study, of course, to the Smith dra\vs a close parallel between the way
contemporary Christian readers approach the Gospel historical (Christian) readers
and the way in which
it in the past. In both cases, the Gospel
is read in the light of the other books of the canon, Gospels: as both the by it
the Synoptic
to the canon (and the other
by them). This is a
and supplemented
that Smith ultimately describes as not only
natural and time-honored but also as quite proper and commendable, in direct with its
contradistinction to the way of reading introduced emphasis on an independent with
to
At the
of the text in
'iu,v"u.,",n
of course,
of a literary-historical level, therefore, Smith
out how believers in
instinctively read the Fourth Gospel: on the one hand, as the hermeneutical
to the rest of the canon and the other
insofar as the Gospel is believed to
expression to the
Jesus and his message in the New Testament; on the other hand, as presupposing other Christian
that of the Synoptic
20
At the
out, in rather company. does Such it of the and its author, with its many references to other Christian traditions, but also the dominant in critical scl1o!alrslllp as weB, ,,, ....,,,.,,'"'' the of John is seen as
258
"What is John?
historical level, then, Smith finds a similar phenomenon at work: on the one hand, a
that meets with resistance at
because of its chalJenge to the
standard portrayal of Jesus and his message in the Christian tradition at the other hand, a Gospel that, once hermeneutical
on
as part of the canon, emerges as the
to the canon and the Christian tradition,
its
presentation of Jesus and his message. Such a way of
the Gospel, Smith argues, is a valid and necessary
reading, but "vith a twist. The canonical privileges the Fourth that
as
he envisions is not a reading that as has
the
been the case, but a
as both influencing and being influenced
enJllgllte.mnlg and
enlightened
the rest of the canon, particularly but not
exclusively with
to the Synoptic
As he puts it, it is a
that
does not subsume the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount to the Jesus of the Incarnate
but a
that sees these two characterizations in
~UJI".U.""",
with the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount both providing the justification for and explaining the Jesus of the Incarnate
Such a
concludes. constitutes the continuing task of theological
Smith
""A",~"",;)l':'.
For Smith, therefore, there is no perceived need for a resistant reading of the of it: a
Gospel. The need rather is for what he calIs a canonical thoroughly intertextual
within the framework of the Christian canon, a
reading that approaches the relationship between the canon in bidirectional terms. To be sure, such a element of
insofar as it goes
independent reading of the
and the rest of the
"~'>""111110
of an isolated or
or any text for that matter, emerging as a
result of modern biblical criticism. I would further characterize it as a with the church and its
tlrmly in
a highly
in
the traditional sense of the tenn, with a heavy focus on christology; and a reading that presupposes a very
of the Christian Scriptures.
either the Synoptic themselves or an earlier of the synoptic tradition. What the Christian readers of do. therefore. on the basis of of the books and stories in the canon and the natural of the narratives, what would academic and holds as well as what the author of the have welcomed.
Fourth The
259
Reader
l...
position
within the universal-reader/real-reader axis is very much toward the latter pole. Indeed, the entire first section of the
sets out to show
a OO~;Jtllon: he
JU'-'''JllJ1I'~''
by detailing his initial
in re,lde:r-reSJJOflSe criticism
of the formalist kind, well "vithin the universal-reader followed a firsttime-reader directed at this
he opts for such where he
vu".. "" ....,..
then, he outlines the various criticisms
of
from a
and social-science perspective; tlnaJly,
such criticisms to
heart, he argues for the need on the part of reader-response critics to own up to their reading constructs and stn:Lte:gles. In other words, Staley argues, it is time for real
such as
to corne to the fore.
For his own real-reader construct, then, Staley has recourse to two different but related facets of his life-a real reader with profound sociocultural and socioeducational roots. The sociocultural dimension involves a bicultural experience and goes back to his early years as a child of Christian mlSSl1om:uy parents. ,'~"""'~""""
This real reader hails from a Plymouth Brethren
thoroughly
in an authoritarian and anti-intellectual religious tradition, but grows up
in a Navajo Indian Reservation-a reader confronted with two very different worlds, out of which develops a natural ni"~·,,,",i1J'f1IH
about different ways of
the world. The socioeducational dimension has to do with his later
academic training as a biblical critic. This real reader comes from a fundamentalist background, quite at home in a dispensationalist and devotional reading of the Scriptures and with a view of the Fourth Gospel as closed and authoritarian, but is exposed at university to the methods of and a
vie"v of the Gospel as
the reader-a reader confronted once
criticism
tricks on and undermining with very different
from
21 The l)eg:mnlmg eXIJenen(;e is thus not unlike that of Alan Cu,lpeDP{~r, except that the mission is not overseas but at home, among Native Americans in the Southwest. of this authoritarian and however, unlike goes on his later fundamentalist Not unexpectedly, therefore, he comes across much more critical of what he calls the "what" of the Culpepp(!r. Thus, while LulPepp(~r a document of faith, dlslpenses aal~)g{~tht~r with such and focuses on the for contemporary readers.
260
"What is John?
which emerges a natural curiosity about narrative worlds, about stories and their effects upon readers. The result of such
is a real
reader who is committed not only to
and dramatic readings of
biblical texts but also to bringing across the "differentness" of biblical texts, and John in particular,
exploring the
power ~tr51fl"{n.1
and
pragmatics) of such difference. It is a
ultimately i!f(mrtoea in a sense of curiosity and openness.
The present
on the narrative of Jesus' death in the Gospel represents a
concrete example of how Staley goes about reading the real-reader perspective. In
from such a
what he does is to admit the presence in him of expression to these voices in terms of a dramatic
various voices and to
scenario involving three characters- three individuals who have been crucified and are at the point of death. From the course of the dialogue, it becomes clear that these three individuals represent critical
social-
scientific, and poststructuralist interpreters
in an analysis of the
crucifixion scene. Each argues on behalf of his
and
other two, with no tlnaJ resolution in
those of the
The result is a view of biblical
criticism as multidimensional and diffuse, even within himself as an individual critic-it is also a
of his commitment to imaginative and dramatic
his interest in stories and how
work their effects upon
awareness of different worlds and different ways of One could say that the
and his keen the world. 22
offered has resistance at its very core, insofar
as each point of view resists the other with no final resolution, no definitive
of view and argues
them,
no unity or coherence in sighL2.1
As such, it is not so much resistance to '\vhaf' the Gospel has to say, as for
may be described a real reader who three informed or learned each based on a ditlerent theoretical orientation. However, in emiOlC)VHlQ each strategy, what one finds is the real reader, not a universal-reader construct In other words, this the way he reads, and such to have multiple 23 While such a of liberation criticism: true, it docs shed criticism, it would meet on the real reader and his social location, but in the end it takes no or, to put another way, the it takes is too OIJl~n-lenClea.
Fourth
261
eXllm'pJe in the case of Kelber, but resistance to the way in which the Gospel can be read. It is a resistance that emerges not
out of his
about other
cultural worlds but also out of his interest in narrative worlds-a resistance in favor of multiple voices and
The
U''-''UI~H'" I~UU1UlFi""
and the Individual Reader (Michael Willett Newheart). As "vith
Culpepper, Kelber, Schneiders, and Staley, Newheart also takes a firm position within the real-reader pole of the universal-readerlreal-reader axis. Unlike the however, all of whom social-readerlindividual-reader
instinctively for a social-reader construct in the Willet's focus is on the individual reader.
This is so not because he dismisses or social
'V"'~'~"V'"
the socialization of
their
but rather because he feels that the ..."jl"t1riH,,,IoIH of
their
psychological location, has not been properly examined in biblical criticism. Yet, he argues, two developments \vithin literary criticism clearly point the way in this regard: tlrst, the
of formalist reader response on the affective or
emotional response of readers, widely acknowledged but not actually pursued; """'-"V",''',
the emphasis of cultural reader response on the social location of real
,,-,au\.-, • .:>,
since social context ultimately
the individual
as well, a
fact that has been neither much acknowledged nor pursued. Willet's call, is for a "psycho-literary" pS)!CnolO,gICaJ
!=lll!=lI\,1
of the Fourth Gospel-a
of the reader's experience,24 As the label mOlcales, this
reading strategy involves two distinct theoretical components: literary criticism, with a focus on reader response and the interaction between text and v.""'.v,,...,,....
theory, with recourse to the
of Carl Gustav
Jung. From the point of view of literary f'Yt'tlf'I
nterOJ'et2ltioin can spectrum
within reader response itself: that of the implied reader and that of the real reader. For Newheart,
these two levels are highly interrelated and
interdependent, insofar as the implied reader is said to be a projection of the real
24 Given the dose between social location and ps)rch~[)loglcal location, with view of issues as ".,ri'g'nh; but also circumscribed the lnt.>rnr'pt".r,' forms part, Newheart also refers in terms of criticism.
262
"What is John?
reader onto the text, \vith different real readers readers. On either level the
nrl1m~llrV
rise to different implied
interest is on the individual subject and the
psychological issues at play, although
to be sure, such issues are said to be
in part the result of membership in certain It:;u-n:iiut~r
Newheart, therefore, the
communities. For
construct is
reader construct but the construct of a real
not a universal-
an individual anchored in
community. From the point of view of
psycho-literary
interpretation highlights the emotional response of the reader to the narrative. On the one hand, the text provokes an inner image or archetype in the reader, a ftmv of
energy in the unconscious. On the other
the reader
this
image onto the narrative, establishing thereby an emotional bond with the in so doing, the reader searches for wholeness, for resolution of unconscious issues. Consl.!Qllentiy. the narrative
cOlnpem;att~s
or corrects some
conscious attitude in the reader's psyche, while the reader attempts to resolve his or her complexes through reading. Once again, for Newheart, the emotional response in
is both social and unique: social context does
response to narrative-social groups have different experiences with inner images and
different
onto the narrative;
within such
social groups, individuals also have different experiences with inner project different
and
onto the narrative. It is this latter response with which
Ne\vheart is particularly concerned. Newheart concludes with a psycho-literary
of John, with
emphasis on the reader's emotional reaction to the characters of the
n~rT~tivp
both from the perspective of the implied reader and of himself as real reader (the creator of the implied reader), From the former perspective, the narrative presents Jesus as a symbol of the Self, which works toward wholeness in the psyche; the implied reader then thereby both a emotional bond (love; a twofold bond on his meets his own longmlg for
this
onto Jesus and establishes
as Son of God and Mysterious From the latter with this Jesus: while Jesus' nClr,-.n'ClI
O)nrleC
1t1011,
and an
Newheart describes \\'ith God
certain emotional issues
involving Mother/Father Complexes, Jesus' status as Other further connects with
263
Fourth his own sense of alienation from his religious tradition and society at
25
Such a
to be sure, a highly personal one, since other readers
"vould
in other ways to and establish different bonds with the
One such
he himself does not
the reaGlfIl Q
while he himself Uv",vIJL(} the claims
of the implied author and functions as a compliant different psycho-social locations may very \vell end up be(::ornUlg resistant readers in the process, these claims is grounded in his own rel~BctltOn on the part of other readers be social locations, In other personally attractive and
in this
L'in~ilo, ..lu
other readers from 1~.I''''~''Jll1f',
such claims,
as his acceptam;e of so would their groun(jed in their own r\L'."'n,',,
for Newheart the Gospel and its rhetoric is but this is no guara.ntt:e that it will prove so
This emotional bond with the character Jesus has certain ramifications with to the other characters in the narrative: while the reader and the real reader behind become alienated from those the construct with those who believe in Jesus, who Jesus, above all the character of Uthe Jews, The issue of anti-Semitism thus comes, as Newheart himself realizes, very much to the fore, He himself, however, does of in part because he associates such a response not pursue this to the with its Jewish readers, The taken, however, seems to be much closer to that of Kelber than to that of Culpepper and Smith: insofar as "the Jews" function are not alone in this as the of such a way in the Judas and Pilate intrinsic not to the rhetoric of the narrative but also to the emotional response of the implied reader. rULIJ\1U~,11 perSI:lnall, his response further identified in terms of race (white), socioeconomic class (middle-class), sexual orientation (heterosexual), socioeducational status educatediacademic}, (male), and S()(;lOlreIJ2J(}US status However, the focus of remains on the pS~rCflIOI()glcal his not on the social dimensions nor on the between these two dimensions. To be sure, Newheart claims that the real reader in QW~stllon queS[lOrlS n~galralll1g his or her own emotional response to the narrative. It is not always however, since the real reader may as he himself critical in the sense of the claims the author as the does in this case, by rhetoric of the narrative.
264
"What is John?
for others. To put it another way, ,,'hile resistance is in principle at the core if his such resistance will not
e'r",UH1r\!
emerge from all readers with
to
the same text or even the same features if the text; it all depends in the end on the psycho-social location of the readers in qU(!stlon.
Concluding Comments. A number of
comments can be readiJy
made with regard to these different readings and
of the Gospel on
the part of real readers self-conscious and forthcoming about reading constructs and stratteg.les. I. One finds different attitudes on the part of these readers toward their own
status as real readers. Most do C~ulpeppe:r;
the text as full and
Kelber; Schneiders; Staley; Newheart.
real readers:
and Smith stand at the
center of the spectrum, quite aware of themselves as real recourse as weIJ to an
universal-reader construct-for Kysar, a
firsttime-reader construct; for Smith, a Koester takes his
yet having
of historical-reader constructs.
of departure from the realm of real readers but then
proceeds to situate himself
within the universal-reader
spectrum by recourse to a
of the
of implied-reader constructs.
2. Among those who do read
as real
whether in full
or in part, there are different attitudes toward the real-reader construct in question.
with
to the amount of information disclosed, the
spectrum runs from the quite forthcoming (Staley; Newheart), to the forthcoming but not as expansive (Culpepper; Kysar), to the rather reserved (Schneiders; Smith), to the quite reserved (Kelber). In his own comments
r'''O~r.ilnO
real
Koester comes across as forthcoming but not expansive: real readers are basically portrayed as any critical
a myriad of interpretations, while
to the effect that alJ
are valid and for a sense
of criteria in m ten:)reltatt on. 3. With
to the social-reader/individual-reader
the character
of the real-reader construct in question also varies. At its most fundamental all of these readers opt for a social-reader construct, who argues former stress a
in favor of the individual-reader construct. In addition, the of social factors: the socioreligious
Kelber;
Schneiders; Smith); the socioeducational (Culpepper; Kelber; Kysar; Smith; Staley); and the sociocultural (Culpepper; Schneiders;
The
265
Fourth portrayal of the real readers
Koester would seem to favor the
sO(;JOJreHgl()uS dimension, 4. With
to the compliant-reader/resistant-reader
At the resistant-reader end of the
real-reader construct varies spectrum lies situated:
at the
end, the
Smith,
can be readiJy
and Newheart (although the last two include
resistance in principle within their and
the shape of the
In the middle one finds Culpepper
Were one to extrapolate from the portrayal of the
readers
provided by Koester, one would have to situate Koester well at the compliantreader pole. 5, In terms of universal-reader constructs, one finds an appeal to a firsttime-reader construct textual-reader
appeals to both historical-reader (Smith) and
constructs; and an appeal to a variety of constructs along
the naive-readerlinformed-reader axis 6. Finally, from the overall discussion a number of important issues can be discerned: -First and
there is the question of the
and the Christian
church, that is to say, the role of the Gospel as Scripture and Word of God for Christian believers. This issue comes across in a number of ways: its character as a document of faith (Culpepper); a foundational text within the a
context
Dr(Hm~SSlve
document of faith canonical text (Koester;
document of faith (Koester); a metaphorical
a revelatory and transformative text (Schneiders); a The range of opinion varies: from the very to the
but
problematic (Culpepper; Kysar;
Schneiders); to the thoroughly problematic (Kelber). -._".....", .. u.
very prominent as well is the question of anti-Judaism in the Gospel,
from the quite explicit :'Sclme:taf.::rs; Smith; view of the
to the mostly implicit
The range here is quite broad as \vell: from a as fundamentally anti-Jewish (Kelber; Newheart) to a view
of it as anti-Jewish not in itself but as a result of later interpretation (Culpepper; Smith), a number of other issues come to the fore as well, such as: "I"""",HJl'-JU
of multiplicity in interpretation. ranging from a more
Staley) to a more relevance of the
(Kysar;
evaluation of such multiplicity; social groups, in
the the
(Culpepper)
"What is John?
266
or \vith respect to a specific group or sectarianism (Culpepper)~ and
the question of exclusivism the Que:sucm
V'"''''~'VH''''' bonding
and the wholeness of the self (New heart). THE GOSPEL AT THE CLOSE OF THE TWENT1BTH CENTURY
The as Hermeneutical (Robert Kysar). Kysar identifies himself forthwith as both a Christian and an interpreter for the church-a real reader with commitments and From this perspective he offers a dramatic scenario for the church of North America in the century, \vith a view of the Fourth Gospel as a role within such a drama. This scenario has two sides to it. First, the church will come to represent not one religious option among many in a thoroughly pluralized culture but also a social \vithin such a culture; as a result, Christians will tend to see themselves as a group in opposition to the world. Second, the fundamental role of the media in shaping human consciousness and language, tmth will become increasingly ambiguous as we)L On both counts, Kysar argues, the of John is likely to emerge as quite influential in the church. given the presence of ",",'V,uU'''U''b ~f'U"11'lVI1" \\'ithin the itself regarding both world and tmth, the basic question \vill be how the will be interpreted, that is to say, in what direction it wiII be interpreted. Thus, for the sectarian nature of the Gospel may appeal to a sectarian church; similarly, the ambiguous character of John's '-"z.,,~'~nmay prove attractive in such a pluralist context The problem, is that the nnl,lfP'l/pr
Gospel contains both sectarian and trans-sectarian themes, absolute claims to tmth.
"'UJ'L,.tj"'U~J
as well as
certain basic
interpretation will come to the fore. On the one hand, will the church opt for the best rather than the worst elements of sectarianism and make use of the transsectarian themes of the ambiguity of the For
On the other hand, will the church turn to the rather than to its absolute tmth claims?
the answers to these questions may
earthquake of heretofore unseen proportions. In read in terms of a twofold imperative: '11.1"'''''''''''
and
a hermeneutical may well be
a mission against the powers of
a mission of radical inclusion, in a world loved by
a view of Christian
in terms of metaphor, of fundamental
267
Fourth images or formative stories. Such an earthquake, if certain choices are made over others in a
will take place only
''-'Lt....... II''"
of the
with both
alternatives grounded in the text. In the end, therefore, Kysar himself calls for a resistant reading of the Gospel, a dimensions of the
that favors certain ideological
over others, a reading that is open rather than closed to
those elements of plurality and ambiguity that wiII mark the church and the world of the
century.
The
as Kinder, Gentler
Michaels
presents himself, much more indirectly than Kysar, as both a Christian believer and
a
professional
biblical
critic-a real
reader
\\lith
pronounced
socioeducational and socioreligious ties. From this twofold argues, like
he
for a major role for the Gospel in the world of the next
century. From the point of view of the aC[lCemy. Michaels provides a history of Johannine scholarship in the twentieth century in four basic movements, centered around scholarly attitudes toward the integrity of the present text of the Gospel: (l) at the beginning of the
authorship,
a focus on the text as
and historicity as paramount;
with
of
with the introduction
of German critical scholarship, an increasing preoccupation with sources, redactions, and
behind the text;
a return to the text as such in
the United States by way of a reconstruction of the behind the text;
of the community
at the end of the century, increasing concern with
the character of the text as text on account of
criticism. From this
perspective, Michaels situates himself within the last movement and calls for a sustained and thoroughgoing analysis of the text as
configured. At the
that such a critical orientation will in no way alter
same time, he
the range of interpretations regarding the Gospel. Consequently, he argues, any answer to the question of its role at the turn of the century will have to be highly ''''''"<','1'1<>1 in nature. His own he a basic at
of view of the church. In effect, he
between (I) the world at the time of the Gospel and the world and
one hand, both an era
from the
the message of the then and its message now. On the "ln~.I"'I .. I,! situated at the end of a century and indeed of
apostolic
milIennium)-are described in terms of "darkness.
On the other hand, for both \vorlds the
offers a
in the darkness,
268
"What is John?
a new dimension of existence. In our own case, Michaels describes such "darkness" not terms-like
in sociopolitical but
he argues that Christians in America and elsewhere will
mcrea.smgly see themselves as the
and above a1J, in
may once not
and
Under such cOltldltlOns,
offer a "light" of hope, a resolution in and for the
the lines of apocalypticism but rather by drawing Christians
closer to one another and putting distance between them and the values of the world.
In the end, unlike ",",,"IlA . . . ...,UJ'!">
Michaels does not see the
as presenting
directions vis-a-vis the world, with a fundamental option open to
believers. Rather, the conflict is between
and 'johannine light.
with the latter as the ......"',t·"' ......rf alternative-a sort of kinder,
R. O'Day). As in the case of both
The
Kysar and Michaels. O'Day comes across in these reflections as a orc)fes;slcmaJ biblical critic but with a constructi ve un.""',';;., ........
concern for the state of contemporary real reader at home in the Christian Western
tradition and thus with paramount
concerns. Within
such a context, O'Day sees the Fourth Gospel as indeed a
a very import.:'lnt role,
role, at the turn of the century on account of its a vision described as sectarian not
of the New Testament itself but
from the point of view
and above ali, of the theological tradition
of the West. Such a tradition, O'Day
out, has largely foI1owed a Pauline
framework. The problem, however, is that at present this consensus in in under
from
and faced with calls for other and different
voices more in
itself.
One such not only \vithin the context of consensus that has either O'Day a
Christianity but also in a theological it altogether or shaped it to its own ends. For
contribution of John at this point would be to offer a very
different interpretation of the death of the standard
a death presented not
of atonement or reconciliation
to moral
example) but rather in terms of a restoration of relationships-a new relationship between human
themselves. In
and God as \vell as a ne\v relationship among by
God's love for the world and
Fourth
269
breaking the power of the world, Jesus' death not Moreover, this theology of reconciliation
God but also creates
places, unlike the others, as much emphasis on the divine element as on the human element: it is through faith in Jesus that human community with God and one another. Finally, this
... ,;>",•• ,''''''
enter into unlike the others as
well, also looks at the death of Jesus not by itself but within the context of and climax of his life and
M'\"n.cl~"'1'
it is the incarnation itself that is the locus of
reconci liation. For O'Day this Johannine focus on relationship and community, very much of a sectarian focus in the Western in
provides a \vay out of the
for O'Day the role of the
crisis
at the turn of the
century could be crucial, even redeeming. As with Michaels, therefore, the Fourth
no conflicts or problems but rather a splendid
for
and much-needed tnelologlCaJ option for the cOflternp()raJ'Y
not so much
because of the growing sectarian character of the Christian church, both in terms of numbers and influence, but rather because of its emphasis on restoring relationship and
with God and one another.
and Liberation (Luise Schottroff). From the start Schottroff draws of herself as a feminist
an
of liberation in a European
and. above aU, German context-a reaJ reader with a
of SO(:IOf'eugI01us,
sociopolitical, and sociocultural concerns. From this multiple perspective, she the role of the Fourth Gospel at the turn of the century: context, she addresses the
her German
of anti-Judaism in the
of
her theological moorings in Liberation, she deals with
of
me:sslanlsnl; given her grounding in feminism, she turns to the role of women in the
Her
regarding the
for the future is mixed: quite positive
np.:y~tll\!P
and
of the GospeJ
with respect to anti-Judaism,
quite
both messianism and feminism.
To begin \vith, Schottroff argues that, from a historical
of
the
Gospel is not anti-Jewish but rather reflects the intra-Jewish conflict between a Jewish
and a Je\vish Christian minority
the first Jewish-Roman War of 66-70
in the
between
and the second Jewish-Roman War
of 132-135 C.E. It is only with the decimation of Jews as well as Jewish Christians in Palestine that the
becomes anti-Jewish at the hands of the
270
"What is John?
Gentile Christian churches.
From then on, hm,ve,"er. its use in the Christian
tradition-and above all in her own recent German context-at the service of anti-Judaism is undeniable. resurgence of anti-Semitism in Germany, the interpreter has no choice but to
this anti-Judaism ever in mind and to engage
in constant denunciation of it. From this of " ....
point of
COf. . .
From a
the Gospel is quite valuable,
"vhen properly interpreted. In otherworldly nor
John
a messianism that is neither
as traditionally conceived, but rather
America. Similarly, from a sociocultural point of view, the effective as well,
interpreted.
proves
John for the most part
light, as individuals in the public and political
women in a very
sphere, and as excellent models for the proves both
worldly
the lines of political liberation but rather of as practiced of Latin
and political, not however """, ..,,,,",1,,,",, on behalf of the
For Schottroff,
therefore,
~
century.29
unlike both Michaels and
the Gospel
and useful, not so much because it conveys
directions regarding the same concerns-as of the directions offered with
""\]JUH'vUlf~
rather because
to different concerns. Thus, while its
profound and long-standing association with anti-Judaism calls for repudiation,
Schottroff comes across as much closer to than to Kelber: is not anti-Jewish, the Jewish character of the Johannine communities, one of the arguments invoked In other words, it is historically nnlJroper the nature of the conflict at work, to of anti-Judaism at the time of cornpc)SltJlon. Thus, from the time of up to the outbreak of the second Jewish-Roman war, the dualism of the of an internal Jewish conflict whose main effect it was to prevent the "nl,ltl~llrlhi Jewish in the face of Roman Sandra Schneiders: the "dark SchottroiT is thus very close to the are not so much "dark in and oUhe text as "dark the hands of male scholars. When nrAnp.-l\! examined, both Mary Magdalene and the nameless Samaritan woman emerge as fine examples of female characters in the narrative.
Fourth
271
its stance regarding messianism and ,vomen, while often mi:5inltenJreted are quite laudable and relevant.
The and the (Fernando E I begin my own remarks with an explicit description of myself as a reader from the diaspora, by \vhich I mean the
and
of individuals from non-Western
civilizations who reside on a permanent basis in the reading
with a corresponding
of intercultural criticism-a real reader with distinctive
sociocultural concerns. The
I argue, involves otherness and
engagement. The concept of otherness points to a situation of biculturalism in which there is no home, no or
and no face-a position as permanent aliens
in the world. The
of engagement not
embrace such a situation as one's very home, to realize that all
is
and
but also leads one
that there are many such
that such realities can be critical
to and
questioned, and altered-a position of
in the world.
As a reading strategy grounded in the criticism involves an
nr",~ ..".''>f'h
intercultural
to texts in terms of otherness and
en~~agement
as constructs and realities to be acknowledged, respected, and engaged rather than overwhelmed or overridden. Such an a01DrOtaCJn. while admittedly utopian, is nonetheless imperative.
the text is seen as a poetic, rhetorical, and
ideological proKluc::t in its own right; second, the text is well, not as interpreted by a
"out there" but as
seen as a "text" a'i that is
read and
induding oneself; third, both text and "texts" are
analyzed with liberation in mind, that is to say, in terms of critical dialogue and struggle in the light of one's own reality and
"""11-' ...... "'''''''.....
My of John from the shows both profound agreement and profound disagreement with the Gospel on a number of fundamental For "'1".''',,,,-,, '\'ith regard to the portrayal of "the world" in the Gospel, I find myself
in basic agreement with its position to the effect that the world is fundamentally evil and unjust, in the diaspora.
miss that sense of a thirst for with
and wellbeing
to its portrayal of Jesus' followers as
"chosen," I readily identify with the idea of a privileged
and optic
vis-a-vis the world, but find its sharply dualistic presentation, its metanarrative of chosenness, quite
and most
Finally, with
to its
view of life in the world, I fully agree with its cal1 for patient and strategic
272 '-<"""."'''1-1,
"What is John? but very much miss that sense of urgent need for
dear to the
in the \vorJd so
I would summarize such a reading as follows. From the
point of view of its assessment of the situation, I find the Gospel to be highly can anyone
of
and
in the world?
However, from the point of its proposed solution, I find the Gospel quite one must, in pursuit of wellbeing and justice. For me,
a
my
of resistance
of intercultural
in principle. at the very core of insofar as the latter calJs for critical
engagement with texts and "texts" from the perspective of one's and with liberation in mind. From such a
and of
a
are ac(;epted and rejected at one and
fundamental positions of the Fourth
the same time. In this regard I would differ considerably from both Michaels and O'Day, while also
much beyond
and Schottroff, insofar as the
problem lies not- vis-a.-vis
directions regarding the
same issue but with unacceptable directions on any number of issues and insofar as these issues are-vis-a-vis Schottroff-many, profound, and in the text rather than in the "texts" of others.
more accurately, in my
The
and Johannine
(D. Moody Smith). In his reflections
on the Gospel, Smith comes across, very much along the lines of Michaels, as someone who has both the
of''),rl,'''''''!
and the church in mind-a real reader with
dear socioeducational as well as socioreligious concerns. The former perspective he pursues at length
a summary of what he has learned about the
after almost four decades of research and
the latter
perspective he brings to the fore in a brief postscript. These two
are
not at all unrelated: for Smith academic interpretation is at the service of religious interpretation, the scholarly reading at the service of the theological reading. With regard to the academic mt~~fPret(ltlcm of the topics in
the
qU~estllon
Smith addresses five
of historical
with
respect to Judaism. Three ba'iic POElltH)nS are outlined: (I) the Gospel finds its concrete church; while highly
the
and rupture between synagogue and insofar as its
applies only to sonte
of "the
reflects a specific historical
situation of conflict, and is by no means a historical caricature;
such a
273
Fourth
of "the Jews" forms part of a more fundamental dualism followers of Jesus and opponents of Jesus. JO Second. the
of
literary independence: whether it knew other Gospels or not, the Fourth Gospel neither a supplementation or interpretation of the other canonical Gospels or any other extant
Third, the question of an independent
community: there was both a distinctive Johannine circle of churches and a of editing: in aU likelihood the
Johannine school. Fourth, the
fundamental document of the community has been reofeateOlv edited. Finally, the qwestllon of the Gospel's role in the canon: John needs to be read in the light of the other canonical Gospels and the New Testament in F,,,,,,,.,,,,.u., otherwise it conveys a truncated view of Jesus and "''''',u''',,,.v''',,,
Thus, while the Gospel does
shrill, to expression what is distinctly
Christian, what Christians believed in the face of contradiction and opposition, it does so in a highly
as a result of such alienation and
"-"'~"'~~l
the proper way to read it is to do so within the context of the New Testament canon. 31
On the
I.lU'","~J~IU
of anti-Judaism in the Smith a different Kelber, Smith would argue that anti-Judaism is not intrinsic as such to the and of the insofar as some Jews are involved. Second, like and Schottroff, he would further argue that, from view, the is not anti-Jewish: aside from the fact that not all Jews are meant, the should also be seen as the result of (intra-Jewish) conflict In\/,olv,no rupture. Besides, what it does have to say about the Jewish even if cast in the most of terms, correct. Third, such a must be within the wider framework of Johmmine dualism, which involves a much wider range of villains-the opponents of Jesus. unlike and Schottroff, although he Smith does not see l'pr·I·"""I" Clls,agfees with any usage of the or In other words, the later usc of the which he is very much aware, is a separate 4 ...._,n'~vu alt\:}g(!tn~~r situation. 31 For Smith, therefore, the of anti-Judaism merges into the wider QUlestJIOn the dualistic the of l""''''l\,'~''' exclusivism. In effect, the stance of the is a supreme DOlrtra~val of Jesus with both affirmation of those who believe in him and condemnation of those who do with "the Jews, on to members of the pVJL .... UU'-',
274
"What is John?
With
to the
'v"'''"'''" .... ,,
interpretation of the Gospel, Smith has recourse
to the QWeS[lIOn of control-who has it and what is its position. While academic
tn[c~rnre[::m()fi
who have as their
his
is in the hands of professional
eX(~ge1tes,
of the text. whether from an ancient or modern is in the hands of churchly
'-'i\\,,~'-"L'-'i:l.
whose purpose it is to understand the text in order to be controlled
it. For
Smith,
whose
theological
the Gospel as a
meam,ng is revelatory but must be research-academic
n':>""'I""'U,)'.d
for what it was. As such, historical
one to learn from the text about God
and about oneself as member of the Christian church, uncovered
historical research is not to be identifjed 'rvith the
revelation of God through the text, which is For Smith,
in the end the
the
present and onJgOlng.
does not call so much for a resistant It does indeed have the most pointed presentation of
but for a corrective
from
Jesus and the early church in the New Testament, but if read the rest of the New
the dmvnside of such a
representation of those who oppose Jesus and the and dangerous.
church, proves one-sided
canonical reading is thus very much in
at the same time Smith calls the reader the text, but
a reading which
the kind of religious or theological interpretation the text
with the help of Concluding Commelzts. Again, a number of made with
its
possesses the reader rather than interpretation. 1·/~'rnn,,,,, ..,:.tn,!I"
comments can be
to these different reflections on the
and
relevance of the Gospel at the close of the twentieth century on the part of real readers self-conscious and forthcoming about their mvn status as real readers.
Johannine communities the time of the {"etters, and .. ltin:.<>lfnhl enc:OITlpa:SSHlg who or opposes Jesus. In order to preserve the former dimension which is as the result of a situation of alienation and "" __""_" down the latter, a canonical is of the essence. It is to note in this that this in certain sense, the very OPf-)OsIte is for: while for her the Johannine of the death of Jesus proves a much-needed corrective to the standard theories of the atonement, based on Paul and the for Smith it the non.Johannine ~r.,_h·"",,1 much-needed corrective to the of the
275
Fourth 1. Different attitudes can be discerned \\'ith question of
to the fundamental
and relevance of the
history. Three of these readers as
at this particular time in
Michaels; if not
of John
role in the
century,
\vhether from the point of view of the Christian church (Kysar; Michaels) or of constructive Tna",."",,.,., The others do not express themselves in such I":.t"s::>n"" ...."c but instead in terms of an overall role for the Gospel at the turn of the century. 2. While all of these readers approach the Gospel as full and explicit readers, different attitudes may be found toward the real-reader construct in Thus, with
to the amount of self-information
from the more expansive
4U,.,JUVlJ.
the spectrum runs to the forthcoming
to the more reserved (O'Day; Smith). 3. In terms of the social-readerlindividual-reader
all of these readers opt
for a social-reader construct, but the character of this construct different social dimensions concerns
in the process:
Michaels; Schottroff; Smith);
(Michaels; O'Day;
with
and
socioeducational concerns
sociocultural concerns
4. In terms of the compliant-reader/resistant-reader
the shape of the
real-reader construct varies as well. At one end of the spectrum, there is the view of the
as a rather positive text, a text to be appropriated. Such I would
argue is the to be
by Michaels and as a text with both ...,..",.t""",. That I would argue is my own
of some of the
Gospel as
the np4:J::lt'IV£"
npl:J~HllVP
there is a middle range
as cOIltalnlIllg c<:m[uctmg directions, some
re~~anjmg
the same issues
n01vve ver
the
of
which are to be corrected
and resistance is
5. Finally, the overall discussion in these reflections ImOOlrtaJllt issues:
the
the basic attitude toward the Gospel as a
document at the close of the twentieth century is a 1
the Gospel as
elements. which are to be rejected
some dangerous
On the whole,
there a text
which calls for a rejection
features.
of with a positive and some COiltaltllUlg some
At the other
one. At the same time, in principle by most. rise to a number of
"What is John?
276
-First and
one finds once
church-the role of the
the question of the
and the
as Scripture and Word of God for Christian
addressed from a number of perspectives: its importance for a sectarian church and pluralist conception of truth (Kysar); for a (Michaels)~
sectarian church in the 'rvorld given its
for constructive Christian
~",,",V'~'F.
portrayal of Jesus' death in terms of restoring relationships for a
and worldly type of Christian messianism
and for the definition of Jesus and his message (Smith). The range of opinion in this
goes from the very positive (Michaels; O'Day; Schottroff), to the
cautious (Smith), to the conflicting (Kysar). '-'""V""'''''.
the question of excJusivism or sectarianism proves rather prominent
as well, with the following range of opinion in evidence: from the very (Michaels), to the divided
to the corrective (Smith), to the very negative
Third, there is also the
''''I',,'''','LJL~/U
of anti-Judaism (Schottroff;
one hand, there is fundamental
to the effect
tradition did without doubt read the
On the while the later
from an anti-Jewish
Gospel itself is not, from a strictly historical point of
the anti-Jewish
On the other hand, the attitude to be adopted tt)\vard this issue varies: from radical
~.JPII.Jv':>'J~n,!H
(Schottroff) to consideration of it within the
wider issue of dualism (Smith), a couple of other issues are raised as well:
the relevance of the
Gospel for marginalized social groups, with respect to both minority groups and women (Schottroff); for life in this \vorld,
the political ramifications of the Gospel
from the
to the
Concluding Reflection This exercise in intercultural
in the analysis of various "texts" of the
text of the Gospel of John, has brought out certain
facets of the
collection as a whole. It for eXEtmlJle, highlighted the emergence of real readers in r<~'''n'.,,{'"f and nteroretation. as real readers to reveal themselves not only with regard to their reading constructs and strategies but also with It has also highlighted the
respect to their social location and diversity of constructs and
appealed to
real readers in reading and
277
Fourth interpretation, both \vith
to real-reader constructs and universal-reader
constructs. It has further highlighted the evaluations of the Gospel produced different
of
and
real readers at this time: different foci of
different attitudes toward such findings. In so doing,
the collection does indeed serve as a
reflection of and barometer for the
present state of biblical criticism as a whole at the close of the twentieth v · v " ' ...... '• .."
such
come across, on the
such multiplicity of interpretation, the Gospel does as a highly
world alike at the tum of the
and relevant text for church and even when reservations and cautions are
raised, as they are in a number of studies. Such
and results make it
certain that, on the one hand, fascination with the Fourth well into the twenty-first century and that the text of the be read, while, on the other hand, such
will continue will continue to
will take any number of
directions and result in any number of interpretations, in any number of "texts" of the Gospel. These findings and results make it
certain as well that
in this
of the text of the Gospel and this production of countless "texts"
of the
the real readers and constructors of such "texts" will no longer
remain silent and dormant but will step forward to claim their readings and "texts" openly and publicly, in the light of their own locations. And this \vill prove a most Studies and biblical criticism in
;':'\,;1J\,;J£U.
and
and social for both Johannine
Index of Citations HlmREW
Bmu:
23
Genesis
17
23:1
15
2: 15-17
161
80:8-18
52
3:8
161
95:7
15
3:15
161
100:3
15
Exodus
Proverbs
3:1-6
14
22:6
77n40
23:4-5
152
25:21
152 77n40
25:22
162
26:11
38:7-8
162
Canticle of' Canticles
39:27-31
97
2:9
19:18
152,230
6:10
151
19:34
152
42:6-7
52
IJeviticus
161
Isaiah
Numbers 21:4-9
n39 30
Deuteronomy 6:4-9
152
Ruth 1:16
166
23:1
14
23:1-6
15
31:3
166
14
34
15
34: 1-10
14
82
34: 11-15
15
2 Kings 9:30-37
52
.:zekiel
1 Samuel 17:34-35
55:1-2
Jeremiah
Ezra 34:23
15
Psalms
NEW TESTAMENT Mark
22
103
4:26-32
40
22:14-18
85
12:28-34
152
22:16
86
15:38
97
22:18
86 n68, 97
15:40-41
160 nIl
22:20
86
15:47
160 nIl
280
"What is John?
16:1-8
160 nll
1:14
16:9-10
160
1:15
195
1:17
90,163,172
Matthew
34,90,176,231
5:17-20
229
1:29
79,168
5:43-6:15
92n87
1
130
5:44
152
1:38
57, 157
22:34-40
152
1:45-46
95
27:25
229
1:49-51
88
27:55-56
160 nil
1:51
27
27:61
160 nll
28:1-8
160 nll
28:9
164
28:9-10
160
Luke
2-12
195 81 n51
2:4
79 1146, 87 n72, 173
2:1I
97
6:27
152
2:13-22
147
6:35
152
2:17
147
10:25-28
152
2:18
147
22:31-32
168
2:18-20
55
23:49
160 nll
2:19
28, 79 n46, 147
23:55-56
160 nll
2:20
147
24: 1-10
160 nll
2:21
147
24:11
161
2:21-22
80, 167
24:12
161 nl5
2:22
24, 2K134, 147,173
24:29
165
2:23-25
24,32 n16
1-20
195
1'1
3 3:1-10
23,39,44,195
136, 137 n21
I: 1-5
195
1:1-18
195
1:5
24116,192
1:6
195
1:9
123, 132, 136, 229
1:9-1
124
John
1-15
23 n5 21, 23-24, 29,30 nnI2/13, 32 n19, 36, 40,251 252
1-21 3:2
23,139 31,
139
24,
139,202
I. 10-11
24
3:4
140
1.11
132
3:3-6
130
I. 12-13
202
3:4
25,31,33-35
1.12-14
166
3:5-8
26,35,140
1.13
177
3:5
33-35
281
Index of Citations 3:6
26,34-35
4:29
140
3:7
26, 33-35, 74, 202
4:31-34
140
3:8
26-27, 33-35
4:32
140
3:9
27,31,
4:34
140
10
33-36
4:39
209
II
27,32 n16, 33-35,
4:42
208-9
167
4:46-49
81 n51
11-21
23 n533-34
4:46-54
120
12
35
13
27,34,136
5
45,227
14
28,30,136,151,156
1-15
120
01
1-18
148
14-15
2809
14-16
79 n46, 81 n53
13
80n50
15
23-24,29,33,35
17
148
3:16
176,208
5:9b-IO
5:18
3:16-18
148
52, 55,80 n50, 89, 148
3:17-18
229
5:19-20
81 n52
3:21
23-24
5:19-29
52
3:24
227
5: 19-47
55
3:31
52, 138-39
5:22
81 n52
3:31-36
91 n84
5:24
140
5:25-29
87 n72
4
10, 117,209,227
5:31-44
91 n84
4:1-30
97
5:42
113
4:2
227
5:44
152
4:3
80n50
5:47
116
4:7-26
140
4:8
140
6
9
4:9
11,229
6:1-13
148
4:10-11
167
6:14
148
4:1
52
6:14-15
17,148
4:14
140
6:15
80 n50, 88-89, 207
4:16-18
209
6:21-65
89
4:17
209
6:25-29
55
4:21-23
871172
6:25-51
148
4:22
11,229
6:27
148
4:23
130
6:31
148
4:26
209
6:35
52
14
"What is John?
282
6:35-40
148
7:36
157
6:41
148
7:37-38
52
6:42
148
7:37-39
97, 140, 167
6:44
121
7:38
140
6:45
121
7:39
130, 140, 173
6:48
140
6.51
202
7:45-49
88
6:52
149
7:45-52
6:52-56
97
80 120
6:52-58
227
95
6:53
121 149
7:51-52 7:52
6:53-54 6:56 6:60-61 6:64
99 0104 149 54
80n50
88
8:12
52
8:12-18
91084
8:14
151 157
6:68
140
8:17
230
6:70
166
6:70-71
79
8:20 8:21
80350 157
6:71
54
8:21-22
149
8:22
157
7-8
9
8:23
52, 138, 152
55,80 n50
8:28
137, 151, 156 nl
7:2-14
81051
8:31
ll3, 149
7:3-9
88
8:31-39
149
7:6-8
87072
8:32
149,176
80n50
8:36
150
11-13
ll5
8:37
80n50
12
88
8:37-38
113
13 16-18
55
8:40
91084
8:44
80050 55, 11
19
80050
10
150
113
95 80050
8:51
140
8:52-53
140
7:27
88
8:54-55
74
7:30
80 n50, 87 n72
7:32
9 9:4
9, 17,45, 120, 117
7:33
80 149
7:34
157
9:11
II
7:35
149
9:12
80n50
157
Index of Citations
283
9:13
55
ILl
173
9:16
12,55
1LI-6
81 n5I
9:17
II,I64
1LI-44
150
9:20-21
164
11
81
9:22
55
11:8
80n50
9:24 9:29
12
11'11-15
81
163
11 :23-27
81
151
11:25
150, 156, 176
9:33
II
11:27
88
9:35-38
12
11:40
88
9:39-40
74
11:40-42
8J
9:40-41
55
11
150
11 :45-53
88-89
10
13
11:48
207
10:1-8
39
11:48-50
89
10:3
163
11 :49-50
80
10:3-4
14
11:50
82
10:3-5
163
11:51.-52
80
10:7
13
11:52
10
10:8
16
11:54
80n50
10:9
13
10:10
176
12:4
54
10:11
13
12:7-8
79n46
10: 11-18
14
12:9-11
150
10:14
13
12:12-19
88,89
10: 14-15
163
12:13
17 n17
10: 14-18
79n46
12:16
134,156 nl
10:15
163
12:17-18
150
10:16
15
12:20-22
IO
10: 16-18
203
12:20-36
200
10:17-18
81 n53, 87, 89,201
12:23
156 nl, 173
10:25
15
12:23-24
79 n46
10:30
16, 139, 169
12:23-26
201 202
10:30-33
17
12:24
202
10:31-39
89
12:24-26
202
10:35
95
12:25
202
10:36-39
91 n84
12:25-26
202
10:38
139
12:27
87 n72
10:39
8On50
12:27-28
201
284
"What is John?
12:27-33
137
14:27
51
12:28
53, 156 n 1, 203
14:28
139, 158
12:31
202
14:28-29
130
14:31
227
12:31-32
79n46
12932
10,81 n53, 151, 156 nl, 202, 231
15-17
227
12:33
80,151
15: 1-11
52
12:34
151, 156 nl
15:6
121
12:35-36
202
15:9-10
51
12:37
151
15:11
51
12:40
151
15:12
152,229
12:42
55
15:13
79 n46, 152
12:44-50
91 n84
15:18
119,196
12:46
52
15:18-19
93 n89
12:50
202
15: 18-25
82
15:19
132
13-16
157 n5
15:20:
119
16:2
9
13-17
215 n2
13:1
51,87 n72
13:11-21
80
16:2-3
113
13:21-25
97
16:2b
119
13:23
54
16:8
196
13:31-32
53, 156 nl
16:21-22
51
13:33
149
16:25
134 51
1334
152,229
16:27
13:34-35
51
16:29
134
13:36
139
16:33
51
14:3
157
17:1
87 n72
14:4
157
17: 1-5
89
14:5
157
17:3
172
14:6
88,121, 169,176
17:5
158
14:11
139
17:12
80
14:15
51
17:13
51
14:16
130
17:14-16
52,93 n89
14: 18-20
168
17:20-23
231
14:19
196
17:21
139, 196
14:22
196
17:23
139, 196
14:23-24
51
17:24
157
Index of Citations 17:25-26
911184-
18:1
227
19:12
285 89, 90 1179, 93
19:13
80
19:14
87,93,98
18:1-18
92
19:14-16
231
18: 1-19:42
77
19:15
55,93
18:2
93
19:16
89,93
18:4
81
19: 16b-37
18:4-11
81
19: 16bA2
18:5
93
19: 17
93
18:5-8
81
19:17-37
92
18:9
81,227
19:18
93-94
18:11
79 n46, 81
19:19
93,95
18:12
80
19:19-22
89
18: 12- 19: 16
94
19:19-25
94
18:1
80
19:20
93-95
18: 19-24
87
19:21
95
18: 19- 19: 16
92
19:22
95
18:22
89
19:23
93-94
18:24
80
19:23-25
97
18:28
80,87
19:24
85-86,94
18:28-19:16
87
19:25
93-94
18:30
89,93
19:25-27
98 160 nIl
18:33
93
19:25-30
18:35
93
19:26
18:36
82,93,207
19:26-27
18:37
93
19:26-28
95
18:38
88 n75, 93
19:27
94
91286
I8: 38b-40
89n79
19:28
85,94
18:39
93
19:28-29
81
19:29
98
19:3
89
19:30
78,81, 89,93
19:4
80,93
19:31
87,93-94
19:6
93
19:32
93-94
19:7
911186
19:32-37
72238
19:8-11
89
19:34-35
98
19:9-10
88
19:34-37
167
19:10
93
19:35
167
19: 10-11
89
19:36
94
19:11
81,93
19:37
94
286 19:38
"What is John? 55,88
21:15-19
149
19:38-42
92
21:15-23
227
19:40
80
21:20
56
19:41
93
21:24
56
21:24-25
227
20
155-58,255
Acts
20:1
161,167
4:12
20: 1-2
156, 160 nil
Galatians
124
20: 1-18
157
4:4
172,230
20:2
157, 162
5:14
230
20:3-10
158
1 Corinthians
20:5
161 nl5
2:8
231
20:8
158
9:1
167
20:9
134, 158
2 Corinthians
20:11
159 n8
5:16-21
20;11-15
159
Romans
20;11-18
156, 158, 254
5:6
231
20;12
162
6:1-4
231
20;13
159 n8
7:1-6
231
20;14
162
11;26
230
20;15
159 n8, 162
13;9
230
20:16.
159, 162-63
Ephesians
231
20:17
136-37, 165
2
20: 17-18
159
Hebrews
231
20:18
167
4:14
231
20:19
51,55
5:1A
231
20: 19-23
168
7:1-10
231
20: 19-29
157
8:1
231
20:20
51,16J
12:2
231
20:22
130
12:3
231
20:23
164, 168
12:9
231
20:25
167
1 John 1:1
180
89
l:
231
155,195
4:1-3
180,229,231
20;31
51, 74, 91 1186
5:18
164
21
195,227
7
21;7
56
20:24-29 20;27 20;30-31
2 John 229
Index of Citations 3 John 5-6
10 nIl
JE~SHLITERATURE
Wisdom of Solomon 17:40 15 4 Maccabees 5:8-6:30
84n62
9: 10-11:27
84n62
17:21
209
CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
1 Clement 36:1
91 n85
61
91 n85
64
91 n85
GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE
14 Homer
14
Plato
14
Virgil
16
287
Index of Authors ANCIENT AUTHORS
B
Abelard, 201 116
Bakhtin, M., 10 I n 110
Anselm, 201 115
Bal, M., 79 n45, 85 nn64/66, 101
i")'U",U~'''U'',
Barrett, C K., 179 n14, 217-18
1541159 Clement of Alexandria, 129-30, 170-71,
Bassler, 1. M., 32 nl6 Beardslee, W. A., 37 n25
180,218,228 Eusebius or Caesarea 130 11 I 180, 206,
Beck, N. A., 116 nJ6, 130 n2
209 Gaius, 109, 178
Beuken, W., 63 119
Heracieon, 108, 145-46, 179
Beutler, 1., 151114,65 n14
Irel1aeus, 108-10, 179,217
Bloom, H., 173, 174116
John
Boers, R, 62 n5
'I' 65-66 nI7
195
Boismard, M.-E., 180,224 n17
Justin Marcion, 109, 179
Booth, W., 61, 101 nllO M., 68 n29
145-46,180 109-IO,I7B
M. 8., I
nl2
1-<."."",,,&,,; I. 1., 129
108
Borha, 1. 8.,31 n14, 32-33,63 n8
Socrates, 146 Tatial1, 109, 179
Bovon, E, 160
Valel1tinus 108
'-''.'e'"'''', D., 65 nl6
MODERN AUTHORS
A
n100 Bretschneider, K. G., 1l0-1i
Abbott, E. A., 192-93, 196
Brodie,'r 95 n93
86 n67, 95 n93, 96 n97, 97
Amaladoss, A., 59 Anderson, 1.
c., 22 113,
1113,65 n13,
240n4 Arac, J., 64 n41 Ashton, 1., 172 n5, 220 n9, 228 Atkins, D. C, 94 n90 Aulen, G., 200 n4 Anne, D. E., 133 nil
Brooke-Rose, C, 60 n2, 101 102 n1l2 Brown, RE.,9 nl0, 10 nIl, 78, 86 n68, 88 n75, 96 n97, 141 n28, 142 n32, 150 1154, 159 119, 160 n 12, 180, 194, 220, 223,226-27 Brown, S., 48 n14, 54 n27, 21.9
"What is John?
290
Bultmann, R, 95 n93, 104 nl17, 132 n7, 147 n52, 176-78, 180, 193-94, 199, 208,217-20,22324,227-28
Denaux, A., 171 n2, 224 n17 Derrida, J., 95 n94, 129 Detweiler, R., 62 n5, 240 n4
C
Dodd, C H., 1411131,176-77,193-95,
Calvin, 170-71,201 n5, 218, 228
217-19,223
Cannon, K. G., 153 1158 ]. D., 1
1122
Duke,
Carroll, J., 5911 1
R P, 224 '-.. «.,""..... ,. R J., 119, 121 F., 124 n36 Cook, H. ]., 113 n 11 Charlesworth, J. H., 116 n6 Chatman, S., 101 Childs, B. S., 1821117 Combet-GaHa11d, C, 161 nl4 Conzelmann, H., 134 n 16, 178 n I
87 n1170172, 88 n74, 89 1176,
E Beo, n, 61 n3 Edmonds, J. M., 16 nl5 Edwards, M., 88 n74 L..1"1-l"'-'U,
W., 38 n26
Eva11s, C E, 156111 180
F J., 56 n29
Crosman,L, 60 n2, 61 Crossan, J. D., 59, 69,83 n57,85 n65, 86 n69, 103 nIl5, 169-70,225 n20 Culbertson, D., 68 n28 Culler, ]., 28 n8, 29 nil, 61 n3 Culley, R. C, 62 n7 CUlpepper, R. A.,
l~,
141 n29
Fish, S., 61 n3, 66 n19 Fishbane, M., 129, 133 n9
E. A., 65 n13 Fortna, R. T., 15 n14, 1
n12, 172 n5,
194,220 n9, 223-24 115,9, 13, 37 n25, 39
Foster, D., 96 1197
n27, 43,59111,62116,631110,80
Foucault, M., 88 1173, 90 n1180J81
n47, 87 1170, 94 n91, 109 n4, 133
Fowler, R. M.,
nl0, 138 n24, 141 nn27/29, 143 n33, 144, 146 n47, 152 n56, 164 n17, 233
113,31 11J4, 46 nIl, 56
n29, 62 nn5/6/8, 68 n28, 70 n33, 240 n4
n26, 243-48, 250, 255,259 n21, 261,
Freedman, 0. P, 101
264-66, 270 n28, 273 n30
Freud, S., 47 nl
Culpepper, H. H., 124 n37
Freund, E., 59,61 n3
0., WI n109
D
S., 63 n9 J. N., 75
F. N., 171 113,222 nIl
Friedrich, P., 82 n57 N.,100nI07
Davies, M., 32 n16
Fuller, R, 114 n13
Davies, W. 0.,218
Funk, R. W., 68
de Ja Potterie,L, 78, 97 nlOl
291
Index of Authors
G
Kasemanl1, E, 78 n44, 84 n63, 103 n114, 132114, 134 n15, 181,228
Gates, H. L., 101 11110 Gardner-Smith, P., 222, 225
Kelber, W., 144 n38, 164 n17, 245-48,
Gaventa, R R, 220 n9
250,255,261,263 n25, 264-65, 270
Genette, G., 101
n28, 273 n30
A, 159 n9 Giblin, C, 81 n51, 87 1170, 89 n79 Gutierrez, G., 118
Kendall, D., 1591110 Kje:rkegaaJrd S., 146 lXlIlJLJ!.;JIIJ\;Il!.
H. G., 209
Koester, C, 59111,248-50,252-53,264-
H
65
Haenchen, E, 86 1168, 223
Kohler, K., 112
Hall, D. J., 200 n3
KUmmel, W. G., 110 n6, 178 n13, 21.9 R, 13 n14, 18,
Hengel, M., 179 n14
n21, 39 n27,
44, 131 n3, 132 n8, 134 n17, 141
E,169
nn29/30, 245 n7, 250-253,256, 264-68, 270, 272, 275-76
Hesse, R, 97 n98 Hillennan, T., 72 n37 Hillman, 1, 48 n16 Hobbs, E. C, 114 n 12
L
HOllad
Lacan, J., 47 n13, 48 1116 R, 108 nl
Holub, R, 61 113
E, 17L 222 Howard, W. E, 192115
Leach, E., 12 Lemcio, E. E, 182 n17 I~on-Dufour,
I
X., 159 n9
H., 1391125
Isasi-Diaz, AM., 211 n I 238 n2
Lieu, J. M., 226 n21
Iser, W., 7, 46 nl1, 61 84 n61, 248
Lull, D. J.. 48 n14
J
M
Jeremias, 1, 16 nl6
MacMullen, R, 161116
Johnson, R, 94 n90, 100
Mailloux, S., 61 n3
Johnson, L. T., 178 nl
Malina, R J., 8 n8, 66-67, 68 n27, 79
Johnson, M. L., 94 n90
n45, 81,83 n58, 84 n61, 89 n77
Jonsson, J., 123, 124 n36, 125 C G., 47-48, 49 n18, 51 n21, 55
n28.
261
1 Lh, 6,134.148 n53, 194,21920,221 n9 Maud, R., 50 McDonald, C, 95 n94
K
McKee, J., 143 n35
Karris, R, 120-21
McKenna, A, 89 1178
"What is John?
292 ~-~,.... t"... ,
E
v., 64 nI2, 65 n16, 67
Porter, S., 63 nlO, 64 1112, 66 nI9, 100
1125,69 n30 Meeks, W. A., 11 n12, 12 n13, 49 n19,
nlO8 Powell, M. A., 62 n5, 64 n12, 80 n48
132115, 148 n53, 220 n9, 221,22
PraU, 66.8.,64 nil, 65 n13
nID, 233 n29
Prickett, S., 62 n5
B. E, 63 n9 Michaels, 1 R. 245 n7, 267-70, 272,
R Rashkow, 1.,47 nl 3
275-76 Miller, D. M., 48 1114
Reil1hartz, A., 29 nlO, 53
MoHatt, D., 157, 1631116
KeIlsb1~rgt!r,
21,23115,24 116, 28 119, 30
D., 64 n12, 82 n55, 88 1175,
93 n89, 119, 121
32 n16, 35 n23, 63 nID
Richard, E., 141 n27
Moore, S. D., 22 n2, 45,47 n13, 48 n16,
Robbins, V. K., 62 n5
61 , 62 n5, 64 n 12, 65 n 15, 66-68, 70
Roberts, R, 104 n 117
n33, 80 n48, 97 nlOO, 98 nn1021103,
Robinson, 1. 133 n5, 134
nl
100 n108, 101 n109, 129, 153 n57,
Robinson, R 4.,62 n7
240n4
Rollins. W., 48 n14, 58
MosaJa,L, 117, 1261140, 144
Ruckstuhl, E, 193
Moxnes, H., 91 n83, 92 1188
Ruether, R R, 114 Russell, L. M., 153 n58
N E, 171,224
1 H., 8 n8, 67 n21, 79 n45, 81, 83 n58, 88 n74, 96 n96, 233 n29 Nicholson, G., 81 n53
s W.,192 Sanders, 1 N., 179 n14, 182 nl7
E, 89 n78, 97 n99, 101 n109
Nietzsche, E, 86 n69, 95 n94
Schleiermacher, E, 110-11
Norris, 9., 66 1119
SchmiedeJ, P. W., 192 Sclllnac:kenlbuf'g, R, 18 n18, 88 n75, 223
o
Schneiders, S., 153, 156 n3, 254-56, G., 140 n26, 141 n29, 143 n34, 233 n28, 268-70, 272, 274 n31 , 275-
272, 273 n30, 275-76
76 O'Collins, G., 159 nlO Osiek,
261, 264-66, 270 n29 Schottroff, L, 244 n5, 245 n6, 269-70,
c., 67 n26
Schneiders, S., 245 n6, 253-56, 261, 264-65, 270 n29 Schulz, S., 18 n19
p
Schweickert, P., 65 n 13
Panels, E, 145 1145
Schweitzer, A., 68, 69
Perrin, N., 25 n07
Scott, B. B., 37 n25
Petersen, N. R, 62 n07
Scott, M., 123 n34
293
Index of Authors F. F., 13 n13, 22 n4, 39 n27,
Tolbert, M. A., 22 n4, 44-45, 46 nlO, 65
43-45,46 nlO, 47 n12, 53, 62 n8, 65
n14, 66 n18, 69, 100 n108, 133 nlO,
n14, 133 nlO, 137, 138 n23, 155, 157
211 nL 238 nl
n5, 195,211 nl, 233 n27, 238 nl,
VU1IJ"'U.'~,
J., 48 n17, 61, WI nl09
'rumer, 1 D., 15 nl4
271,275-76 Senior, D., 80 n47, 87 n70, 89 n76, 96
v
n97,97 nlOJ, 98 n102 ::Sh{~phj~rd,
M. 0., 114 nI2
L. E, 104 nI17
P., 83 n57, 85 n65 Smith, D. M., 133 n12, 172 n4, 178 n13, "'1"""'1""IJ"',
Van Belle, G., 224 nl8 Vanhov'e. A., 165 n 18
225 n19, 244 n5, 256-58, 263 n25,
W
264-65, 272, 273 n30, 274-76
Wall, R W., 182 n17
Smith, J. D., 109 n3
G. C,64nll R A., 178 nl 1 L.,
WaIJfl)sh.
31 n15, 32, ~45, 62 n8,
Weiler, A., 63 n9
K., 135 n18
63 nlO, 66,143,249 n12, 259-61,
White, D., 85 n65
264-65
White, L., 63 n9, 69 n31
L. E., 97 n98
Willett, M. E. (Willett), 52 n22, 123
W., 99 nlO5 Stendahl, K., 234 Stibbe, M. W. G., 21,30 nnl2il
n34, 249 n 12, 261-66 32
n22, 35 n24, 80 n50, 81 n54,
n 18,
E, 97 n98
Warner, M .. 88 n74, 90 n82
87 n71, 88 n75. 96 n96, 193 Strauss, D. E, 110-11,113 nIl R. P.,48nI5
Williams,
n, 20 I
n7
Wills, G., 174, 175 n9 Wimbush,
v.,
104 nl17
Windisch, H., 219, 222 Wink, W., 47 nl4
SUj.]:irtl1tara.iah, R S., 117 nl7
WolI, D. B., 133
SuJeiman, S., 60 n2, 61
Wuellner, W., 43-44, 62 n8, 64 n12, 65
D., 80 n49
nl6
Szabados, R, 100 n106, 101 nllO
y T
D. K., 122-23, 125
Talbert, C. H., 31 nl4 Tamez, E, 117, 126 n40
Z
Tannehill, R. C, 62 n6
Zahaur, F. M., 101 nlO
M.
c., 200nl
Theissen, G., 47 nl4 Thcnnp:son, M. M., 78 44n, 98 n102
11111111111111111111111111