Apprehension of Jesus in the Gospel of John (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161540653, 9783161540660, 3161540654

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

399

Josaphat C. Tam

Apprehension of Jesus in the Gospel of John

Mohr Siebeck

Josaphat C. Tam, born 1974; 2003 MDiv at Evangel Seminary, Hong Kong; 2008 ThM (NT) at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Illinois, US; 2015 PhD at New College, University of Edinburgh, Scotland; currently Assistant Professor at Evangel Seminary, Hong Kong.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-154066-0 ISBN 978-3-16-154065-3 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2015 Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For Lai-Ki, ὃς εὗρεν γυναῖκα ἀγαθήν εὗρεν χάριτας ἔλαβεν δὲ παρὰ θεοῦ ἱλαρότητα

Preface This monograph is a slightly revised version of my Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of Edinburgh in 2014. It was supervised by Prof. Larry Hurtado (secondary supervisor Prof. Paul Foster). I am immeasurably grateful to my Doktorvater, Larry, for his constant patience, close supervision, encouragement and guidance over the past few years. I will never forget our last supervision session (coffee time in your “Hobbit room”) where you taught me the qualities of a Christian Biblical scholar. Special thanks are owed to Prof. Jörg Frey for accepting my work for publication in the prestigious WUNT II series. Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, Jana Trispel, and Kendra Mäschke of Mohr Siebeck were very helpful and I thank them. Thanks also go to the thesis examiners, Prof. Andrew Lincoln and Dr. Helen Bond. Their critiques have made this a stronger work. In addition, I will never forget the very supportive encouragement and comments from Prof. Howard Marshall and Dr. Maureen Yeung-Marshall, especially during the later stage of this project. Despite my mention of these scholars, all shortcomings of the present work lie squarely at my own feet. I am much indebted to the support from Langham Partnership (Dr. Ian Shaw, Liz McGregor, Monty and Rosemary Barker, Dr. Christopher Wright, and many others). Although I didn’t have the opportunity to get to know “Uncle” John in person, you all are John Stotts to me. It was an honour for me to have been “miraculously” awarded the 1910 Centenary PhD Scholarship back in April 2010, which commemorated the centenary of the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference. Thanks also go to Miss Diana Frost and Dr. John Jeacocke who patiently read and proofread my work and provided innumerable suggestions for improvements. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Revd Dr. Man-Chee Kwok and Mr. Alfred Suen of Evangel Seminary, who have graciously allowed me to finish this project upon returning to Evangel. Continuous financial support from my theological alma mater, Evangel Seminary, and her donors is very much appreciated. Student grants from Grace Foundation, the Kowloon Tong Alliance Church, the Chinese Evangelical Church in Edinburgh, and Kwan Sheung-Wo Theological Fund have also been appreciated. Many members of our home church Tsing Yi Peace Evangelical Centre in Hong Kong have supported us financially and through prayers. Phil 4:19 is my prayer for you all. We cherish the fellowship we enjoyed

VIII

Preface

with Christians while we were in U.K.: many members of both Chinese churches in Edinburgh, Chinese churches in Glasgow and Aberdeen, the Merecz family, Langham scholars, as well as colleagues in New College (Carlos Sosa, Lonnie Bell, Sean Adams, Denni Saragih, Adam Shreve, and Kin-Foon), and the list being too long to name exhaustively. To all these people we are very thankful. Words cannot express my thanks to my parents who gave me life. You sacrificed so much for your children. How I wish that I might enable you both to find eternal life as a token of my deep gratitude for your upbringing. And I thank God that half of my wish has now come true. This monograph is dedicated to my wife, Lai-Ki. It is not an exaggeration that it is her who alone understands the “cost” of supporting me, from the very beginning up to the very end. Without her love, support, and endurance, since 2007 till now, this adventure would never be successful. Holding the hands of you and our sons Jophiel and Cophiel, your laughter and tears have taught me what it means to know Jesus and that Jesus knows. Thanks Cookie. No one can replace you in my heart! Above all else, may this humble work be a pleasing sacrifice to my Lord: All my regrets, all my acclaims… Things in the past, things yet unseen… Lord, I offer my life to You Everything I've been through Use it for Your glory… (From “I Offer My Life”) Hong Kong, June 4, 2015

Josaphat Chi-Chiu Tam S.D.G.

Table of Contents Preface .....................................................................................................VII Tables ......................................................................................................... V Abbreviations ........................................................................................... V

Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................... 1 A. Authorship, Audience, and the Gospel....................................................... 2 B. Previous Investigations ............................................................................. 5 1. On Seeing and Its Relation to Other Concepts ...................................... 6 a) Seeing and Believing ...................................................................... 8 b) Seeing Is Believing ....................................................................... 10 2. On Hearing and Its Relation to Other Concepts .................................. 11 a) Hearing Vs. Seeing ....................................................................... 11 b) Hearing Is Believing ..................................................................... 12 c) Hearing and Divine Instruction ..................................................... 13 3. On Knowing and Its Relation to Other Concepts ................................ 13 a) Οἶδα and γινώσκω ...................................................................... 14 b) Knowing and Believing ................................................................ 15 4. On Witnessing and Its Relation to Other Concepts ............................. 17 a) “The Trial Motif” ......................................................................... 17 b) Witnessing and Seeing.................................................................. 19 5. On Remembering and Its Relation to Other Concepts ........................ 21 6. On Believing and Its Relation to Other Concepts ............................... 23 a) Believing and John’s Purpose/Audience ....................................... 24 b) Believing and the Nature of John’s Overall Message .................... 25 c) Believing and Faith Patterns/Developments .................................. 25 7. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 27 C. Method and Approach ............................................................................. 28

X

Table of Contents

D. Aim and Plan of the Present Study .......................................................... 29

Chapter 2: Linguistic Foundations ................................................... 31 A. Towards an Understanding of Words, Context, and Concept .................. 31 B. Analyses of Grammatical Constructions.................................................. 33 1. Seeing ................................................................................................ 34 2. Hearing .............................................................................................. 36 3. Knowing ............................................................................................ 36 4. Witnessing ......................................................................................... 37 5. Remembering ..................................................................................... 38 6. Believing ............................................................................................ 39 7. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 41 C. Semantic Field Survey............................................................................. 41 D. Summary ................................................................................................. 45

Chapter 3: Phase One: First Encounters (John 1–4)...................... 46 A. Overview of the Use of Apprehension Vocabulary................................... 47 B. Narrative Overview of the Development of the Concept .......................... 49 C. Exegetical Analysis in Context ................................................................ 53 1. Conversion of John the Baptist and the First Disciples, the First Sign, and the Temple Incident (1:19–2:25) ....................................... 53 a) John the Baptist’s Testimony and Conversion (1:19–34) .............. 53 b) Conversion of the First Disciples (1:29–51) ................................. 55 c) The First Sign (2:1–12) ................................................................. 58 d) The Temple Incident (2:13–22) .................................................... 59 e) Anticlimactic Concluding Remarks (2:23–25) .............................. 64 2. The Second Sign: Jesus and the Royal Official (4:43–54) .................. 68

Table of Contents

XI

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact on the Readers........................................ 71 1. Synthesis ............................................................................................ 71 2. Intended Impact on the Readers ......................................................... 73 a) Readers’ Understanding of the Characters’ Apprehension of Jesus and John’s Writing Purpose ............................................... 74 b) Readers’ Understanding of Jesus’ Own Apprehension .................. 76 c) The Role of Signs and Words in the Perception/Apprehension of Jesus ....................................................................................... 77 d) The Role of Faith in One’s Perception/Apprehension of Jesus...... 78 E. Summary ................................................................................................. 79

Chapter 4: Phase Two: Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)...... 81 A. Overview of the Use of Apprehension Vocabulary................................... 82 B. Narrative Overview of the Development of the Concept .......................... 84 C. Exegetical Analysis in Context ................................................................ 89 1. Controversies Prefaced: Testimony and the Eschatological Life (5:19–47) .......................................................................................... 90 a) Event Leading to 5:19–47 ............................................................. 91 b) The Controversies Prefaced (5:19–47) .......................................... 91 2. An Ironic Concluding Illustration: Seeing, Not Seeing, and Believing (9:1–41) ................................................................................ 99 3. Closure of Jesus’ Public Ministry and the Beginning of His Glorification (12:12–19, 37–43).............................................................. 106 a) Triumphal Entry Remembered (12:12–19).................................. 106 b) The Ability to Apprehend (12:37–43) ......................................... 108 D. Synthesis and Intended Impact on the Readers...................................... 111 1. Synthesis .......................................................................................... 111 2. Intended Impact on the Readers ....................................................... 114 a) Readers’ Understanding of the Characters’ Apprehension of Jesus and John’s Writing Purpose ............................................. 115 b) Readers’ Understanding of Jesus’ Own Apprehension ................ 118 c) The Role of Signs and Words in the Perception/Apprehension of Jesus ..................................................................................... 119

XII

Table of Contents

d) The Role of Faith in One’s Perception/Apprehension of Jesus .... 121 E. Summary ............................................................................................... 122

Chapter 5: Phase Three: Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17) ......................................................................................... 125 A. Overview of the Use of Apprehension Vocabulary................................. 126 B. Narrative Overview of the Development of the Concept ........................ 128 C. Exegetical Analysis in Context .............................................................. 130 1. Deeper Faith, a Redefined Apprehension of Jesus, and Promise of Paraclete and Future Apprehension (14:1–26) ................................ 131 a) Deeper Faith, a Redefined Apprehension of Jesus (14:1–14) ...... 131 b) Promise of Paraclete and Future Apprehension (14:15–26) ........ 134 2. Further Work of the Paraclete (15:26–16:15) ................................... 137 3. Prayers in a Loving Relationship vs. Disciples’ Incomprehension (16:25–33) ...................................................................................... 139 4. Jesus’ Concluding Prayer (17:1–26) ................................................. 141 a) Praying for Himself (17:1–5) ...................................................... 141 b) Praying for the Disciples (17:6–19) ............................................ 142 c) Praying for Later Believers (17:20–26) ....................................... 142 D. Synthesis and Intended Impact on the Readers...................................... 144 1. Synthesis .......................................................................................... 144 2. Intended Impact on the Readers ....................................................... 146 a) Readers’ Understanding of the Characters’ Apprehension of Jesus and John’s Writing Purpose.............................................. 147 b) Readers’ Understanding of Jesus’ Own Apprehension ................ 148 c) The Role of Words in the Perception/Apprehension of Jesus ...... 150 d) The Role of Faith in One’s Perception/Apprehension of Jesus .... 151 E. Summary ............................................................................................... 151

Table of Contents

XIII

Chapter 6: Phase Four: Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21) ........................................................................................ 154 A. Overview of the Use of Apprehension Vocabulary................................. 155 B. Narrative Overview of the Development of the Concept ........................ 156 C. Exegetical Analysis in Context .............................................................. 159 1. Jesus’ Death, the BD’s Witness, and Its Impact (19:28–42) ............. 159 a) Jesus’ Last Knowing before Death (19:28–30) ........................... 159 b) Seeing, Testifying, and Knowing in the Aftermaths (19:31–37) . 160 c) Jesus’ Burial (19:38–42) ............................................................. 166 2. Resurrection: The Seeing-and-believe Mode Revisited (20:1–29) .... 167 a) Two Instances of Seeing Compared: First Trips to the Tomb (20:1–10)................................................................................... 169 b) Mary Sees the Risen Jesus (20:11–18) ........................................ 171 c) The Disciples and Thomas See Jesus (20:19–29) ........................ 171 d) Concluding Remarks .................................................................. 174 3. The Two Conclusions and the Pastoral Charge (20:30–31; 21:15– 23, 24–25) ...................................................................................... 176 a) The First-part Conclusion (20:30–31) ......................................... 177 b) Jesus, Peter, and the Narrator: Pastoral Charge (21:15–23)......... 179 c) The Second-part Conclusion (21:24–25) ..................................... 182 d) Concluding Remarks .................................................................. 184 D. Synthesis and Intended Impact on the Readers...................................... 185 1. Synthesis .......................................................................................... 185 2. Intended Impact on the Readers ....................................................... 188 a) Readers’ Understanding of the Characters’ Apprehension of Jesus and John’s Writing Purpose ............................................. 188 b) Readers’ Understanding of Jesus’ Own Apprehension ................ 190 c) The Role of Signs and Words in the Perception/Apprehension of Jesus ..................................................................................... 191 d) The Role of Faith in One’s Perception/Apprehension of Jesus .... 192 E. Summary ............................................................................................... 193

XIV

Table of Contents

Chapter 7: Conclusions ...................................................................... 196 A. Results and Findings ............................................................................. 197 1. John 1–4: Initial Encounters ............................................................. 198 2. John 5–12: Subsequent Encounters .................................................. 198 3. John 13–17: Deepening Apprehension ............................................. 199 4. John 18–21: Climactic Apprehension ............................................... 201 B. John’s Intended Impact on Readers and Its Contributions and Implications for Johannine Scholarship .................................................... 202 1. Readers’ Understanding of the Characters’ Apprehension of Jesus and John’s Writing Purpose ............................................................ 202 2. Readers’ Understanding of Jesus’ Own Apprehension ..................... 204 3. The Role of Signs and Words in the Perception/Apprehension of Jesus ............................................................................................... 205 4. The Role of Faith in One’s Perception/Apprehension of Jesus ......... 207

Appendix: Grammatical Usage of Key Apprehension Terms ...................................................................................................... 209 A. Seeing ............................................................................................. 209 B. Hearing ............................................................................................ 211 C. Knowing .......................................................................................... 212 D. Witnessing ...................................................................................... 215 E. Remembering .................................................................................. 216 F. Believing ......................................................................................... 216

Bibliography.......................................................................................... 219 Indexes.................................................................................................... 239 Index of References ............................................................................. 239 Index of Modern Authors ..................................................................... 253 Index of Subjects ................................................................................. 258

Tables

Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16:

Distribution of the apprehension vocabulary (John 1–4) ........... 48 Outline of John 1–4 .................................................................. 50 Conversion of John the Baptist and the first disciples (1:29– 51) (Arrows indicating the verbal connections) ........................ 56 Apprehension process as reflected in 1:29–2:22 ....................... 64 Comparison of Jesus and other characters in 1:29–2:25 ............ 68 Dialogue between Jesus and the royal official (4:47–50a) ........ 69 Seeing vs. Hearing in the Episodes of John 1–4 ........................ 71 Distribution of the apprehension vocabulary (John 5–12) ......... 82 Outline of John 5–12 ................................................................ 85 Distribution of the apprehension vocabulary (John 13–17) ..... 127 Outline of John 13–17 ............................................................ 128 Jesus’ words in 10:37–38 and 14:10–11 ................................. 133 Distribution of the apprehension vocabulary (John 18–21) ..... 155 Outline of John 18–21 ............................................................ 156 Mary’s and the disciples’ encounter with Jesus (20:1–29) ...... 168 Dialogue between Jesus and Peter (21:15–23) ........................ 180

Abbreviations Abbreviations used in this work follow Billie Jean Collins, Bob Buller, and John F. Kutsko, The SBL Handbook of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines, 2nd ed. (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2014) and include the following, which do not occur there: BD BIS EVV GJohn JSHJ LN1.1

NT OT SBG TKNT

Beloved Disciple Biblical Interpretation Series English versions Gospel of John Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Domain entry 1.1 of Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. Edited by J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989 New Testament Old Testament Studies in Biblical Greek Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

Chapter 1

Introduction Forests or woodlands are not difficult to find across Scotland. Oak trees, horse chestnut, fir, or maple can be seen easily. While people, if asked, may not rank them among their critical concerns, every oak or horse-chestnut plays an important role in the environment. In the Gospel of John (hereafter GJohn), there are words which are used almost everywhere, and yet whose importance may not be sufficiently appreciated. This work attempts to recover the value of six “tree species” among others. These common species in the forest of the theological complexity of GJohn are: seeing, hearing, knowing, witnessing, remembering, and believing. These terms, while distinct, are inter-related. Superficially speaking, seeing and hearing1 relate more to empirical senses but are not limited to that; knowing concerns one’s understanding/perception; witnessing reflects the characteristic response of one who sees/hears/knows Jesus; remembering is also part of this cognitive process; all of them are related to believing, another expression reflecting that one has come to a certain stance in his/her own cognitive process, which is, of course, of paramount importance in the eyes of the author. These terms appear in every chapter of GJohn, in ways not found in any other gospels. They pertain to what I call “apprehension,” that is relating to how the characters encounter and grasp Jesus the divine logos in the gospel. The author puts very clearly in the beginning, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (1:1). Thus, grasping the divine, the Christ and the Son of God (20:31), remains the author’s complicated and yet important task towards the readers. In this regard, I use the umbrella concept of “apprehension of Jesus.” Numerous studies have been done on some of these words. Yet, a thorough and systematic study on all of these terms in a collective manner has not been conducted. My aim is to trace the concept of apprehension of Jesus in the literary context of GJohn in its entirety. Putting it in a nutshell, I attempt to show that there is a four-phased apprehension of Jesus depicted in GJohn, by which the author sought to have a unique impact on his readers in line with the overall plot of GJohn. In the following sections of this Chapter, I will first outline the previous diverse investigations made on the subject. Pointing out a gap in which this 1

As well as not seeing and not hearing.

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

work can make a contribution, I will state the method and approach I have taken. Lastly, I will lay out how the present study is going to be conducted. But before venturing into the diverse previous investigations, a brief aside on the introductory issues of GJohn is necessary.

A. Authorship, Audience, and the Gospel A. Authorship, Audience, and the Gospel

We know little about the actual and concrete historical situation of GJohn’s author, his first readers, or anything about the prehistory of the text despite many controversial proposals and reconstructions. Like the other canonical gospels, strictly speaking, the author of GJohn is anonymous. In this monograph, by using “the author” or “John,” I refer to the author of GJohn as a whole, whoever his identity is. However, taking into account of the patristic evidence but noticing scholars’ dissidence, I consider that GJohn could be attributed to the work of a person called the “Beloved Disciple” whose identity is very likely to be John the son of Zebedee. Noticing many other possibilities discussed by numerous scholars,2 this traditional view is assumed in this monograph. Moreover, being aware of scholars’ discussions on the composition history of GJohn, I only take the final text of GJohn as the basis of our discussion.3 As with other canonical gospels, GJohn belongs to the genre of Greco-Roman bioi.4 The final form of the text could have been completed and circulated some time from the 80s to 90s in the late first century, with its plausible provenance at Ephesus in view of the Wirkungsgeschichte of the Gospel.5 Regarding the audience of GJohn, or the “readers” as discussed in this monograph in our analysing the text, they are John’s intended first readers who lived in the late first century. Here, Culpepper’s assumption is taken that “the actual author(s) wrote for intended, actual readers, and that the implied

2 Among the huge volume of literature on it, see for instance, Robert Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1975), 86–101; R. Alan Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 56–88; C. S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 81–139; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 5–24. 3 Thus, the source critical, redaction critical, or historicity issues lie outside the present scope of study. 4 Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004). 5 Paul Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius, WUNT 166 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 241–263. Cf. the parallels drawn in Sjef van Tilborg, Reading John in Ephesus, NovTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 1996).

A. Authorship, Audience, and the Gospel

3

readers fit the profile of the intended readers closely.”6 The intended readers are supposed to reflect the perceived identity of the actual/real readers, given an effective and meaningful communication by the author took place via GJohn.7 Regarding the nature of John’s audience, the recent proposal by Richard Bauckham and others that the gospels were intended from their beginning to have a very wide readership in the first century of the Roman Empire is noted together with its positive and negative appraisals. 8 In my analysis, such a 6 R. Alan Culpepper, “Pursuing the Elusive,” in What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies, ed. Tom Thatcher (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 114. Similarly, R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 212; Robert M. Fowler, “Who Is ‘the Reader’ in Reader Response Criticism,” Semeia, no. 31 (1985): 5–23; Jeffrey L. Staley, The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel, SBLDS 82 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988), 21–37; Francis J. Moloney, “Who Is ‘the Reader’ In/of the Fourth Gospel,” ABR 40 (1992): 20–33; Willis H. Salier, The Rhetorical Impact of the Semeia in the Gospel of John, WUNT 2/186 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 9–10. 7 At the same time, it is important to note Ricoeur’s distinction: “the implied author is a disguise of the real author, who disappears by making himself the narrator immanent in the work... the real reader is a concretization of the implied reader, intended by the narrator’s strategy of persuasion.... the phenomenology of the act of reading requires a flesh-andblood reader, who, in actualizing the role of the reader prestructured in and through the text, transform it.” Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, trans. David Pellauer and Kathleen Mclaughlin, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 3:169–170. Moloney’s comment then remains thoughtful to us: “The intended reader both is and is not the implied reader. The real reader is both is and is not the implied reader. Also, the real reader both is and is not the intended reader.” Francis J. Moloney, “Narrative Criticism of the Gospels,” in “A Hard Saying”: The Gospel and Culture (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001), 103. Similarly, D. François Tolmie, Jesus’ Farewell to the Disciples: John 13:1–17:26 in Narratological Perspective, BIS 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 34–49; Craig R. Koester, “The Spectrum of Johannine Readers,” in “What Is John?”: Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel, ed. Fernando F. Segovia, SBLSymS 3 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), 5–19; Stephen Motyer, “Method in Fourth Gospel Studies: A Way Out of the Impasse?,” JSNT 66 (1997): 27–44. 8 Richard J. Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998); David C. Sim, “The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham,” JSNT 24, no. 84 (2002): 3–27; Margaret M. Mitchell, “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim That ‘The Gospels Were Written for All Christians,’” NTS 51, no. 1 (2005): 36–79; Christopher Tuckett, “Gospels and Communities. Was Mark Written for a Suffering Community?,” in Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity: Studies in Honour of Henk Jan De Jonge, ed. Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, Harm W. Hollander, and Johannes Tromp, NovTSup 130 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 377–83; Edward W. Klink, ed., The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity, LNTS 353 (London: T&T Clark, 2010); Richard Last, “Communities That Write: Christ-Groups, Associations, and Gospel Communities,” NTS 58, no. 2 (2012): 173–98.

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

possibility of a wide readership in John’s mind is neither rejected nor taken as one of my presuppositions. Furthermore, it is not my intention to analyse GJohn in light of the socalled “Johannine Community,” if it existed.9 The concept of a “sectarian and synagogal” Johannine Community, whose history is constructed out of a special reading of GJohn on the assumption that the gospel shows serious disarrangements, as a result of being composed and redacted over a long period of time, is a speculative hypothesis. Severe criticisms have been noted in recent years.10 As a result, I am doubtful whether we can treat GJohn as telling the story of Jesus and the history of the Johannine community simul-

9 J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2003); Wayne A. Meeks, “Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL 91, no. 1 (1972): 44–72; R. Alan Culpepper, The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools, SBLDS 26 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975); Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979); Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. Francis J. Moloney, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 2003). 10 It is notable to see Robert Kysar’s concluding comments, “there is now sufficient evidence in these early years to indicate that the whither of the Johannine community [the future of the theory] is likely to include its demise.” Robert Kysar, “The Whence and Whither of the Johannine Community,” in Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown, ed. John R. Donahue (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2005), 76. See also Luke Timothy Johnson, “On Finding the Lukan Community: A Cautious Cautionary Essay,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Paul J. Achtmeier (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979), 89–100; Thomas L. Brodie, The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel: A Source-Oriented Approach (London: Oxford University Press, 1993), 15–21; van Tilborg, Reading John in Ephesus, 59–109; Jean Zumstein, “Zur Geschichte des johanneischen Christentums,” TLZ 122 (1997): 417–28; Adele Reinhartz, “The Johannine Community and Its Jewish Neighbors: A Reappraisal,” in What Is John?: Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel, ed. F. F. Segovia, vol. 2, 2 vols., SBLSymS 3 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1998), 111–38; Richard J. Bauckham, “For Whom Were Gospels Written?,” in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, ed. Richard J. Bauckham (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 9–48; Robert Kysar, “The Expulsion from the Synagogue: The Tale of a Theory,” in Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 237–45; Edward W. Klink, “The Gospel Community Debate: State of the Question,” Currents in Biblical Research 3, no. 1 (2004): 60–85; Adele Reinhartz, “Reading History in the Fourth Gospel,” in What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies, ed. Tom Thatcher (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 191–94; Edward W. Klink, The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John, SNTSMS 141 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Warren Carter, John and Empire: Initial Explorations (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 7–15, 19–45; Klink, Audience; Eyal Regev, “Were the Early Christians Sectarians?,” JBL 130, no. 4 (2011): 771–93; David A. Lamb, Text, Context and the Johannine Community: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Johannine Writings, LNTS (London: T&T Clark, 2014).

B. Previous Investigation

5

taneously in the way Louis Martyn proposed (his “two-level drama”).11 Rather, another “two levels” in GJohn, namely the story of Jesus and the characters and that of Jesus and the readers, are better read along the lines of the authorial intention traceable from the text. They are the focus of the present investigation.

B. Previous Investigations B. Previous Investigation

Going back to the subject of “apprehension of Jesus,” on a surface level, it appears to be absent in most Johannine works.12 There are reasons for that. When writing about a comprehensive study on the concept of revelation in GJohn, John Ashton put forward reasons why no one had ever undertaken it. Two of these equally apply to the concept of apprehension of Jesus. First, because (in Ashton’s words) “most scholars, both budding and full-blown, still find it easier to study a word than a concept,” studies on the concept of apprehending Jesus remain similarly by and large fragmented, as will be shown in the following overview. Second, because of the “sheer ubiquity” of the apprehension vocabulary, studies are often focused on a single thread of the vocabulary, or at most very few.13 The only “close to” exception is probably Franz Mussner. Almost fifty years ago, Mussner attempted to incorporate Hans-Georg Gadamer’s idea of “fusion of horizons” to revisit the Johannine “mode of vision.” 14 Through brief studies on “gnoseological terminology” (seeing, hearing, knowing, wit11

William Wright argues cogently that Martyn’s hypothesis in essence belongs to a kind of allegorical/figural interpretation rather than a historical reconstruction. Utilising ancient rhetoric, the text of GJohn is “an unfolding argument about Jesus’ identity” more than a history of the Johannine community. William M. Wright, Rhetoric and Theology: Figural Reading of John 9, BZNW 165 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 57–98. While not dismissing the idea of “two levels,” David Aune also notes that “one cannot assume that each Gospel story exactly mirrors the situation of the Evangelist’s community.” David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988), 60. Most recently, Jonathan Bernier also defends the case that the ἀποσυνάγωγος passages could refer to events during Jesus’ lifetime. Jonathan Bernier, Aposynagōgos and the Historical Jesus in John: Rethinking the Historicity of the Johannine Expulsion Passages, BIS 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2013). 12 Cf. the introduction section of most Johannine commentaries, works on Johannine theology, and recent edited volumes. 13 John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 491. 14 Franz Mussner, Die Johanneische Sehweise und die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus, QD 28 (Freiburg: Herder, 1965). Horizontverschmelzung emphasises that the generation of meaning occurs in the merging of the contemporary reader’s horizons with the horizons of the historical past.

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

nessing, and remembering) based on isolated texts, he aims at showing to what extent the Johannine Christ is relevant to the Quest of the Historical Jesus and why John is different from the synoptic gospels. Mussner contributed to the discussion by providing foundational analysis of the threads of vocabulary I will study. Yet, with his different purposes just noted, Mussner unfortunately fell into the problems Ashton raised: his study is word-based instead of concept-based; with his “gnoseological” focus, an important but complicated element is insufficiently analysed, viz., the believing terms in GJohn.15 While his contributions will be further noted, rapid changes have occurred since Mussner’s work, not least the rise of narrative criticism. In light of these observations, a review of the recent history of research is apt. 1. On Seeing and Its Relation to Other Concepts Seeing and hearing, out of the five senses, are the most prominent faculties mentioned in GJohn. 16 As an element of apprehending Jesus, the eminent Johannine scholar Edwin Abbott claimed that seeing has subtle shades of connotations in GJohn. Different Greek verbs (βλέπω, θεάοµαι, θεωρέω, ἰδού, and ὁράω) have different meanings in themselves, ranging from ocular vision, to looking with concentration, to sign accompanying real understanding, or to contemplation. 17 Raymond E. Brown, in surveying the peculiar Johannine import of these “crucial words,” briefly noted the problems in differentiating shades of meaning based on the use of different Greek verbs. He concluded that positing different types of sight in GJohn should not be founded solely on the author’s choice of seeing vocabulary.18 But how should they be founded? After all, are there different types of sight in GJohn? A closer look will reveal its complexity.

15 But see his influence on Schwankl’s light and darkness motifs; Otto Schwankl, Licht und Finsternis: Ein metaphorisches Paradigma in den johanneischen Schriften, Herders biblische Studien 5 (Freiburg: Herder, 1995). 16 Dorothy Lee has probed into the cooperation of five senses, namely sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell in GJohn. Dorothy A. Lee, “The Gospel of John and the Five Senses,” JBL 129, no. 1 (2010): 115–27. But upon close scrutiny, tasting, touching, and smelling, in terms of the concepts themselves, are apparently not as prominent as she claimed. 17 Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary: A Comparison of the Words of the Fourth Gospel with Those of the Three, Diatessarica 5 (London: A. and C. Black, 1905), §1597– 1611; G. L. Phillips, “Faith and Vision in the Fourth Gospel,” in Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ed. F.L. Cross and C.H. Dodd (London: Mowbray, 1957), 83–96. 18 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I—XII: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 29 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 501–3. Similarly, see Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, trans. A. Stewart Todd and James B. Torrance (London: SCM, 1953), 41.

B. Previous Investigation

7

One important aspect of the seeing vocabulary is that seeing is repeatedly associated with seeing “signs.” Rudolf Bultmann, Robert Fortna, and others19 first attempted to construct a putative signs gospel based on the use of σηµεῖον in GJohn. But now the near impossibility of retrieving the underlying sources is almost universally recognised.20 If so, turning to the text itself, what is meant by a “sign” (σηµεῖον) that is seen? Scholars differ on this basic issue. Other than the six signs explicitly mentioned in GJohn, 21 are other things Jesus said or did signs? R. 19 Rudolf K. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. BeasleyMurray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 6–7, 113; Wilhelm Wilkens, Zeichen und Werke: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des 4. Evangeliums in Erzählungs- und Redestoff, ATANT 55 (Zürich: Zwingli, 1969); Robert T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Robert T. Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Willem Nicol, The Sēmeia in the Fourth Gospel: Tradition and Redaction, NovTSup 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1972); Urban C. von Wahlde, The Earliest Version of John’s Gospel: Recovering the Gospel of Signs (Wilmington: Glazier, 1989); Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John: Vol. 1: Introduction, Analysis, and Reference, ECC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010). 20 Eugen Ruckstuhl, Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums: Der gegenwärtige Stand der einschlägigen Forschungen, Studia Friburgensia, Neue Folge 3 (Freiburg Schweiz: Paulusverlag, 1951), 291–330; Donald A. Carson, “Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions,” JBL 97, no. 3 (1978): 411–29; Wolfgang J. Bittner, Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium: Die MessiasErkenntnis im Johannesevangelium vor ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund, WUNT 2/26 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 2–15; Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), 150–64; Christian Welck, Erzählte Zeichen: Die Wundergeschichten des Johannesevangeliums literarisch untersucht: Mit einem Ausblick auf Joh 21, WUNT 2/69 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 12–14; Gilbert Van Belle, The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel: Historical Survey and Critical Evaluation of the Semeia Hypothesis, BETL 116 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994); Gilbert Van Belle, “Style Criticism and the Fourth Gospel,” in One Text, a Thousand Methods: Studies in Memory of Sjef van Tilborg, ed. Patrick Chatelion Counet and Ulrich Berges (Boston: Brill Academic, 2005), 291–316. Instead of a signs source, Udo Schnelle proposes that use of σημεῖον should be attributed to the Evangelist himself. Schnelle, Antidocetic-Christology, 145. 21 2:11, 4:54, 6:2 (5:1–18); 6:14, 9:16, and 12:18. For various attempts to identify the seventh sign, see Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples according to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel’s Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 55–72; Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 329–35. For the debate on whether crucifixion and resurrection should be seen as the last sign, see C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (London: SPCK, 1978), 78; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John,

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

Schnackenburg maintained that signs are “works of Jesus, performed in the sight of his disciples, miracles, in fact, which of their nature should lead to faith in ‘Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God’.” 22 Yet for C. H. Dodd, “a σηµεῖον is not, in essence, a miraculous act, but a significant act, one which, for the seeing eye and the understanding mind, symbolises eternal realities.”23 Rudolf Bultmann, in claiming that Jesus’ signs and words are interchangeable, considered that the entire GJohn can be comprised under the term “signs.”24 G. R. Beasley-Murray, in reaction to Bultmann, insisted that “signs” are “specifically actions of Jesus, generally miraculous, which find their exposition in discourses.”25 From this glimpse of various definitions, we can see the debate hinges on whether a sign should be miraculous, whether it should have an intrinsic symbolic value, and how it is connected with Jesus’ works/act. These discussions provide us an understanding of the debated nature of seeing signs. But seeing or seeing signs in GJohn is also linked to the concept of believing. a) Seeing and Believing Scholars have long noted the connection of seeing to believing in GJohn. There is a tension between a seeing of signs that leads to faith and a seeing of signs that does not lead to faith.26 Brown analysed this succinctly via his proposal of “four stages of faith.”27 The first stage is the reaction of those who are unbelieving and refused to see ed. J. Massingberd Ford and Kevin Smyth, trans. Kevin Smyth, vol. 1, 3 vols. (New York: Herder, 1968), 520n.7; Salier, Semeia, 142–71. 22 Schnackenburg, John-I, 1:515. 23 C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 90. Dodd also suggested that the evangelist considered the cleansing of the temple and the washing of the disciples’ feet a σηµεῖον too. Similarly, Brown treated the elevation of the serpent in Moses’ time (3:14–15) as another nonmiraculous sign. Brown, John-I, 528. Marianne Thompson treated signs as “a manifestation.” Marianne Meye Thompson, “Signs and Faith in the Fourth Gospel,” BBR 1 (1991): 89–108; 93–94. Köstenberger has it as “a symbol-laden, but not necessarily ‘miraculous,’ public work of Jesus selected and explicitly identified as such by John for the reason that it displays God’s glory in Jesus who is thus shown to be God’s true representative.” Köstenberger, Theology of John, 328. 24 Bultmann, John, 698. For the debate he generated on whether signs are in themselves revelation, see the summary of Marianne M. Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 56. 25 G.R. Beasley-Murray, John, 2nd ed., WBC (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 386. 26 This arises from an alleged conflict between the Evangelist and the “signs source” he used. But see footnote 20. 27 For a much earlier discussion on the stages of faith in Calvin’s commentary on GJohn and similar disagreement in church history on whether signs/miracles can advance faith,

B. Previous Investigation

9

signs. The second is those who believed through seeing signs but their faith is nevertheless not real. The third stage is those who see the true significance of signs and believed. There are two sub-stages within this: germinating faith and “full salvific faith,” the latter being available only after Jesus’ resurrection (cf. Thomas’ confession, 20:28). The last stage is those who believed without seeing signs, which is exalted as the author appeals to “the lifesituation of the Church.”28 Is the last stage of faith mentioned above superior to the others? Brown considered this a speculation which is “rather idle” to be asked.29 But this question is pursued by various scholars. Walter Grundmann held that signs faith is altogether insufficient. 30 Bultmann saw “a deep intention” behind 20:29 that criticised anyone who, like Thomas, “asks for tangible demonstrations of the Revealer.”31 Fortna, following Bultmann, drew from the text a “clear implication that belief without seeing signs is a superior form of faith.” 32 However, Ferdinand Hahn and others argued against this. Hahn claimed that a signs faith is never said to be wrong or inferior.33 Loren Johns and Douglas Miller similarly argued that signs in 2:23–3:21, 4:48, 6:25–51, and 20:24–29 could be understood as consistently having a positive role for faith. 34 Marianne Thompson captured well the problem of Bultmann and others, saying that they “denigrate signs as providing the requisite basis for faith. Instead, the believer must turn away from the sign to see a greater, spiritual, or otherworldly reality of the deed itself.”35 She rightly questioned such an approach of negating the importance of initial eyewitness in GJohn and highlighted the significance of the materiality of signs.36

see Barbara Pitkin, “Seeing and Believing in the Commentaries on John by Martin Bucer and John Calvin,” Church History 68, no. 4 (1999): 865–85. 28 Brown, John-I, 530–31. 29 Ibid., 531. 30 Walter Grundmann, “Verständnis und Bewegung des Glaubens im JohannesEvangelium,” KD 6 (1960): 131–54; Brown, John-I, 530–31. 31 Rudolf K. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1951), 2:57. 32 Robert T. Fortna, “Source and Redaction in the Fourth Gospel’s Portrayal of Jesus’ Signs,” JBL 89, no. 2 (1970): 162. 33 Ferdinand Hahn, “Sehen und Glauben im Johannesevangelium,” in Neues Testament und Geschichte: historisches Geschehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament: Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Heinrich Baltensweiler and Bo Ivar Reicke (Tübingen: Mohr, 1972), 129; Bittner, Zeichen; Schnelle, Antidocetic-Christology, 169–70. 34 Loren L. Johns and Douglas B. Miller, “The Signs as Witnesses in the Fourth Gospel: Reexamining the Evidence,” CBQ 56, no. 3 (1994): 519–35. 35 Thompson, Humanity, 55. 36 In another article, she also affirmed the positive value of seeing signs which leads to faith. Thompson, “Signs and Faith.”

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

These aforementioned controversies are unsettled. While Brown’s four stages of faith appear logical and systematic, are there alternatives to his formulation?37 How are the stages deployed in GJohn? Are they systematically related to different parts of GJohn? b) Seeing Is Believing Probing further into the thorny issue of seeing and believing, one finds another proposal suggesting that seeing and believing essentially boil down to one single idea. Bultmann contended that seeing in GJohn is faith’s perception. According to him, seeing, hearing, and believing are more than parallel to each other. They are identical. In treating the seeing vocabulary as wholly a subset under the idea of believing, the vocabulary’s eyewitnessing function is denied.38 Wilhelm Michaelis, in his TDNT article, argued that “sight is for him [John] the seeing of faith… it is itself faith.”39 Emphasising Bultmann’s notion of existential encounters with Jesus, Michaelis considered that seeing in GJohn is consistently understood as spiritual perception and almost never as sense perception/eyewitnessing in its real sense. Seeing Jesus is then understood as “the decision which is taken in encounter with Jesus and which is a turning to faith.”40 In the same vein, Andrew Lincoln also argued that seeing in the Johannine prologue is not “the everyday language of physical seeing.” It is “virtually synonymous” with receiving, knowing, and believing in its context.41 On this issue, Ernst Käsemann countered Bultmann’s assertions by maintaining that miracles, perceived by the physical senses, are indispensable for any idea of divine intervention and manifestations of Jesus’ glory. 42 Cullmann maintained that while a “spiritual” seeing is often “kept in mind alongside as a challenge,” “seeing in the flesh” has played an important role in 37 For instance, Fernando Pérez modified Brown’s stages and investigated the relationship of seeing to believing in selected pericopae in GJohn; Fernando R. Pérez, Ver a Jesús y sus signos, y creer en Él: Estudio exegético-teológico de la relación “ver y creer” en el evangelio según san Juan, Analecta Gregoriana 292 (Rome: Editrice Pontifica Universita Gregoriana, 2004). 38 Bultmann, Theology, 2:72. 39 Wilhelm Michaelis, “ὁράω κτλ,” TDNT. 40 Ibid., C.2.e. 41 Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness,” JSNT 85 (2002): 3–26; 8. Similarly, Arthur Dewey contends that seeing throughout GJohn is not “a matter of physical contact” but “of insight into a deeper understanding,” “a multifaceted envisioning.” Arthur J. Dewey, “The Eyewitness of History: Visionary Consciousness in the Fourth Gospel,” in Jesus in Johannine Tradition, ed. Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2001), 66, 69. 42 Ernst Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17, trans. Gerhard Krodel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 21–22.

B. Previous Investigation

11

GJohn.43 Mussner similarly stressed that seeing and believing are not identical.44 Ashton, while he noted the close synonymy between seeing and believing, also acknowledged that there is a tension between the two and it “comes to full expression” in the Thomas pericope.45 Richard Bauckham asserted that in a number of cases, seeing is distinguishable from believing. There is, indeed, a distinction between empirical sight and spiritual perception together with a temporal limitation of Jesus’ “then and there” bringing in, as I will also argue in this monograph. Furthermore, as Bauckham contended, John’s usage comes close to the use of the seeing language in Greco-Roman historiography with which GJohn should be identified.46 In addition to these scholarly discussions on seeing and believing, hearing frequently accompanies seeing, which should not be missed in our tracing the scholars’ contributions on the subject. 2. On Hearing and Its Relation to Other Concepts Gerhard Kittel, in his TDNT article, pointed out that hearing in GJohn (8:43; 18:37) has an equally strong emphasis alongside seeing (1:14).47 G. L. Phillips, in his analysis on faith and vision in GJohn, however, contended that “throughout, the imagination of the writer can be shown to be visual rather than aural.” 48 Here one has observed that hearing and seeing, though they could be viewed as complementary, are treated as in competition. a) Hearing Vs. Seeing Craig Koester, following Becker and others, 49 after his penetrating literary analyses of the narratival episodes in John 1–12 and 20, argued that genuine faith is engendered through hearing Jesus’ words; seeing signs only runs secondary to it, serving to confirm or deepen the faith evoked in the hear-

43

Oscar Cullmann, “Eiden kai episteusen. La vie de Jésus, objet de la «vue» et de la «foi» d’après le Quatrième Evangile,” in Aux sources de la Tradition chrétienne (Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950), 52–61; Cullmann, Worship, 38–45. 44 Mussner, Sehweise, 23. 45 Ashton, Understanding, 496. 46 Richard J. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 405–6. 47 Gerhard Kittel, “Ἀκούω Κτλ.,” TDNT, 1964, 1:217–25. 48 Phillips, “Faith-Vision,” 83. 49 Schnackenburg, John-I, 1:563; Jürgen Becker, “Wunder und Christologie: Zum literarkritischen und christologischen Problem der Wunder im Johannesevangelium,” NTS 16, no. 2 (1970): 130–48; Luise Schottroff, Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt, WMANT 37 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970), 251–58; Bultmann, John, 119; Culpepper, Anatomy, 147.

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

ing. 50 According to him, “‘signs faith’ cannot be understood as a first step toward genuine faith, since the characters who manifest signs-faith consistently fail to move beyond it.”51 While he is observant in identifying pairs of contrasting responses to Jesus in different episodes with regard to seeing and hearing, Koester perhaps too quickly sets hearing Jesus’ words and seeing his signs in dichotomy. When one considers more than only the responses of characters in those episodes, then hearing is not always superior to seeing. There are cases in GJohn, for instance 12:47, where one could hear but not believe.52 The correspondence of hearing to faith, as in the case of seeing, remains complex. b) Hearing Is Believing Bultmann, in putting forward an identity between Jesus and his word, considered genuine hearing as identical to faith. This genuine hearing is closely connected to learning (6:45) and keeping Jesus’ words (12:47). Bultmann saw hearing as united with seeing in 5:37 and 8:38.53 Similarly, Dorothy Lee, in taking hearing as the basis of discipleship, considered that in GJohn to hear is to gain eternal life. While admitting the possibility of hearing yet not believing, she saw that in GJohn to hear aright is to recognise the Father’s voice through Jesus’ words and to follow him.54 As in the case of seeing discussed above, however, hearing with one’s ears and hearing with one’s heart should not be treated as identical without a thorough examination of the different texts in GJohn. Gerhard Schneider rightly demonstrated that as in some other languages, so also in the Greek of GJohn, hearing can be used in the form of acoustical hearing, being distinguishable from being used symbolically to connote the sense of heeding and obedience. 55 Thus, what Cullmann commented about seeing could equally be applied here. The twofold meaning of the word “hear” (acoustical as well as symbolic) points to the twofold quality 50 Craig R. Koester, “Hearing, Seeing, and Believing in the Gospel of John,” Bib 70, no. 3 (1989): 327–48. 51 Ibid., 348. Cf. Grundmann, “Glaube,” 142. 52 Thompson notes that 12:37–38, in asserting the guilt of those unbelievers, implies that signs are intended to lead people to faith, i.e., contradicting Koester’s view that it can never be “a first step toward genuine faith.” Thompson, “Signs and Faith,” 99n.24. Similarly, Lammers, in criticising Bultmann and Grundmann, claims a “gegenseitige Ergänzung” between hearing and seeing. Klaus Lammers, Hören, Sehen und Glauben im Neuen Testament, SBS 11 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966), 55–62. Cf. Anthony Dennis Hopkins, “A Narratological Approach to the Development of Faith in the Gospel of John” (PhD dissertation, Louisville, KY: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1992), 78–79. 53 Bultmann, Theology, 2:71–72. 54 Lee, “Senses,” 121. 55 Gerhard Schneider, “Ἀκούω,” EDNT, 1990, 5c. Cf. John 3:8; 5:37 with 18:37. More ambiguous examples: 5:25, 28.

B. Previous Investigation

13

of apprehending Jesus that is aural and also demands “a higher understanding in the context of faith.”56 c) Hearing and Divine Instruction Further, hearing cannot be isolated from the concept of teaching. Recently Stephen Witmer, in his Divine Instruction in Early Christianity, saw in the connection of ἀκούω, µανθάνω, and διδάσκω in 6:45–46 and 8:28 a didactic relationship of Jesus and the Father such that “the language of hearing and seeing” speaks of “learning and being taught.” 57 Thus, according to Witmer, to hear Jesus’ words/teaching is to be taught directly by God. Witmer’s study, which encompasses divine instruction in the Johannine corpus, Paul and Matthew, sheds light on understanding how hearing functions in GJohn from the perspective of a didactic framework.58 Our survey above thus reveals that seeing and hearing represent a more complex phenomenon than scholars often allow. There is not yet a satisfactory answer to questions raised by Johannine scholars, especially with regard to the role of seeing and hearing in GJohn, how they relate to each other in promoting faith in the readers, and the relationship of these terms with other sets of apprehension vocabulary. Further in-depth analyses are appropriate. 3. On Knowing and Its Relation to Other Concepts The third set of apprehension vocabulary is concerned with knowing. Knowing in GJohn is classically addressed in Bultmann’s entry in TDNT. In it, he differentiated the Greek notion of knowledge from the Hebrew one. Bultmann contended that the Greek stresses the process of knowing as analogous to seeing (pure rational intuition), whereas the Hebrew describes the experience of an object in relation to its subject expressed in the forms of “acknowledgment, and obedient or grateful submission.” 59 According to Bult56

Cullmann, Worship, 46. Stephen E. Witmer, Divine Instruction in Early Christianity, WUNT 2/246 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 99. 58 Witmer suggested a pedagogical connection with legal/witness terminology which could form a background to understanding texts in GJohn. For instance, “the education milieu of teachers and students may stand behind Jesus’ witnessing to what he has seen and heard (John 3:11, 32).” Ibid., 102. In this regard, Fernando Segovia also acknowledges that Jesus’ farewell discourse has a didactic function on top of other functions (exhortation, admonition, consolatory, and polemical). Jason Sturdevant identifies the pedagogical role of Jesus in GJohn in terms of “an adaptable psychagogy.” Fernando F. Segovia, The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991), 291–99; Jason S. Sturdevant, “Incarnation as Psychagogy: The Purpose of the Word’s Descent in John’s Gospel,” NovT 56, no. 1 (2014): 24–44. 59 Rudolf K. Bultmann, “Γινώσκω Κτλ.,” TDNT, 1964, 1:689–719. For the stress on the Hebraic idea of corporate personality, see Ann Marie B. Bahr, “‘Knowing God’ in the 57

14

Chapter 1: Introduction

mann, knowing in GJohn emphatically denotes the latter. 60 This GreekHebrew distinction continues to be held in Dodd’s classic work, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. In it, he pointed out that the Johannine knowledge is no mere “intellectual apprehension.” From John 1:10 and 17:25, however, he sees “an interweaving of Hellenistic and Hebraic conceptions.”61 Regarding knowledge of God, Dodd saw GJohn as very different from the OT. In “nearly all O.T. passages,” such knowledge is not set in the present but in the future. In GJohn, however, this knowledge of God is put in the present.62 The knowledge of God as vision is now mediated through contemplating the historic life of Jesus. From these discussions, one can readily sense the development of a sophisticated subtlety in understanding the meaning of knowing instead of a simple Greek vs. Hebrew dichotomy. a) Οἶδα and γινώσκω Another noticeable issue which has changed since Bultmann’s time is the relationship of οἶδα and γινώσκω. While scholars, like Dodd and Bultmann, saw no difference between these two verbs of knowing,63 Ignace de la Potterie first proposed that οἶδα should be differentiated from γινώσκω. 64 A. Horstmann followed de la Potterie’s idea in his EDNT entry.65 Mussner suggested that οἶδα denotes a higher degree of certainty than γινώσκω.66 John McHugh concurred by suggesting that γινώσκω denotes “knowledge as something acquired, by discovery, experience or thought” while οἶδα denotes “knowledge as something possessed, something known as a fact.” 67 James Fourth Gospel: The Household and the Word” (PhD dissertation, Pennsylvania: Temple University, 1989). 60 According to Bultmann, there is also paradoxically an influence from Hellenistic Gnosticism. Yet this idea has much less support now. See E.D. Schmitz, “Γινώσκω Κτλ.,” NIDNTT, 1976, 2:392–406; Michael A. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999); Robert Kysar, Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 82. The affinity of GJohn in its reception to Gnostic circles rather than orthodox Christianity has been convincingly debunked by Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). 61 Dodd, Interpretation, 157. 62 Ibid., 163–64. 63 Ibid., 152; Barrett, John, 162–63; Bultmann, “Γινώσκω Κτλ.”; BDF §126, 1aβ. 64 Ignace de la Potterie, “οἶδα et γινώσκω. Les deux modes de la connaissance dans le quatrième Évangile,” Bib 40 (1959): 709–25. Cf. “…as dist[inct]. fr[om]. οἶδα know by reflection, γιγνώσκω, = know by observation.” “γινώσκω,” LSJ. But note the absence of such distinction prior to LSJ ninth edition (1940). 65 A. Horstmann, “Οἶδα,” EDNT, 1991, 2:494–95. 66 Mussner, Sehweise, 32. 67 John F. McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4, ed. G. N. Stanton, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 221.

B. Previous Investigation

15

Gaffney, having acknowledged de la Potterie’s work, however, came up with a position similar to Dodd and Bultmann: the two verbs are generally interchangeable.68 Evidently, a thorough investigation into the evidence from both sides is demanded before any final judgment can be made. b) Knowing and Believing Like seeing and hearing, knowing also relates to believing. Bultmann treated knowing as a subset of believing, functioning as a “structural aspect” of it, similar to the case of seeing and hearing. In his view, knowledge, as with the previous apprehension vocabulary, is synonymous with faith in GJohn.69 The fact that knowing and believing can be reversed in order in 17:8 and 16:30 also rules out the possibility that believing “in the fullest sense” and knowing could be distinguished or be put in stages (as seemingly the case in 8:30–32, 10:38, 6:69). Thus, to Bultmann, who is followed by Mussner, all knowing is a “knowing-in-faith.”70 On the contrary, Gaffney, though he also observed some instances of synonymy, admitted that he could not prove that believing and knowing are “in all instances” synonymous.71 Nonetheless, he painstakingly differentiated the distinctive meanings of knowing and believing from what is common to them both. He conceived that believing concerns the idea of accepting testimonies, has a more volitional flavour, and accepts moral consequences. On the other hand, knowing relates to having insight into the deeper meaning of Jesus’ signs/works and words and has a more intellectual flavour. However, they both involve a “specifically Christological transposition” from belief in and knowledge of Yahweh to “a loyal, trustful, and loving acknowledgement of 68 James Gaffney, “Believing and Knowing in the Fourth Gospel,” TS 26, no. 2 (1965): 215–41. On the view that sees οἶδα as a hyponym of γινώσκω from a verbal aspect perspective, see Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament: With Reference to Tense and Mood, SBG 1 (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 282–287. See also Kenneth L. McKay, “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,” NovT 23, no. 4 (1981): 298–307; Richard J. Erickson, “Oida and Ginōskō and Verbal Aspect in Pauline Usage,” WTJ 44, no. 1 (1982): 110–22; Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament, SBG 13 (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 202–3. Cf. Burdick’s wise conclusion after his review of the use of οἶδα and γινώσκω in Pauline epistles: “Each occurrence must be examined independently and interpreted in the light of its own context.” D. W. Burdick, “Οἶδα and Γινώσκω in the Pauline Epistles,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974), 354. 69 Bultmann, Theology, 2:73–74. 70 Ibid., 2:74; Bultmann, John, 435; Mussner, Sehweise, 27. Similarly, Barrett, John, 307. 71 Italic his. Gaffney, “Believing-Knowing,” 232. Even Brown admits that they are interchangeable to a certain extent only. Brown, John-I, 1:513.

16

Chapter 1: Introduction

God” as revealed in the words and works of Jesus.72 Nicholas Farelly, after analysing selected disciples in GJohn, proposed that, while faith is not independent of understanding in GJohn, faith may be engendered and fostered when full understanding is lacking and yet, with such faith as foundation, understanding can further flourish.73 Similarly, Cornelis Bennema also noted such a close connection between the Johannine knowledge and faith. Via a thematic approach, he pointed to the important pneumatological and Christocentric nature of John’s epistemology and noticed its cognitive, relational, volitional, and affective aspects.74 On the role of the concept of knowing to other elements in GJohn, Kasper Larsen has proposed parallels of type-scenes of recognition (anagnorises)75 between some parts of GJohn (mainly 1:35–51; 4:1–42; 9:1–41; 20:1–29) and ancient Greek narrative and drama. 76 From these pericopae, he reconstructed “five basic, constant moves,” out of which their variations can be explained by John’s particular ideological emphases. These recognitions, being always “euphoric” emphasise that “the recognition of Jesus is primarily social recognition of his divine thematic roles, not of his proper-name identity.”77 These newer studies represent an insightful dissenting voice against Bultmann. Yet, how do the common but different shades of knowing and believing function in the plot development to foster an apprehension of Jesus?

72

Gaffney, “Believing-Knowing,” 240. See further his critique of Bultmann, Nicolas Farelly, The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel: A Narrative Analysis of Their Faith and Understanding, WUNT 2/290 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 228; 219–29. 74 Cornelis Bennema, “Christ, the Spirit and the Knowledge of God,” in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God, ed. Mary Healy and Robin Parry (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2007), 107–33. Bennema also usefully identified a list of “epistemic” terms which included seeing terms (“sensory perception”; though incomplete) and discussed the lack of sensory perception as a “human epistemic condition.” But his focus was predominantly on the concept of knowing and believing in GJohn and the Spirit’s role in mediating the saving knowledge about Jesus to people. 75 Aristotle defined it as “a change from ignorance to knowledge, tending either to affection or enmity; it determines in the direction of good or ill fortune the fates of people involved (Poetics 1452a).” R. Alan Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1998), 72. 76 For earlier contributions of Hitchcock, Culpepper, and Stibbe, see Kasper Bro Larsen, Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John, BIS 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 6–17. 77 Ibid., 219. However, such Johannine recognitions have fundamental differences with anagnorisis in Greek literature as previously noted by Andrew T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 162. Larsen also claimed that there are developments of some particular moves of anagnorisis beyond the stories he mentioned (221). Yet they are, strictly speaking, not anagnorises. 73

B. Previous Investigation

17

4. On Witnessing and Its Relation to Other Concepts The fourth set of apprehension vocabulary concerns witnessing. James Boice in his revised doctoral thesis discussed different kinds of witnesses across GJohn. He opens up the recent discussion by suggesting that μαρτυρέω and μαρτυρία in GJohn are developed from the OT.78 In broader terms, Allison Trites conducted a comprehensive investigation on the use of the terminology in the NT.79 He drew on the juridical metaphor in Isa 40–55 (where the ‫ריב‬ phraseology is prevalent) to interpret the concept of witness in GJohn.80 In a similar vein, A. E. Harvey extended his discussion on John 18–19 and argued that GJohn as a whole is presented as a legal trial of Jesus out of John’s literary and historical concern.81 a) “The Trial Motif” These pioneering works generated substantial interest in the subject. On the one hand, Martin Asiedu-Peprah contended that the ‫ ריב‬pattern in GJohn (especially 5:1–47; 9:1–10:21) is best seen as a two-party juridical controversy (Jesus vs. Jews) rather than a lawsuit which involves accuser, defendant, and judge.82 Robert Maccini explored the trial motif’s relationship with the role of women witnesses in GJohn.83 He contended that John was “reporting 78

James Montgomery Boice, Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John, Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970). For earlier studies, see Henry C. Townsend, “The Gospel of Evidence,” Expositor 25, 8th series (1923): 312–20; Théo Preiss, “Justification in Johannine Thought,” in Life in Christ (London: SCM, 1957), 9–31; J. Clifford Hindley, “Witness in the Fourth Gospel,” SJT 18, no. 3 (1965): 319–37. 79 Allison A. Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness, SNTSMS 31 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). Cf. similarly Ignace de la Potterie, La Vérité dans Saint Jean, 2 vols., 2nd ed., AnBib 73–74 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1999). 80 Johannes Beutler, however, denies “any direct connexion” exists between John’s presentation of witnesses and the OT; Johannes Beutler, Martyria: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Zeugnisthema bei Johannes, Frankfurter Theologische Studien 10 (Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1972), 306; Robert G. Maccini, Her Testimony Is True: Women as Witnesses according to John, JSNTSup 125 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 32–33. For the non-legal use of the witnessing vocabulary, see Josaphat C. Tam, “How ‘True’ Is the ‘Witness’: An Examination of the Use of ALETHES and MARTYRIA with Special Reference to John 19:35” (ThM thesis, Deerfield, IL: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2008), 16–62. 81 A.E. Harvey, Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1976), 17. 82 Martin Asiedu-Peprah, Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as Juridical Controversy, WUNT 2/132 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). From an honour and shame perspective, Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Trials (Forensic) and Tribulations (Honor Challenges) of Jesus: John 7 in Social Science Perspective,” BTB 26, no. 3 (1996): 107–24. 83 Maccini, Testimony. See particularly chapter 2 for his too far-stretched set of vocabulary claiming to be juridical.

18

Chapter 1: Introduction

actual women’s testimonies” and not fabricating them as part of his agenda.84 Noticing the role of women as witnesses, the aforementioned legal motifs, and the distribution of inheritances in the Greco-Roman legal context, Beth Sheppard further argued that GJohn was crafted according to the conventions of classical forensic rhetoric and should be read as such.85 On the other hand, ideas of Harvey and Trites were picked up and expanded by Lincoln in his remarkable Truth on Trial. In it, he explored the uses of κρίνω and κρίσις as well as µαρτυρέω and μαρτυρία to see their role in the Johannine lawsuit motif.86 He substantiated their arguments from Isa 40–55 with an in-depth literary analysis of GJohn on the basis of Alan Culpepper’s literary approach and Louis Martyn’s “two-level drama” approach.87 According to Lincoln, the truth of the concept of witness in GJohn lies in the true judgment embodied in Jesus and the reliable connection between Jesus’ word and its fulfilment. These two elements are self-authenticating. He further claimed that this lawsuit motif is “second only to the narrative’s unique Christology, this metaphor of a lawsuit on a cosmic scale is the most distinctive characteristic holding many of the elements of its plot and discourse together.”88 Contrary to Maccini, Lincoln did not think the motif has anything to do with the idea of historicity.89 Adopting Paul Ricoeur’s “hermeneutics of testimony,” 90 the lawsuit language in GJohn belongs to the “confessional” aspect rather than “narrational”; i.e., it addresses the theological truth of Jesus’ identity more than the historical truth of the narrated events. Acknowledging Lincoln’s lawsuit motif and taking GJohn as a Greek tragic drama (at

84

Ibid., 249. Beth M. Sheppard, “The Gospel of John: A Roman Legal and Rhetorical Perspective” (PhD thesis, Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1999). She takes 1:16–18 as the ipsius causae statement of a case in a legal speech, 1:19–12:50 as the probatio of forensic orations, chapters 13–17 as a digression, 20:30–21:25 as relating to a peroration. For John’s use of the motif against the Greco-Roman and Diaspora-Jewish background so as to portray Jesus as the world’s true Emperer, see Per Jarle Bekken, The Lawsuit Motif in John’s Gospel from New Perspectives: Jesus Christ, Crucified Criminal and Emperor of the World, NovTSup 158 (Leiden: Brill Academic, 2014). 86 Andrew T. Lincoln, “Trials, Plots and the Narrative of the Fourth Gospel,” JSNT 56 (1994): 3–30; Lincoln, Truth. 87 Culpepper, Anatomy; Martyn, History and Theology. 88 Lincoln, Truth, 13. 89 Lincoln, “Beloved Disciple”; Lincoln, Truth, 369–97; Andrew T. Lincoln, “‘We Know That His Testimony Is True’: Johannine Truth Claims and Historicity,” in John, Jesus, and History: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views, ed. P.N. Anderson, F. Just, and T. Thatcher, SBLSymS 44 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 179–97. 90 Paul Ricoeur, “The Hermeneutics of Testimony,” in Essays on Biblical Interpretation, ed. Lewis S. Mudge (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 119–54. 85

B. Previous Investigation

19

the same time a legal rhetoric), George Parsenios applied them to explore the forensic overtone of ζητέω and σηµεῖον.91 This recent trend of understanding the Johannine witness vocabulary is not without problems. Ashton’s comment on Harvey’s work is astute and is also applicable to subsequent ones: Although it is undeniable that the trial motif is prevalent in John 5–21, “the Evangelist weaves a whole series of other motifs into the story as well.” Moreover, support for a “cosmic trial” motif in John 1–4 is not obvious.92 Though Lincoln and others contributed to appreciating the Johannine witnessing vocabulary, it may be doubted whether the range of meanings in GJohn’s use of µαρτυρέω and µαρτυρία are adequately addressed. 93 D. Moody Smith rightly questioned, “is it not only a leitmotif, however, but the leitmotif around which the Gospel is constructed?”94 Acknowledging these scholars’ contributions, there appears to be a lacuna for a wider evaluation of the function of witnessing vocabulary in relation to other key themes in GJohn. b) Witnessing and Seeing As noted in the preceding works, witnessing is associated with seeing. Ostensibly, there is an eyewitness dimension in GJohn (e.g. 19:35) which has led scholars to discuss the relationship between the implied and the real author of GJohn.95 Nevertheless, this eyewitness feature also appeals to the seeing and witnessing language running through GJohn. On this latter issue, Lincoln contended that the language of witness is not related to any eyewitness historical function but rather a purely literary device.96 It is confessional in nature which serves as a tool to express solely the author’s theological message. To 91 George L. Parsenios, Rhetoric and Drama in the Johannine Lawsuit Motif, WUNT 258 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). 92 Ashton, Understanding, 414. 93 Cf. my analysis: Tam, “John 19:35,” 16–63. 94 Italic his. D. Moody Smith, review of Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel, by Andrew T. Lincoln,” JTS 58, no. 1 (2007): 221–26. See also Parsenios, Rhetoric and Drama, 34–36. Compare Harris’ similar critique to Trites and Harvey, Elizabeth Harris, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist, JSNTSup 107 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 44–48. 95 E.g., Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “The Hermeneutics of I-Witness Testimony: John 21.20–24 and the ‘Death’ of the ‘Author,’” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson, ed. A. Graeme Auld, JSOTSup 152 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 366–87; Derek Tovey, Narrative Art and Act in the Fourth Gospel, JSNTSup 151 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997); Richard J. Bauckham, “The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author,” JSNT 49 (1993): 21–44; Andreas J. Köstenberger and Stephen O. Stout, “‘The Disciple Jesus Loved’: Witness, Author, Apostle: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,” BBR 18, no. 2 (2008): 209–32. 96 Lincoln, “Beloved Disciple.”

20

Chapter 1: Introduction

him, all eyewitnessing elements of the Beloved Disciple (hereafter BD), including 19:35, are best seen as “part of the literary device constituted by BD’s role in the narrative” functioning to “bolster the verisimilitude of the narrative.” 97 Gospel traditions were “reflected on, embellished, and woven into a distinctive narrative whole with its own theological viewpoint and persuasive purposes and then this final product was attributed to an eyewitness.”98 Thus, eyewitness claims in GJohn can never be accepted at their face value. In this regard, Richard Bauckham dissented. In his wide-ranging Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Bauckham proposed that the four gospels are based on eyewitness testimony of people who personally knew Jesus. Acknowledging Lincoln’s notion of the Johannine lawsuit theme, Bauckham yet claimed that within this broad metaphorical framework, the witness requires “a real element of reporting of the past.”99 He further maintained that “John’s understanding of testimony unites historiographic and theological aspects.”100 The literary device of bracketing eyewitness testimony at the beginning (1:29–34) and the end (John 21) informs readers that the eyewitness reports constitute the most important source of the historical narrative.101 In my ThM thesis, taking the concepts of witness and truth and the seeing and testifying language in 19:35, I attempted to show that John was championing his account as both historically and theologically reliable. Exploring the verbal connection of 19:35 with 20:30–31 and 21:24–25, I asserted that these three texts express John’s underlying historical and theological concerns in a delicate and organic manner such that the entire GJohn could be claimed as “a gospel of truthful witness.”102 The above-mentioned wide ranging works on the witnessing vocabulary in GJohn show that the matter remains open for further examination, not only on the relationship of the seeing and witnessing vocabulary, but also on how the lawsuit motif could be connected in more meaningful ways with other motifs in GJohn so as to foster an apprehension of Jesus for readers.

97 Lincoln, “Truth Claims,” 180. See also his criticisms of works of Maccini, Tovey, and Vanhoozer; he also compared such eyewitness elements as that of 1Enoch, Apocalypse of Abraham and the testamentary material of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in which verisimilitude was imparted. Lincoln, “Beloved Disciple,” 19. 98 Lincoln, “Truth Claims,” 183. 99 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 388. Similarly, Mussner, Sehweise, 21–22. 100 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 406. 101 Ibid., 393; Richard J. Bauckham, “Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John,” NTS 53 (2007): 17–36. 102 Tam, “John 19:35.”

B. Previous Investigation

21

5. On Remembering and Its Relation to Other Concepts The fifth set of apprehension vocabulary concerns remembering. Many years ago, drawing on the remembrance language in 14:26, Cullmann commented that “it has not been sufficiently observed that the efficacy of the Paraclete applies, in the first instance, to the understanding of the life of Jesus.” 103 Mussner first asserted that John’s remembrance represents a “mode of vision” whereby a believing and knowing witness “sees” his subject such that, through the Paraclete, “hidden mystery” becomes visible and expressible for the church in the “kerygma.” 104 Thus, as Zumstein noted, the Johannine remembering “ne consiste pas simplement à conserver des faits immobiles et achevés, mais à les ordonner dans la perspective qui permet d’en découvrir la véritable signification.”105 In recent years, a renewed interest on how memory works in ancient authors’ minds is noted in the field of gospel studies as well as Johannine studies.106 The Johannine remembering has then been claimed to have fundamental significance for the writing of GJohn. Peter Stuhlmacher ascribed three characteristics, among others, in GJohn to this Johannine anamnesis: (1) The special language; (2) The post-Easter Christological exegesis of Scripture back into the life of the earthly Jesus; (3) Jesus’ words and speeches with equal importance to the words of Scripture. 107 Noticing GJohn’s historical 103

Italic his. Cullmann, Worship, 48. Mussner, Sehweise, 43. 105 Jean Zumstein, “Mémoire et relecture pascale dans l’Évangile selon Jean,” in Miettes exégétiques (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1991), 309. 106 Key works include: Jens Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas, WMANT 76 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997); Tom Thatcher and Alan Kirk, eds., Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, SemeiaSt 52 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005); Richard J. Bauckham, “Eyewitness Memory,” in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 319–57; Samuel Byrskog, “Memory and Identity in the Gospels: A New Perspective,” in Exploring Early Christian Identity, ed. Bengt Holmberg, WUNT 226 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 33–57; Anthony Le Donne, The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009); Dale Allison, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010); Robert K. McIver, Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels, SBLRBS 59 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). 107 Peter Stuhlmacher, “Spiritual Remembering: John 14.26,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn, ed. Stephen C. Barton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Graham N. Stanton (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 55–68. For earlier works on the subject, see Ibid., 60n.18–20. There is also a PhD thesis contending that memory, together with “configuration of the testimony,” and “dialogue” form the three phases of a structure of John’s testimony. Memory is rightly said to have functioned to cover the gap between the past of what John represented and the moment of the narration; 104

22

Chapter 1: Introduction

interest, Larry Hurtado ascribed “the depth of truth that went noticeably beyond what Jesus had taught” in the pre-resurrection situation to the “charismatic exegesis” of OT texts and Jesus’ sayings.108 Through the Paraclete who gives “continuing voice to Jesus,” John felt free to put anachronistically his Paraclete-guided insights about Jesus on Jesus’ lips. For John, these “dialectical” revelations are new and yet at the same time simply “what was true of Jesus all along, and what his earthly activities portended.”109 In this regard, Arthur Dewey argued that the eyewitness is an imaginative story/recollection of scene and scripture. “The Johannine Paraclete is a projected symbol of visionary consciousness that allows what happened (Jesus’ death) to become eventful for every believer.”110 John’s historical interest lies only in this “creative chemistry of remembrance.” Similarly, John Painter asserted a “transformation of memory” brought by the resurrection event (2:17, 22) and a “transformation from ignorance to comprehending memory” (12:16) brought forward by the Paraclete such that “memory may stray wildly from the subject it remembers.”111 However, while admitting that eyewitness memory as a category of recollective memory can be unreliable and manufactured, Bauckham considered it unlikely for the case of the canonical gospels. By comparing the findings of psychology and the gospels’ internal evidence, he argued that the eyewitness memory could be reasonably accurate at times.112 In contrast, Tom Thatcher, in his Why John Wrote a Gospel: Jesus, Memory, History, made a fresh attempt to utilise the modern concept of social

Ji Y.E. Hong, “Analisis narrativo del evangelio segun San Juan. Estudio del discurso joanico: Memoria, testimonio, dialogo” (PhD thesis, Navarre, Spain: Universidad de Navarra, 2004). 108 Larry W. Hurtado, “Remembering and Revelation: The Historic and Glorified Jesus in the Gospel of John,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal, ed. David B. Capes et al. (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 206. Also Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 400–2. 109 Hurtado, “Remembering,” 210–12. 110 Dewey, “Eyewitness,” 68. 111 John Painter, “Memory Holds the Key: The Transformation of Memory in the Interface of History and Theology in John,” in John, Jesus, and History: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views, ed. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher, SBLSymS 44 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 229–48. 112 Bauckham, “Eyewitness Memory.” Tom Thatcher further showed how Greco-Roman philosophers and rhetors composed and remembered their material via techniques of visual memory. Some of the phenomena in GJohn could be explained by such “mnemotechnique.” See Tom Thatcher, “John’s Memory Theater: The Fourth Gospel and Ancient Mnemo-Rhetoric,” CBQ 69, no. 3 (2007): 487–505.

B. Previous Investigation

23

memory to probe into the old question of why GJohn was written.113 By taking the past in memory as a “social contract,” Thatcher argued that GJohn was not written to archive information about Jesus for future reference. Instead, it has a rhetorical function which carries a symbolic force since written word carries its own “special weight or authority” in terms of social significance.114 Taking passages from John 14:26, 15:26–27, 16:13–14 and 1John 2:20–21, 27, Thatcher linked the Johannine memory with a spiritual community experience and not a cognitive process.115 He then proceeded to speculate that the Antichrists as described in 1John held to a charismatic “countermemory”116 of Jesus. Thus, GJohn is written to respond to them by fixing the “correct” version of remembrance. In this written form, GJohn was intended as the ideal weapon against the Antichrists, to silence people as most of them could not challenge its claims due to low literacy in the ancient world. Thus, history in GJohn is seen as the result of eliminating all other illegitimate (or even legitimate) memories of Jesus that arose in theological controversies within the Johannine churches. Thatcher’s implications drawn from his premises are controversial. It is reasonable to question why the “rhetorical” function should be set over against the “archive” function dichotomously. Apparently, the idea of memory in GJohn has been approached very differently by Thatcher, Bauckham, and others. What role would the remembering language play with regard to the credibility of the Johannine witness? Acknowledging Mussner’s and others’ earlier contributions, what is the significance of the remembrance language to John’s readers? 6. On Believing and Its Relation to Other Concepts The last set of apprehension vocabulary deals with believing. Acknowledging the close connection with seeing and knowing, Dodd saw the Johannine faith as a form of life-giving vision and knowledge of God in Jesus.117 These connections of the concept of believing with seeing and knowing have been discussed in the foregoing sections and will not be repeated here.

113 Tom Thatcher, Why John Wrote a Gospel: Jesus, Memory, History (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2006). 114 Ibid., 37. 115 Ibid., 34. 116 A term invented by the sociologist Michel Foucault. Tom Thatcher, Greater Than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2009), 33–41. 117 Dodd, Interpretation, 186. Cf. the Hebraic understanding of Ferdinand Hahn, “Das Glaubensverständnis im Johannesevangelium,” in Glaube und Eschatologie: Festschrift für W.G. Kümmel zum 80 Geburtstag, ed. Erich Grässer and Otto Merk (Tübingen: Mohr, 1985), 50–69.

24

Chapter 1: Introduction

a) Believing and John’s Purpose/Audience Regarding the philological usage, different constructions of πιστεύω and their uses in GJohn have been analysed by Gerald Hawthorne and others.118 An important related concern is the significance of the tense used. It has been commonly presumed that, in 20:31 and 19:35, the aorist subjunctive πιστεύσητε refers to faith-engendering/inculcating (come to believe) and the alternative textual reading, present subjunctive πιστεύητε, refers to faithfostering/reinforcing (continue to believe). Consequently, by preferring the latter reading, most recent scholars took GJohn’s audience to be believers,119 i.e., treating GJohn as a Gemeinde-Evangelium120 and not a Missionsschrift for non-believers. 121 While they opted for the present subjunctive form, a number of them admitted that the difference in tenses could not be used to settle the problem ultimately. But how should we account for the presence of 118 Gerald F. Hawthorne, “The Concept of Faith in the Fourth Gospel,” BSac 116, no. 462 (1959): 117–26; Gaffney, “Believing-Knowing”; Schnackenburg, John-I, 1:558–75. Also Merrill C. Tenney, “Topics from the Gospel of John: Part IV: The Growth of Belief,” BSac 132, no. 528 (1975): 343–57; Daniel C. Arichea, “Translating ‘Believe’ in the Gospel of John,” BT 30, no. 2 (1979): 205–9. For a more recent treatment, see David A. Croteau, “An Analysis of the Concept of Believing” (ThM thesis, Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002). 119 For instance, in one of the latest commentaries: “the accent is not on ‘conversion’ (the words for ‘repent’ and ‘repentance’ never occur), or even the forgiveness of sins, but on revelation.” Michaels, John, 42. 120 Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, Diatessarica 6 (London: A. and C. Black, 1906), §2524–29; Brown, John-I, lxxviii; Martyn, History and Theology; Meeks, “Man from Heaven,” 70–71; Barrett, John, 575; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, trans. David Smith and G. A. Kon, vol. 3, 3 vols. (Tunbridge Wells, U. K.: Burns & Oates, 1982), 463n.88; Culpepper, Anatomy, 225; Koester, “The Spectrum of Johannine Readers”; Lincoln, Truth, 180; Gordon D. Fee, “On the Text and Meaning of John 20,30– 31,” in To What End Exegesis?: Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 29–42; Klaus Wengst, Das Johannesevangelium: 1. Kapitel 1–10, 2nd ed., TKNT 2 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), 25; Robert Kysar, John, the Maverick Gospel, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2007), 24; Udo Schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 4th ed., THKNT 4 (Leipzig: Evangelische, 2009), 337. Culpepper further divides this category into “a community document for believers” and “a theological document for the church at large.” Culpepper, Anatomy, 212. 121 See for instance Wilhelm Oehler, Das Johannesevangelium eine Missionsschrift für die Welt (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1936); W. C. van Unnik, “The Purpose of St. John’s Gospel,” in Studia Evangelica I, TU 73 (Berlin: Akademie, 1959), 382–411; J. A. T. Robinson, “The Destination and Purpose of St John’s Gospel,” NTS 6, no. 2 (1960): 117– 31; Harald Riesenfeld, “Zu den johanneischen ἵνα-Sätzen,” ST 19 (1965): 213–20. This is not to be confused with the mission motif in GJohn. See further Klink, Sheep, 220–38. Some treat only the “sign source” as a missionary document like Michael Labahn, Jesus als Lebensspender: Untersuchungen zu einer Geschichte der johanneischen Tradition anhand ihrer Wundergeschichten, BZNW 98 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 120–22.

B. Previous Investigation

25

the aorist variant? In adopting πιστεύσητε in many early manuscripts, would the copyists have treated GJohn as a Missionsschrift? On this issue, Dodd, Morris, Carson, and Witherington represented a few dissenting voices in arguing for an evangelistic purpose of GJohn,122 while a few others maintain that both purposes could be in view.123 Consensus has yet to be reached. b) Believing and the Nature of John’s Overall Message Other than the discussion on John’s purpose mentioned above, scholars have also explored the relationship of the concept of faith to the nature of GJohn itself. David Redelings in his doctoral thesis attempted to show that Jesus’ miracles and message serve as two warrants in GJohn for promoting trust in the person of Jesus.124 Defending GJohn’s historicity, he addressed the modern philosophical and exegetical challenges against miracles. Miracles, from the point of view of the ancients, are legitimately used as grounds for belief in GJohn. He further argued that Jesus’ “essential” message, namely elements of John’s high Christology as well as the belief that Jesus was sent to speak God’s words prophetically, has a non-fictional intention. Thus, Cullmann’s comment rings true here: “the Johannine concept of faith stands in closest relationship to the composition of the gospel. The author is interested in the question of ‘the theory of cognition’, so to speak.”125 c) Believing and Faith Patterns/Developments Besides John’s overall message, scholars also discuss different types and stages/patterns of faith. As we have seen in the foregoing sub-section (B.1.a.), 122 Dodd, Interpretation, 9; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, revised., NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 855–857; Donald A. Carson, “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered,” JBL 106, no. 4 (1987): 639–51; Ben Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1995), 29–32; Donald A. Carson, “Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30–31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 124, no. 4 (2005): 693–714. For earlier supporters, see footnote 121. 123 For example, Beasley-Murray, John, 388; Maccini, Testimony, 31; Richard J. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 121. 124 David A. Redelings, “The Epistemology of Belief in the Gospel of John: Miracles and the Kerygmatic Word as the Non-Fictional Grounds for Knowledge” (PhD thesis, St. Andrews, Scotland: University of St. Andrews, 2002). Cf. the similar results of Bartholomä who focuses on the reliability of Johannine discourses based on comparison with the Synoptic passages, especially those connected to faith. Philipp F. Bartholomä, The Johannine Discourses and the Teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics: A Contribution to the Discussion Concerning the Authenticity of Jesus’ Words in the Fourth Gospel, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 57 (Tübingen: Francke, 2010). 125 Italics his. Cullmann, Worship, 39.

26

Chapter 1: Introduction

Brown surveyed various kinds of faiths with or without seeing signs.126 Regarding the faith patterns, by focusing on the symbolic nature of σηµεῖον, σάρξ, and δόξα, Dorothy Lee identified a common literary pattern in five stages in six “symbolic narratives” (3:1–36, 4:1–42, 5:1–47, 6:1–71, 9:1–41, and 11:1–12:11): (1) foundational image or sign, (2) misunderstanding, (3) struggle for understanding, (4) attainment or rejection of symbolic understanding, and (5) confession of faith or statement of rejection.127 Unfortunately, Lee excluded from her study other important “symbolic narratives” which did not fit into her pattern, for instance the Temple Incident (2:13–22), the Passion, and Resurrection narratives. There are also attempts to identify faith patterns from other perspectives. In recent years, there has been a surge of Johannine character studies. 128 Characters like Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, the Jews, and the disciples play important roles in GJohn. Their stories are unquestionably faith-stories. Using theories of characterisation, many recent studies have attempted to discern faith patterns from the characters themselves, and to analyse the characters to see whether and how they are “flat,” i.e., constructed around certain types of faith-response to Jesus, or “round,” i.e., possessing several complex traits and developments. Undoubtedly, these studies contribute to a better understanding of how characters function in GJohn. But like Lee’s faith pattern identified from isolated passages, how can the different and isolated characters’ apprehension of Jesus be traced within GJohn’s overall plot de126 Brown, John-I, 531; Schnackenburg, John-III, 3:558–75. For earlier studies on stages of faith, see Gaffney, “Believing-Knowing,” 230n.13. 127 Dorothy A. Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning, JSNTSup 95 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 12–13. 128 Key works include: Hopkins, “Faith”; David R. Beck, The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel, BIS 27 (Leiden: Brill, 1997); Colleen M. Conway, Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization, SBLDS 167 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999); Peter Dschulnigg, Jesus begegnen: Personen und ihre Bedeutung im Johannesevangelium, 2nd ed. (Münster: Lit, 2002); Susanne Ruschmann, Maria von Magdala im Johannesevangelium: Jüngerin-Zeugin-Lebensbotin, NTAbh 40 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2002); Bradford B. Blaine, Peter in the Gospel of John, SBLAB 27 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007); Cornelis Bennema, Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2009); Susan Hylen, Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2009); Christopher W. Skinner, John and Thomas: Gospels in Conflict? Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question, Princeton Theological Monograph 115 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009); Farelly, Disciples; Alicia D. Myers, Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis on the Fourth Gospel’s Use of Scripture in Its Presentation of Jesus, LNTS 458 (London: T&T Clark, 2012); Christopher W. Skinner, ed., Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John, LNTS 461 (London: T&T Clark, 2013); Steven A. Hunt, D. François Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann, eds., Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel, WUNT 314 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).

B. Previous Investigation

27

velopment? There are some attempts in this area 129 but deeper reflections would certainly be helpful. William Bonney investigated such a development of faith across GJohn. Arguing that the doubting Thomas story (20:24–29) is “the” climax to GJohn, he traced a trajectory of faith in terms of human relationships throughout GJohn.130 He found in themes running through GJohn a stress on the divine causative initiatives in making Jesus known to the readers. This climaxes at 20:24–29 where Jesus and his action form the episode’s focus. In the end, though Bonney’s attempt to trace a development of faith is meticulous, his main thesis that 20:24–29 is “the” climax to GJohn may be doubted by many. If 20:24–29 is not “the” only climax and if other climaxes exist, how then is faith in GJohn developed? Are there alternatives on the macroscopic development of faith across GJohn, incorporating the functions of other apprehension vocabulary? 7. Conclusion The above survey of the diverse landscape of scholarship so far reveals how the subject of apprehending Jesus in GJohn has been studied in variegated and separate ways. Most notable among them are the connection of the faith stages/patterns with the absence or presence of seeing signs and the contested nature of seeing and witnessing. It would also be intriguing to understand how John creatively crafted his inspired ideas about Jesus and yet upheld a view that GJohn still remains in some meaningful sense trustworthy and reliable. Although we have seen various researches into the individual apprehension vocabulary and a few investigations into the connections between some of these terms, surprisingly, a comprehensive coverage of all these interconnected sets of vocabulary and concepts is still wanting. Moreover, for each of them, there is still no consensus about the role and function they played in the message and composition of GJohn. Building on these scholars’ shoulders, therefore, I attempt to see how these different and debated studies could be assessed and integrated through a close examination of the text. I will propose a framework which is capable of helping us to understand the apprehension vocabulary comprehensively from the Johannine plot development, while appreciating its complexity. 129 For instance, Kelli S. O’Brien, “Written That You May Believe: John 20 and Narrative Rhetoric,” CBQ 67, no. 2 (2005): 284–302; R. Alan Culpepper, “The Weave of the Tapestry: Character and Theme in John,” in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John, ed. Christopher W. Skinner, LNTS 461 (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 18– 35. 130 William Bonney, Caused to Believe: The Doubting Thomas Story at the Climax of John’s Christological Narrative, BIS 62 (Leiden: Brill Academic, 2002).

28

Chapter 1: Introduction

C. Method and Approach C. Method and Approach

Having identified a space left open amidst the various previous investigations, the present study of the concept of apprehension tries to retrieve the author’s intention and the rhetorical strategy used to affect his readers, in light of the entire GJohn. Taking the final text of GJohn as the basis of our discussion (see section A), in order to trace the function of the vocabulary and the concept development and progression across GJohn, I restrict myself to only draw on appropriate insights from relevant disciplines that could help us to pay close attention to the text. The approach adopted is broadly rhetorical-exegetical. During my close reading of GJohn, primary attention is given to the narrative structure, character portrayals, rhetorical strategies along the plot, John’s language and style, grammatical and textual issues, as well as John’s use of OT.131 In light of the above, this investigation first identifies key terms from the six sets of apprehension vocabulary. They are: 1. Seeing (ὁράω, εἶδον, θεάοµαι, θεωρέω, βλέπω, ἰδού, ἀναβλέπω, ἐµβλέπω, and ὀφθαλµός), 2. Hearing (ἀκούω), 3. Knowing (γινώσκω, οἶδα, γνωρίζω, and νοέω), 4. Witnessing (µαρτυρέω and µαρτυρία), 5. Remembering (µιµνήσκω, ὑποµιµνῄσκω, and µνηµονεύω), and 6. Believing (πιστεύω, πιστός, and ἄπιστος). In order to make sure that we do not miss any other terms besides these selected ones, we will identify exhaustively the contents of the semantic clusters for all these terms so that we can trace the concept accurately. Then, these apprehension terms will be analysed exegetically and contextually in GJohn so as to ascertain their meaning and role. Through the selected passages, the author’s persuasive strategy will be identified, which is related to how he attempts to affect the readers as well as how he intends his narrative to be perceived. That is to ask: If GJohn were a musical score, how does the composer expect this score to be enacted?132 How did he achieve this in guiding the readers to appropriate his message?133 And on this basis I will attempt to 131

There is a connection of apprehension with the modern notions of cognition but that lies beyond the scope of the current work. 132 A metaphor taken from Paul Ricoeur, “World of the Text, World of the Reader,” in A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination, ed. Mario J. Valdés (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 494. 133 See further the “conservative reader-response” section in Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “The Reader in New Testament Interpretation,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 301–28. Our focus will be on this final text’s dynamics and direction as we explore the various ways in which

D. Aim and Plan

29

postulate his intended impact to the readers. I believe that examining these issues closely will help us to reflect on the key issues debated in previous Johannine investigations. A final reminder to readers of this monograph is necessary. References to “the Jews” throughout this work consistently refer to the term as used in GJohn and have no bearing to the ethnic Jews in our times, especially of anything related to the Holocaust.

D. Aim and Plan of the Present Study D. Aim and Plan

In light of the aforementioned review of scholarship and methodological approach, I would now outline the plan of the present study. The aim of this work is to show that there is a four-phased apprehension of Jesus in line with the overall gospel, into which the author incorporates persuasive strategies so as to create a unique impact on his readers. This relates to a set of questions: What is the Johannine vocabulary for the apprehension of Jesus? How does the concept function in GJohn? What is the author’s intended impact on his readers via his use of these sets of words and how does he do that? The present study is structured to answer these questions in view of the aim stated. In the next Chapter, I will review the linguistic foundations for the apprehension vocabulary and clarify some of the confusion about the use of Greek words in GJohn. Then, from Chapters 3–6, with an overview of the use of the apprehension vocabulary and its development in the corresponding parts of GJohn, I will select various key passages for further exploring both the role and function of the vocabulary and the persuasive strategies John adopted. Chapter 3 will be on John 1–4; Chapter 4 on John 5–12; Chapter 5 on John 13–17; and Chapter 6 on John 18–21. In the last Chapter 7, I will summarise my findings and discuss some of the overall implications for Johannine scholarship. From the exegesis conducted, I will suggest that the concept of apprehension of Jesus could be understood in four phases which contribute to a better the rhetorical strategies of the text itself invite the reader to receive its message. The emphasis is on how the first reader in the late first century would have understood this message; such reading, as Vanhoozer notes, is assumed as “essentially an obedient activity. Its aim is to let the author and the text manipulate the reader so that he or she gradually comes to experience and adopt the ideology (the worldview) of the text. Again, the emphasis is squarely on understanding, on discovering and embracing the ideology of the text.” Ibid., 307. In this regard, Reinhartz also notes that GJohn “allows and encourages readers to situate themselves within the gospel and to see themselves as its addressees.” Adele Reinhartz, The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel, SBLMS 45 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992), 38.

30

Chapter 1: Introduction

understanding of GJohn. These phases reveal a progressive development of the collaborated uses and functions of the apprehension terms alongside the overall plot of GJohn. These phases are not stages of developments of some characters in the narratives per se. But rather they represent John’s encompassing strategies used in the narratives, in which the portrayals of how characters change upon encountering Jesus only play a part in John’s overall scheme. While these phases are never unrelated to each other and not clearcut by themselves, they are intended to engage John’s audience in different ways and can be distinguished as follows, as I will argue in the following Chapters: Phase I, John 1–4, initial encounters characterised by a generally positive and sincere reception of Jesus and prefaced by the Johannine preamble and monologues (1:1–5, 9–18; 3:16–21, 31–36); Phase II, John 5–12, subsequent encounters characterised by a generally negative and hostile response to Jesus; Phase III, John 13–17, deepening encounters focusing on knowing Jesus in a personal way and even beyond the time-frame of his earthly life; and Phase IV, John 18–21, heightened and climactic encounters engaging the readers in a manner climactic to the overall plot. Having shown how these four phases unfold themselves and how John utilises his persuasive strategies, I will further discuss John’s intended impact on the first readers in each of these phases. Through his use of apprehension terms and the concept conveyed, this impact will be assessed by attempting to (1) revisit GJohn’s purpose for his readers in light of a more holistic understanding of GJohn through his depiction of the characters’ apprehension of Jesus under the phases suggested; (2) discuss how the Johannine Jesus’ own apprehension is relevant to readers apprehending Jesus, by highlighting the importance of John’s portrayal of Jesus’ omniscience; (3) reconsider the role of Jesus’ signs and words and show how they function complementarily to deliver the concept of apprehension; and (4) discuss the role of faith in one’s perception/apprehension of Jesus by suggesting that John’s idea of apprehension/perception of Jesus opens up new possibilities which are capable of both soliciting faith and challenging the readers’ own presuppositions. With this plan in mind, let us start our investigation.

Chapter 2

Linguistic Foundations The section on Previous Investigation in Chapter 1 shows that discussions on the different apprehension terms are quite diverse. It is therefore important for us to first start with a big picture, defining and setting the scope for the present study of the concept of apprehension, before we venture deep into the forest of GJohn. Hence, this chapter serves such a purpose. I will first clarify what I mean in referring to a “concept.” Then I will provide brief analyses of the grammatical features for the sets of apprehension terms selected. And lastly, I will set up the semantic fields for the concept of apprehension of Jesus. This is a data rich chapter. Nevertheless, these three aims which I set out to accomplish will become the foundation for the following chapters. The semantic fields will act as a “radar screen” for my analyses of the concept of apprehension. The grammatical features will provide us a general idea of how the terms are used. This observed general pattern of usage will also clear some of the scholarly misunderstandings. Finally, a proper understanding of the word “concept,” which I will now turn to, will equip us with a basic framework of understanding for the present study.

A. Towards an Understanding of Words, Context, and Concept A. Word, Context, and Concept

Words, context, and concept are the basic elements in our understanding of any literature. To use an analogy, if GJohn was a brick wall, its words may be compared to the individual bricks of different colours. Its literary contexts (or “linguistic contexts,” “co-texts”) are then the different parts of this wall. Ferdinand de Saussure, founder of modern linguistics, contends that words derive their meanings from the relationship by which they connect to the world they describe, called “reference” (Bedeutung), and from aspects of the semantic links between elements within the language system, called “sense” (Sinn).1 To use the language of our analogy, this would be equivalent to say1 Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles Bally, Albert Sechehaye, and Albert Riedlinger, trans. Roy Harris (London: Duckworth, 1983), 115. The other way to express the semantic relations between lexical items in the same linguistic context (sense) is called “intralingual meaning,” while the applicability of the items to phenomena in this world, viz. the denotatum, (reference) is called “extralingual meaning.”

32

Chapter 2: Linguistic Foundations

ing that bricks are identified not only in terms of their geographical location, as existing in a set of 3-dimensional coordinates (“reference”), but also they are defined in terms of their connexion with other bricks in the same wall (“sense”). Thus, words in GJohn are to be understood similarly in terms of their “reference” and “sense.” Especially with regard to sense, words should never be singled out from their literary context during the process of determining their meaning. This is echoed in James Barr’s words: “Theological thought of the type found in the NT has its characteristic linguistic expression not in the word individually but in the word-combination or sentence.”2 In a similar vein, Anthony Thiselton warns of “an atomising exegesis” which ignores its literary context and assumes that its meaning depends on what it is in itself.3 Seen in this light, the literary contexts, as mentioned in our wall analogy, consist of parts of the wall with different “bricks” of different colours and types. Such contexts can be identified from the different pericopae in GJohn. By analysing a pericope and recognising its structure, we get acquainted with that part of the wall. By paying attention to the particular colour/types of bricks throughout these different parts, the role these bricks play in the wall can then be seen from a wider perspective. This overall picture is what we mean in referring to a “concept.” To put it in more technical terms and from the perspective of “sense,” John Lyons defines a concept as “any conceptual area that is associated with a lexeme.” This conceptual area is then structured as a semantic field by other sets of lexemes.4 In other words, a concept is not only about one word in a text but a framework of relationship with words of associated meanings in a given text. From the other perspective of “reference,” Alan Cruse considers a concept as “a mental construct that stands in a relation of correspondence to a coherent category of things in some world, prototypically the real world, but potentially also imaginary, fictional, or

See also Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989), 77–90. 2 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 233–34. See his criticisms of the inadequacies of TDNT in this regard; yet Moisés Silva and Max Turner lament the little actual impact of Barr on the guild of biblical studies. Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 21; Max Turner, “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 155. 3 Anthony C. Thiselton, “Semantics and New Testament Interpretation,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Exeter: Paternoster, 1977), 79. See also Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament, SBLRBS 25 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992), 1–4. 4 John Lyons, Semantics, vol. 1, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 254.

B. Grammatical Constructions

33

virtual worlds.”5 Concepts thus enable us to classify different experiences and provide a locus for accumulating knowledge deriving from these. In light of the above understanding of a concept in terms of sense and reference, a concept can never be understood properly by means of mere studies of words by themselves.6 A proper investigation will necessarily involve all the literary contexts of GJohn wherever the concept has a role to play.7 As noted by Jeffrey Reed, such an analysis will have to encompass aspects grammatical as well as lexical.8 Hence, in the next two sections of this Chapter, analyses of the grammatical constructions of the key apprehension terms as well as an exhaustive semantic field survey of all the associated terms will be conducted.

B. Analyses of Grammatical Constructions B. Grammatical Constructions

The concept of apprehension of Jesus involves several sets of terms as we have been discussing so far. Each set engages with different things in its own literary context at a microscopic level. Thus, focusing on its grammatical aspects and the grammatical constructions of these key terms, the syntactic function of the different word-forms of the apprehension terms in sentences is analysed.9 In particular, for all the verbal and nominal expressions, each noun phrase that links to the verbs of apprehension (subjects and objects/complements) and each modifier of the nouns of apprehension and its

5 D.A. Cruse, Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 53. Cf. Lyons, Semantics, 1:96, 110 for the triangle of signification. 6 Compare the similar comments in Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics, 25–28; Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 97–99. 7 As a concept has to be given its content based on its use in contexts, our exegetical analyses in the following Chapters will deal with this. For issues on the meaning in use in the field of Lexical Pragmatics, see further Gene L. Green, “Relevance Theory and Theological Interpretation: Thoughts on Metarepresentation,” JTI 4, no. 1 (2010): 75–90; Gene L. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics and the Lexicon,” BBR 22, no. 3 (2012): 315–34. 8 Jeffrey T. Reed, “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament: A Basic Guide to Theory, Terminology, and Literature,” in Approaches to New Testament Study, ed. Stanley E. Porter and David Tombs, JSNTSup 120 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 231. 9 With due consideration to the semiotactical aspects, viz., influences of the surrounding words, as illustrated in Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 58–63.

34

Chapter 2: Linguistic Foundations

associated verb phrases are examined.10 A complete set of results is listed in the Appendix, which is summarised as follows: 1. Seeing a) Ὁράω/εἶδον11 is used in various activities. From the perspective of syntagmatic relations,12 numerous characters, friendly or hostile to Jesus, are said to “see” in different circumstances. But Jesus himself is the most frequent single character who “sees” (fourteen times out of its eighty-two occurrences in GJohn 13 ). Also pithy constructions of τις/ὁ+participle, resembling the pattern in aphoristic sayings, are used as subjects of seeing (five times 14). This is characteristic of the Johannine usage. As objects of seeing, the most frequent uses remain “seeing Jesus” (nineteen times15). Other than being used to describe Jesus’ earthly activities, seeing Jesus’ signs, seeing his works and other salvific terms are also prominent. Even so, seeing God (or “the Father”) remains a striking usage as seeing God is something unusual in the OT. 16 Interjections in the form of ἴδε and ἰδού, functioning to draw the readers’ attention, are also common (fifteen and four times respectively17). b) Θεάοµαι and θεωρέω. Compared to ὁράω/εἶδον, θεάοµαι and θεωρέω are used less frequently (six and twenty-four occurrences respective-

10 The approach taken here should not be confused with the actantial analysis (sender, object, receiver, helper, subject, and opponent) as proposed by Algirdas Julien Greimas, Sémantique structurale, recherche de méthode (Paris: Larousse, 1966). Actantial analysis focuses on character studies while I focus on GJohn as a whole, paying attention to its grammatical aspects. 11 As is rightly put in BDAG’s entry under “ὁράω”: “The functions of the aor. active are taken over by εἶδον and the forms belonging to it.” 12 By “syntagmatic relations,” I refer to the third of Saussure’s famous dichotomies which concerns the relationships between units in a language. According to Lyons, “the syntagmatic relations which a [lexical] unit contracts are those which it contracts by virtue of its combination… with other units of the same level [in a sentence].” This contrasts with “paradigmatic relations” which “hold between a particular unit in a given syntagm [i.e., a sequence of words in a particular syntactic relationship to one another] and other units which are substitutable for it in the syntagm.” Lyons, Semantics, 1:240–41. 13 1:47, 48, 50; 3:11[we], 32; 5:6; 6:46; 8:38, 57; 9:1; 11:33, 34; 16:22; 19:26. Unless otherwise stated, all Greek searches are conducted by using BibleWorks Version 9, BibleWorks, LLC, Norfolk, VA, 2012. 14 3:3, 36; 6:46; 14:9; 20:29. 15 1:46; 4:29; 6:36; 9:37; 11:32; 12:21; 14:9; 16:16, 17, 19; 19:6, 33, 37; 20:18, 20, 25 [2x], 29 [2x]. 16 Even in the synoptic gospels, the expression never occurs except in Matt 5:8. 17 Ἴδε: 1:29, 36, 47; 3:26; 5:14; 7:26; 11:3, 36; 12:19; 16:29; 18:21; 19:4, 14, 26, 27. Ἰδού: 4:35; 12:15; 16:32; 19:5.

B. Grammatical Constructions

35

ly 18 ). Yet the subjects and objects of seeing are not very different from ὁράω/εἶδον. The disciples θεωροῦσιν (6:19) just as they εἶδαν (1:39). In the example of 16:16, 17, 19, θεωρέω appears side by side with ὁράω, showing no distinguishable difference in meaning, contrary to what Edwin Abbott and G. L. Phillips claim.19 As to θεάοµαι, “we” ἐθεαςάμεθα Jesus’ glory in 1:14 just as Isaiah εἶδεν his glory in 12:41.20 c) Βλέπω, ἐµβλέπω, and ἀναβλέπω. Comparing 1:29, 36, both βλέπω and ἐµβλέπω are used to denote the Baptist’s encounter with Jesus and in both cases the same “behold, the lamb of God!” is used. In the resurrection account, Simon Peter, while not going in but stooping down, βλέπει the linen cloths in Jesus’ empty tomb (20:5) whereas the BD went in but also εἶδεν the same thing (20:8). Thus, on the surface, βλέπω and ἐµβλέπω are used just as ὁράω and εἶδον. As for ἀναβλέπω, it is consistently used intransitively to denote regaining one’s sight. Its four occurrences are all in John 9. To be sure, the ranges of lexical meanings of ὁράω/εἶδον, θεάοµαι, θεωρέω, βλέπω, and ἐµβλέπω overlap each other. Even so, according to BDAG, in contrast to the more common ὁράω/εἶδον, θεάοµαι can have a distinctive meaning of an intense look, whereas θεωρέω can similarly mean to observe something with sustained attention; in some texts βλέπω can be used to refer to the faculty of sight and ἐµβλέπω can mean to give serious 18 Θεάοµαι: 1:14, 32, 38; 4:35; 6:5; 11:45. Θεωρέω: 2:23; 4:19; 6:2, 19, 40, 62; 7:3; 8:51; 9:8; 10:12; 12:19, 45 [2x]; 14:17, 19 [2x]; 16:10, 16, 17, 19; 17:24; 20:6, 12, 14. 19 Edwin Abbott’s influence can still be felt in many important modern commentaries of GJohn. His notion of differentiating θεωρέω (as beholding with bodily eye) from ὁράω (as seeing spiritually), based on 16:16 here, is on shaky ground and foreign to the Johannine usage. According to the Johannine resurrection account (in particular, the use of ὁράω in John 20:27), Jesus’ appearance to the disciples is emphatically stressed to have been seen with bodily eyes. Moreover, the idea of seeing spiritually clearly contradicts the context of 20:27 since Jesus explicitly invites Thomas to physically see his nailed hands. Furthermore, both θεωρέω and ὁράω are used interchangeably in 9:1, 8, 37 to describe physical eyesight of Jesus, the man born blind, and his neighbours. Abbott, Vocabulary, §1597–1603. See also C.C. Tarelli, “Johannine Synonyms,” JTS O.S.47, no. 187/188 (1946): 175–77; Edwin D. Freed, “Variations in the Language and Thought of John,” ZNW 55, no. 3–4 (1964): 167–97. Compare G. L. Phillips’ same problem and Brown’s critique. Phillips, “Faith-Vision”; Brown, John-I, 501–3. Adopting Phillips’ “four stages of seeing,” Thettayil follows suit without noticing the problems discussed above. See Benny Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19–26 and A Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 52– 53. 20 Again, Abbott’s peculiar idea that θεάομαι should be rendered as “contemplate” is unconvincing. It is difficult to see why John the Baptist needed to “contemplate” (τεθέαµαι) the Spirit in order to identify Jesus (1:32) where in the very next verse the same Spirit is said to “descend and remain” again but with ὁράω being used instead. Abbott, Vocabulary, §1604.

36

Chapter 2: Linguistic Foundations

thought to something. Yet, we have to bear in mind that, in GJohn’s usage, these distinctive lexical meanings cannot be seen in the contexts. Conversely, there are cases in GJohn, as we have seen, where they appear to share roughly the same scope of meaning. The only exception remains for the case of ἀναβλέπω, which is used consistently to denote gaining sight and is purposely used in John 9 only. Thus, the comments by Brown and Cullmann are astute: different types of seeing cannot be determined by John’s choice of word.21 2. Hearing Ἀκούω is mainly used in contexts where speech/voice is concerned or where a report of activities is involved. The subject of ἀκούω includes various figures and groups, ranging from God, to Jesus, the disciples, the Pharisees, “the Jews”, the crowd and even the dead. Noun phrases of aphoristic construction, τις/ὁ+participle, are also involved as subjects of hearing. For the object/complement of ἀκούω, this includes, most prominently, hearing Jesus and God as well as hearing the words/voice of Jesus and God himself (twenty-eight times out of its fifty-nine occurrences in GJohn 22 ). Thus, hearing from the Father and hearing Jesus’ words are the recurrent concern of the author. Reports of activities concerning Jesus, whether related to salvation or not, are then the next most frequent objects of ἀκούω. Words and reports of activities of other characters involving ἀκούω are infrequent. 3. Knowing a) Γινώσκω is often used to describe the relationship between Jesus and the people. Γινώσκω appears in Jesus’ and the characters’ mouths in the discourses, indicating whether they know something or Jesus knows something/someone. Also, people are often said to know Jesus via the facts or situations they experience. Most prominently this includes knowing or not knowing where Jesus is from, the origin of his teaching, and what he says. Statements regarding his identity and his relationship with the Father also belong to this type of complement of γινώσκω. b) Οἶδα functions in a way close to γινώσκω. As with γινώσκω, Jesus remains the single most frequent subject of οἶδα (twenty-six times out of its eighty-four occurrences23). Οἶδα appears in discourses just as γινώσκω does. 21

Brown, John-I, 501–3; Cullmann, Worship, 41. 4:42; 5:24, 25, 28, 37; 6:45, 60; 7:40; 8:26, 38, 40, 43, 47 [2x]; 9:40; 10:3, 16, 20, 27; 11:41, 42; 12:29, 47; 14:24, 28; 15:15; 18:21, 37. 23 3:11, 4:22 [“we”]; 5:32; 6:6, 61, 64; 7:15, 29; 8:14, 37, 55 [3x]; 11:42; 12:50; 13:1, 3, 11, 18; 16:30; 18:4; 19:10, 28; 21:15, 16, 17; similar to γινώσκω (13 times out of its 57 occurrences): 1:48; 2:24, 25; 4:1; 5:6, 42; 6:15; 10:14, 15, 27; 16:19; 17:25; 21:17. 22

B. Grammatical Constructions

37

As an object of οἶδα, Jesus is also the one most frequently being “known” when compared with all other characters in GJohn. In particular, knowing Jesus is knowing the Father in 8:19 (cf. the same idea in 14:7 where γινώσκω is used instead). Statements regarding Jesus’ identity and his relationship with the Father are also typical complements of οἶδα. Just as in the case of γινώσκω, knowing “where Jesus is from” is also the crux of the people’s perception of Jesus. In terms of usage, γινώσκω and οἶδα are virtually synonymous. Contrary to the subtle differences posited by LSJ and others,24 in GJohn οἶδα can actually be used to denote objects requiring observations (e.g. 5:13; 9:12) whereas γινώσκω can be used to denote objects requiring reflection as well (e.g. 3:10; 6:69). Two examples suffice to explain this Johannine style of variation: In 6:69, although γινώσκω is used, the confession of the disciples in the mouth of Peter is not something observed but rather a reflective response based on their personal knowledge of Jesus. Similarly, in 9:12 where οἶδα is used, for the man just recovered from blindness, his denial of knowing Jesus’ whereabouts is definitely a matter which could only be acquired and not reflected. From the grammatical uses of γινώσκω and οἶδα described above, scholars’ subtle differentiation of knowing by observation and by reflection does not really exist in GJohn. The two words share common lexical meanings in significant ways.25 4. Witnessing a) Μαρτυρέω is most frequently used by Jesus himself (nine times out of its thirty-three occurrences in GJohn26). Being closely related to Jesus himself, his works also bear witness (5:36; 10:25). The second most frequent subject of µαρτυρέω is John the Baptist (seven times 27 ). Jesus’ disciples seldom “bear witness” in GJohn, only three times in total, two of these by the BD.28 As for the object of µαρτυρέω, it occurs in four different grammatical forms: (i) with personal or impersonal objects in the dative case (four times29), (ii)

24 LSJ, s.v. “γινώσκω”: “…as dist[inct]. fr[om]. οἶδα know by reflection, γινώσκω, =know by observation.” For details, see my review in Chapter 1, section B.3.a). Likewise, the similar distinction drawn by Abbott and Spicq is also on shaky ground; Abbott, Vocabulary, §1621–29; Ceslas Spicq, Dieu et l’homme selon le Nouveau Testament, LD 29 (Paris: Cerf, 1961), 99. 25 Cf. further their parallel occurrences in 7:27 and 21:17. Even Brown admits that such a distinction cannot be maintained; see Brown, John-I, 514. 26 3:11[“we”]; 4:44; 5:31; 7:7; 8:13, 14, 18; 13:21; 18:37. 27 1:7, 8, 15, 32, 34; 3:26; 5:33. 28 15:27; 19:35; 21:24. 29 3:26, 28; 5:33; 18:37.

38

Chapter 2: Linguistic Foundations

with objects in the accusative case (twice30), (iii) with περί plus a genitive noun/pronoun (nineteen times31), or (iv) with a saying often introduced by ὅτι and/or λέγω (eight times32). Under these different forms, Jesus remains the most frequent object of witness (sixteen times33). Interestingly, God is never the object of µαρτυρέω, only “truth” is witnessed (5:33; 18:37). For the remaining cases, it is primarily sayings related to Jesus that are being witnessed. b) Μαρτυρία, like its verbal counterpart µαρτυρέω, is always related to Jesus. Either it is Jesus’ own testimony (six times out of its fourteen occurrences 34 ), or John the Baptist’s about him (1:7, 19), or the BD’s (19:35; 21:24). Moreover, it can be associated with the verb λαµβάνω (four times35) which is used to express something similar to the concept of belief. Except once in 1:19, µαρτυρία always appears together with μαρτυρέω in close proximity. Also, whether the witness is true or untrue is an important concern of the author (seven times36). Both µαρτυρέω and µαρτυρία are used to depict Jesus and the validity of his message. Jesus bears witness and is witnessed to by others as well. The witness of Jesus, whether in a subjective or objective sense, becomes an appeal to the characters: acceptance or rejection of Jesus remains the choice and challenge of the characters in the narrative, and subsequently the readers. 5. Remembering The vocabulary of remembrance, µιµνήσκω, ὑποµιµνῄσκω, and µνηµονεύω, is infrequent in GJohn. These three terms which occur only seven times37 are deployed narrowly but strategically in chapters 2, 12, and 14–16. Except for one use in a reference to a woman’s delivery of her child, a simile for the short-term sorrow resulting from Jesus’ departure, the subject of remembrance remains chiefly the disciples. The Holy Spirit is also to bring remembrance to them (14:26). For the object of remembrance, this mostly concerns Jesus’ sayings (2:22; 14:26; 15:20; 16:4) and the Scripture (2:17; 12:16).

30

3:11, 32. 1:7, 8, 15; 2:25; 5:31, 32[2x], 36, 37, 39; 7:7; 8:13, 14, 18 [2x]; 10:25; 15:26; 18:23; 21:24. 32 1:32, 34; 3:28; 4:39, 44; 5:36; 7:7; 13:21. This last category can occur in combinations with the first [dative objects] and third [with περὶ] 33 1:7, 8, 15; 3:26; 5:31, 32 [2x], 36, 37, 39; 8:13, 14, 18 [2x]; 10:25; 15:26; predominantly with περὶ. 34 3:11[our]; 3:32, 33; 5:31; 8:13, 14. 35 3:11, 32, 33; 5:34. 36 5:31, 32; 8:13, 14, 17; 19:35; 21:24. 37 Μιµνήσκω: 2:17, 22; 12:16. Ὑποµιµνῄσκω: 14:26. Μνηµονεύω: 15:20; 16:4, 21. 31

B. Grammatical Constructions

39

6. Believing The vocabulary of believing mainly concerns the use of πιστεύω. Comparing the sets of terms described previously, πιστεύω is even more exclusively used with regard to Jesus himself and his message. Only once is Jesus the subject of πιστεύω, in the sense of entrusting himself to the people (2:24). In almost all of the remaining cases, it is either the characters in the narrative who chose to believe or not to believe Jesus, or the generic “all” or “one/anyone” who act as its subject. In two specific instances, the second person plural “you” appears as the subject (19:35; 20:31). This kind of authorial direct address to the readers is extremely rare among the canonical gospels. Another feature is the role of “the Jews,” the crowd, and even the rulers in the contexts of the usage of πιστεύω. These various groups, as the subjects of πιστεύω, are divided, wavering from believing, to being sympathetic to Jesus and to being Jesus’ enemies. Their portrayals as subjects are not consistent. As to the objects of πιστεύω, believing Jesus is John’s paramount concern (seventy-four times out of its ninety-eight occurrences38). To believe in Jesus is equal to believe in God (12:44). There are two major grammatical forms of believing Jesus: (i) πιστεύω+εἰς with a personal noun/pronoun in the accusative case (thirty-two times 39 ); (ii) πιστεύω with a personal dative noun/pronoun (nine times40). This appears to be the author’s stylistic variation.41 Also, “believe in Jesus” is often put in the elliptical form as simply “believe” in many instances (twenty-seven times 42 ) (the contexts all show quite clearly that the author had Jesus and/or his words in mind). Jesus’ sayings, his claims, and his works are the major remaining categories of the objects/complements of πιστεύω (seventeen times43), whether introduced by ὅτι or with objects in the dative form. Our observations, again, reveal some problematic claims of scholars. James Gaffney, in his fine study of the believing vocabulary, asserts that 38

1:7, 12; 2:11, 23; 3:15, 16, 18[3x; eclipsed in the second time], 36; 4:21, 39; 5:38, 46; 6:29, 30, 35, 40; 7:5, 31, 38, 39, 48; 8:30, 31, 45, 46; 9:35, 36; 10:37, 38, 42; 11:25, 26, 45, 48; 12:11, 36, 37, 42, 44 [2x], 46; 14:1, 12; 16:9; 17:20. Cases though not explicitly mentioned, but the object Jesus/his word is implied: 1:50; 3:12; 4:41, 42, 48, 53; 5:44; 6:36, 47, 64 [2x], 69; 9:38; 10:25, 26; 11:15, 40; 12:39; 14:11, 29; 16:31; 19:35; 20:8, 25, 29 [2x], 31. 39 2:11; 3:16, 18, 36; 4:39; 6:29, 35, 40; 7:5, 31, 38, 39, 48; 8:30; 9:35, 36; 10:42; 11:25, 26, 45, 48; 12:11, 36, 37, 42, 44 [2x], 46; 14:1, 12; 16:9; 17:20. 40 4:21; 5:38, 46; 6:30; 8:31, 45, 46; 10:37, 38. 41 Johannes P. Louw, “On Johannine Style,” Neot 20 (1986): 8. 42 1:50; 3:12; 4:41, 42, 48, 53; 5:44; 6:36, 47, 64 [2x], 69; 9:38; 10:25, 26; 11:15, 40; 12:39; 14:11, 29; 16:31; 19:35; 20:8, 25, 29 [2x], 31. 43 2:22; 4:50; 5:47; 8:24; 10:38; 11:26, 27, 42; 12:38; 13:19; 14:10, 11; 16:27, 30; 17:8, 21; 20:31.

40

Chapter 2: Linguistic Foundations

dative objects of πιστεύω function merely transitionally, “conducing to a belief that is ulterior and terminal” which is only represented by πιστεύω+εἰς. Those who “believe Jesus” (dative), he claims, are “on the way to believing in Jesus” (with εἰς).44 Upon close scrutiny, this does not stand. The appearance of πιστεύω+εἰς αὐτόν and πιστεύω+αὐτῷ in the consecutive verses of 8:30–31 suffices to demonstrate this: “The Jews” in 8:31 (τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους) are apparently the same “Jews” in v.30 (πολλοί, cf. v.22). If πιστεύω+εἰς were terminal faith already, in distinction with πιστεύω+dative, it is difficult to see why πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν appears in v.30 and yet John uses τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ in the following v.31. It is even more difficult to see why Jesus subsequently challenges these “Jews” to faith in vv.45–46, but with πιστεύω+dative object being used twice. But if Gaffney were correct, the faith Jesus demands would only be a transitional one.45 Similar criticisms could also be made of subtle differentiations asserted by Abbott, Dodd, and Brown. 46 From my point of 44

Italics his. Gaffney, “Believing-Knowing,” 230–31. This is followed by Hopkins, “Faith,” 1–2; Saeed Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment of Christ: A Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel, WUNT 2/120 (Tübingen: Mohr, 2000), 373n.167. Contra Bultmann, “Γινώσκω Κτλ.,” D.IV.2. 45 Furthermore, one can compare 4:21 (πίστευέ µοι…) and 6:30 (…πιστεύσωµέν σοι), where the contexts show no distinction whatsoever as to a faith being transitional in nature. Another instance where the two constructions appear synonymously, though with the preposition ἐν in the former, is 3:15 (ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον) and 3:16 (ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν… ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον). 46 My examples used are sufficient to cast serious doubt on Brown’s assertion that πιστεύω+εἰς stands for “true, salvific faith,” while πιστεύω+dative is just “simple acceptance of a message.” Brown, John-I, 513. (Dodd similarly considers πιστεύω+dative as “simple credence”/“intellectual judgment” and πιστεύω+εἰς as personal trust. Dodd, Interpretation, 183–84.) Such distinction breaks down because: (1) context requires that the πιστεύω+εἰς example in 8:30 can never be an authentic faith; (2) for the second category, Jesus’ intention in 8:45–46 in using οὐ πιστεύετέ µοι could hardly be requesting “mere acceptance of a message.” The Johannine Jesus must have meant a solemn rejection of himself and his salvation since such unbelief, as clearly indicated in 8:47, would lead to their condemnation as being “not of God” (cf. 8:51). Thus, these scholars’ efforts to differentiate the two expressions are proven to be futile. This misunderstanding still continues in Johannine scholarship, for instance, Hamid-Khani, Revelation-Concealment, 373n.167. In a similar vein but in an opposite way, Abbott’s attempt to regard πιστεύω+εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτοῦ as inferior to πιστεύω+dative, claiming that the former implies “a lower kind of trust, a profession of belief in baptism” is also alien to GJohn’s actual use. Abbott, Vocabulary, §1483–87. In 1:13, following 1:12, he who believes in the name of Jesus (1:12) is apparently having a true and salvific faith because he is said to be “born of God.” In 3:18, he who believes not in his name inevitably leads to God’s judgment. These statements imply nothing about a preliminary and inferior type of faith but the focus is simply belief vs. unbelief.

C. Semantic Field Survey

41

view, however, these two expressions are used synonymously in GJohn. Thus, he who “believes” God (ὁ… πιστεύων τῷ πέµψαντί µε) in 5:24 belongs to the same category of persons as he who believes “in” God (ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐµὲ… πιστεύει… εἰς τὸν πέµψαντά µε) in 12:44. The first has eternal life (5:24) and the second does not remain in darkness (12:46). The stages of faith, if any, are simply not expressed through the use of different grammatical constructions. 7. Conclusion An overview of these grammatical observations of the key sets of apprehension terms reveals how judiciously GJohn is crafted to deliver Jesus’ message and impact on the characters in the narrative. The phenomenon surveyed evidenced a collaboration of different terms towards one central goal, namely, how Jesus is made known and revealed to John’s readers. These different sets of synonyms show an intricately connected multiplicity of semantic relations such that a multifaceted portrayal of Jesus is communicated. In this regard, Johannes Louw has rightly argued against Nigel Turner that this Johannine variation in using synonyms is not “pointless.”47 Our observations made so far lean towards Louw: they represent John’s unique style to give flavour to the discourses,48 by no means an “absence of rhetorical art.”49

C. Semantic Field Survey C. Semantic Field Survey

In the previous section, we have surveyed the uses of sets of apprehension terms in terms of syntagmatic relationships, viz., how they are used in collocation with other accompanying noun/verbal phrases in the same sentence.50 In this section, I will focus on the paradigmatic relations, viz., how these terms are paradigmatically related to other similar lexical items used in

47

Nigel Turner, “Style,” in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 4, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976), 76; Louw, “Style,” 7. 48 Other than this, Köstenberger’s proposal of stereotyping (for the sake of reinforcing a given message) and echoing (deliberate referencing to phrases occurred earlier) are also plausible reasons for John’s choice of synonyms. Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Two Johannine Verbs for Sending: A Study of John’s Use of Words with Reference to General Linguistic Theory,” in Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures, ed. D.A. Carson and Stanley E. Porter, JSNTSup 168 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 125– 43. 49 BDF §492. 50 Or what de Saussure called, parole, the author’s language behaviour (contrasting langue, the language system). de Saussure, Linguistics, 122–34; Lyons, Semantics, 1:239.

42

Chapter 2: Linguistic Foundations

GJohn.51 In other words, what are John’s available semantic choices as evidenced in GJohn? To answer these questions, a semantic field approach is adopted here.52 From this perspective, we notice that each set of terms mentioned above shares similar distinctive lexical features with other associated lexical terms in their own semantic fields. Therefore, we must not limit our investigation to only the individual terms mentioned above. The relevant semantic domains and subdomains to which they belong have to be considered.53 Hence, in order to trace a concept accurately, it is necessary to conduct a thorough survey of all the related terms that are being used. In light of this, a synchronic semantic field survey of these related terms is necessary. The procedure is as follows. First, by adopting the domain classification used in Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, all domain entries relating to the concept of apprehension are surveyed and selected. In each domain entry, all the lexical terms that appear in GJohn are carefully examined. They are selected when their sense in the context of GJohn matches the meaning listed in the entries. Subsequently, these terms together comprise the corresponding semantic fields. According to Louw and Nida, the apprehension vocabulary all belong to Domains 24–36, falling under domains relating to: (1) sensory events and states (24.1–75); (2) learn (27.1–62); (3) know (28.1–83); (4) memory and recall (29.1–18); (5) think (30.1–122); (6) hold a view/believe/trust (31.1– 107); (7) understand (32.1–61); (8) communicate (33.1–489); and (9) guide, discipline, follow (36.1–43). Under the corresponding domains and subdomains, all the related lexical terms form the semantic clusters. A summary of the results is presented there. From it, we see that each of the six sets of apprehension terms appears under Louw-Nida’s different major semantic domains. Each term possesses its own set of different distinctive lexical features across different subdomains and domains. Thus, they can be regrouped according to the six categories of apprehension vocabulary as we have discussed so far, showing how their constituents overlap with other domains. This is shown as follows: 51

Cruse, Meaning, 131–32. See also footnote 12. For further general discussions, Nida and Taber, Translation, 63–87. 52 For the different aspects and developments of the lexical field theory, see Jost Trier, Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes: die Geschichte eines Sprachlichen Feldes: von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13 Jahrhunderts (Heidelberg: Winter, 1931); Walter Porzig, Das Wunder der Sprache, 3rd ed. (Bern: Francke, 1962); Adrienne Lehrer, Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1974); Lyons, Semantics, 1:250–60; Dirk Geeraerts, Theories of Lexical Semantics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 53–69. 53 See further Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), xvi–xvii.

C. Semantic Field Survey

43

1. Seeing (Domain 24 Sensory Events and States). 24.1 ὁράω, εἶδος. 24.6 φεύγω. 24.7, 24.41 βλέπω. 24.9 ἐµβλέπω. 24.10, 24.42 ἀναβλέπω. 24.13 παρακύπτω. 24.14 θεωρέω, θεάοµαι. 24.16 ὀφθαλµός. 24.18 φαίνοµαι. 24.19 φανερόω, ἐµφανίζω. 24.20 φανερῶς. 24.29, 24.30 κρύπτω. 24.34 ἐπαίρω τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς. 24.38 τυφλός. 24.43 ἀνοίγω τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς. Common terms in other domains but with different lexical features: Domain 27 Learn: 27.5 ὁράω. 27.58 βλέπω. Domain 28 Know: 28.36 φανερόω; ἐµφανίζω, φαίνοµαι. 28.79 κρύπτω. Domain 30 Think: 30.1 βλέπω. 30.45 ὁράω. Domain 32 Understand: 32.11 θεωρέω, βλέπω, ὁράω. 32.24 ὀφθαλµός. 32.42 τυφλός. 2. Hearing (Domain 24 Sensory Events and States). 24.52 ἀκούω (24.58 also), ἀκoή (24.57 also). Common terms in other domains but with different lexical features: Domain 31 Hold a View/Believe/Trust: 31.56 ἀκούω. Domain 32 Understand: 32.1 ἀκούω. Domain 36 Guide, Discipline, Follow: 36.14 ἀκούω. 3.

Knowing (Domain 27 Learn, Domain 28 Know, Domain 30 Think, Domain 32 Understand). 27.1 εὑρίσκω. 27.2, 27.18 γινώσκω. 27.5 ὁράω. 27.10 καταλαµβάνοµαι. 27.11 πυνθάνοµαι. 27.12, 27.15 µανθάνω. 27.16 µαθητής. 27.17 ὁδηγέω. 27.21 γράµµατα. 27.31, 27.46 πειράζω. 27.34 ἐραυνάω, ζητέω (27.41 also), ζήτησις. 27.37 ἐξετάζω. 27.51 πωρόω. 27.53 πηρόω τὴν καρδίαν. 27.58 βλέπω. 28.1 γινώσκω; οἶδα (28.7 also), γνωρίζω (28.26 also). 28.29 ἐν παρρηςίᾳ [παρρηςίᾳ]. 28.30 γνωστός. 28.33 καινός. 28.36 φανερόω, ἐµφανίζω, φαίνοµαι, φωτίζω. 28.38 ἀποκαλύπτω. 28.41 ἐξηγέοµαι. 28.47 δείκνυµι. 28.53 σφραγίζω. 28.63 φανερῶς. 28.69 κρυπτός. 28.71 λάθρᾳ, ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, ἐν [τω] κρυπτῷ. 28.79 κρύπτω. 30.1 βλέπω. 30.3 νοέω. 30.8 βουλεύοµαι (30.56 also). 30.9 λογίζοµαι. 30.14 ὄψις. 30.24 µαίνοµαι. 30.29 πληρόω τὴν καρδίαν, βάλλω εἰς τὴν καρδίαν. 30.36 αἴρω τὴν ψυχήν τινος. 30.45 ὁράω. 30.54 ἐλπίζω. 30.56 βούλοµαι, βουλεύοµαι. 30.58 θέλω. 30.59 θέληµα. 30.74 συµβουλεύοµαι. 32.1 ἀκούω. 32.2 νοέω. 32.4 οἶδα. 32.9 ἀπορέω. 32.11 θεωρέω, βλέπω, ὁράω. 32.14 µανθάνω. 32.16 γινώσκω. 32.18 καταλαµβάνω. 32.24 ὀφθαλµός. 32.25 τυφλόω τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς. 32.42 τυφλός. 32.43 τυφλόω. Common terms in other domains but with different lexical features: Domain 24 Sensory Events and States: 24.1 ὁράω. 24.7, 24.41 βλέπω. 24.14 θεωρέω. 24.16 ὀφθαλµός. 24.18 φαίνοµαι. 24.19 φανερόω, ἐµφανίζω. 24.20 φανερῶς. 24.29, 24.30 κρύπτω. 24.38 τυφλός. 24.52 ἀκούω

44

Chapter 2: Linguistic Foundations

(24.58 also). Domain 31 Hold a View/Believe/Trust: 31.27 γινώσκω. Domain 36 Guide, Discipline, Follow: 36.14 ἀκούω. 36.38 µαθητής. 4. Witnessing (Domain 33 Communicate). 33.262 µαρτυρέω, µαρτυρία (33.264 also). 33.274 ὁµολογέω. 33.277 ἀρνέοµαι. Common terms in other domains but with different lexical features: Domain 31 Hold a View/Believe/Trust: 31.25 ἀρνέοµαι. Domain 36 Guide, Discipline, Follow: 36.43 ἀρνέοµαι. 5. Remembering (Domain 29 Memory and Recall) 29.6 οἶδα. 29.7 µνηµονεύω (29.8 also), µιµνῄσκοµαι. 29.9 ὑποµιµνῄσκοµαι. 29.10 ὑποµιµνῄσκω. Common terms in other domains but with different lexical features: Domain 28 Know: 28.7 οἶδα. Domain 32 Understand: 32.4 οἶδα. 6.

Believing (Domain 31 Hold a View/Believe/Trust, Domain 36 Guide, Discipline, Follow). 31.8, 31.67 πλανάω. 31.18 συντίθεµαι. 31.25 ἀρνέοµαι. 31.27 γινώσκω. 31.29 οἶµαι, δοκέω. 31.30 δοκεῖ. 31.35, 31.85, 31.102 πιστεύω. 31.50 λαµβάνω. 31.55 βαστάζω. 31.56 ἀκούω. 31.57 χωρέω. 31.60 στρέφοµαι. 31.77, 31.78 σκανδαλίζω. 31.86 πιστός. 31.98, 31.106 ἄπιστος. 31.100 ἀθετέω. 31.107 ἀπειθέω. 36.14 ἀκούω. 36.19 φυλάσσω; τηρέω. 36.20 τελέω. 36.23 ἀπειθέω. 36.31 ἀκολουθέω. 36.35 ὀπίσω. 36.36 ἀπέρχοµαι εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω. 36.38 µαθητής. 36.39 υἱός. 36.40 τέκνον. 36.42 συµµαθητής. 36.43 ἀρνέοµαι. Common terms in other domains but with different lexical features: Domain 24 Sensory Events and States: 24.52 ἀκούω (24.58 also). Domain 27 Learn: 27.16 µαθητής. 27.18 γινώσκω. Domain 28 Know: 28.1 γινώσκω. Domain 32 Understand: 32.1 ἀκούω. 32.16 γινώσκω. Domain 33 Communicate: 33.277 ἀρνέοµαι. As these six categories are semantically inter-connected, their semantic boundaries are fuzzy such that their range of meanings overlaps with each other. However, mastering this extended and exhaustive list which constitutes the Johannine semantic fields of the apprehension vocabulary provides us a methodologically rigorous groundwork so that the concept can be traced judiciously.

D. Summary

45

D. Summary D. Summary

In this chapter, I set out to discuss the proper relationship between words, context, and concept. I also introduced some basic concepts of linguistics like sense and reference, syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships. With this understanding, the grammatical constructions of the key apprehension terms are analysed and examined (focusing more on the syntagmatic relations). I further pointed out errors committed by Johannine scholars (such as Edwin Abbott, Ignace de La Potterie, and Raymond Brown). Their notions regarding the nature of Johannine synonyms, i.e., the subtle differences they posit between different Greek words and phrases, particularly regarding θεωρέω/ὁράω/θεάοµαι; γινώσκω/οἶδα; πιστεύω+εἰς/πιστεύω+dative object, cannot stand upon close scrutiny. They are in reality virtually synonymous, demonstrating a unique Johannine style. Then in the second half of the chapter, I set up the semantic fields for apprehension of Jesus by identifying exhaustively the semantic clusters for all the words used in GJohn (focusing more on the paradigmatic relations). This extended list of terms constituting the relevant semantic fields is lengthy. Yet only with this mastery of the Johannine semantic fields can we have a methodologically rigorous basis to trace the concept accurately later on. Thus, with these two aspects of linguistic analysis mentioned above, aspects from the grammatical as well as from the lexical, I hope to provide by way of methodological clarity a foundation for our adventure of what it means to apprehend Jesus (“grasping the Divine”), which will be explored in the following Chapters.

Chapter 3

Phase One: First Encounters (John 1–4) Building on the foundation of the last chapter, we have noticed some features of the key sets of apprehension terms used in GJohn, the often synonymous character of the author’s different choices of apprehension terms, and also the Johannine semantic fields of apprehension. Bearing these in mind, we are going to examine the first four chapters of GJohn. From the point of view of plot development, John 1–4 presents the beginnings of Jesus’ public ministry as a unit by itself. With the introduction, what I call “preamble”1 and “monologues,”2 in John 1 and 3 (1:1–5, 9–18; 3:16–21, 31–36), the cosmic and soteriological backdrop of Jesus’ mission is set. Then the beginnings of Jesus’ ministry are marked by a journey from Cana in Galilee to Jerusalem (2:1, 13) and back to Cana again through Samaria (4:3–4, 46) thus interleaving these four chapters into a unit. As I will argue in this Chapter, the concept of apprehension can be construed as a distinctive phase in this unit. Associated with this Cana–Jerusalem journey are episodes of initial encounters with Jesus wherein characters are depicted as recognising (or failing to recognise) Jesus’ identity through their responses to Jesus’ words or works.3 In light of this, apprehension of Jesus, as a concept, is closely linked to the plot of GJohn and yet different from mere discussions of the plot. Tracing this concept against this background of John 1–4 will provide us a tool to 1

The consensus of 1:1–18 as GJohn’s “prologue” has been recently challenged by Peter Williams and Ramsey Michaels based on the grounds of the textual division on 1:5 traced from the history of earliest manuscript transmission and the fact that the light motif, which finishes off 1:1–5, represents a more dominant image linking the rest of GJohn. Michaels, John, 31; Peter J. Williams, “Not the Prologue of John,” JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011): 375–86. For the distinctive stylistic quality of 1:1–5 over vv.6–18, see Dan Nässelqvist, “Stylistic Levels in Hebrews 1.1–4 and John 1.1–18,” JSNT 35, no. 1 (2012): 31–53. 2 “An extended speech uttered by one speaker, either to others or as if alone.” “Monologue,” The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008, http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199 208272.001.0001/acref-9780199208272-e-742. 3 See further F.R. Montgomery Hitchcock, “Is the Fourth Gospel a Drama?,” Theology 7 (1923): 307–17; Culpepper, Anatomy, 80–82; Mark W. G. Stibbe, John’s Gospel, New Testament Readings (London: Routledge, 1994), 35–36; R. Alan Culpepper, “The Plot of John’s Story of Jesus,” Interpretation 49, no. 4 (1995): 347–58; Jo-Ann A. Brant, Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 50–57; Larsen, Recognition-Scenes, 73–141. Contra Lincoln, Truth, 162.

A. Use of Apprehension Vocabulary

47

explore the unique strategies the author employed via his use of the apprehension terms. With this plot development in mind, I will show in this chapter how apprehension of Jesus is made possible through John’s rhetorical strategies and distinctive uses of the vocabulary. I will show that, with the collaboration of ideas of seeing and hearing from Jesus empirically, seeing his signs and hearing his words of riddle (implicit sign), knowing and testifying, as well as remembering in a post-resurrection perspective, characters came to faith and grew in faith in their encounters with Jesus. Through these portrayals in the narrative, the author brings in another level of narration which interacts with the readers. All these features form the crucial characteristics of the first phase of apprehension. I will argue, in addition, that 2:23–25, the anticlimactic concluding remarks on Jesus’ omniscience, tie the two ideas of apprehending Jesus and Jesus’ apprehending together; one really “knows” Jesus only when Jesus recognises that one does. These are the distinctive features of apprehension of Jesus in John 1–4 not seen in other parts of GJohn. This Chapter is structured in the following way. Noting the distribution of the use of apprehension vocabulary in John 1–4 (section A) and taking it as the basis, I will give a narrative overview which focuses on how the concept of apprehension of Jesus is at work across these four chapters by highlighting its general characteristics in this phase (section B). With this frame of understanding, 1:19–2:25 and 4:43–54 are selected for deeper exegetical analysis and discussion on John’s rhetorical strategy (section C). Whereas these foregoing sections basically follow the flow of the text of GJohn, in the final section, I will ask questions which relate to concerns in the Johannine scholarship noted in Chapter 1 through reflecting on John’s intended impact on the readers (Chapter 1, section C).

A. Overview of the Use of Apprehension Vocabulary A. Use of Apprehension Vocabulary

Based on the different semantic clusters we identified in Chapter 2, the distribution of apprehension vocabulary in John 1–4 can be illustrated as follows.

48

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

Table 1: Distribution of the apprehension vocabulary (John 1–4) The so-called “prologue” (1:1–18)

Witness of John the Baptist (1:19–34, 3:22–30)

Conversion of first disciples, the first sign and the temple incident (1:35–2:25) The Nicodemus pericope (3:1–15)

The Johannine monologues (3:16–21, 31– 36) The Samaritan woman pericope (4:1–42)

The royal official pericope (4:43–54)

Key terms µαρτυρέω (1:7, 8, 15), µαρτυρία (1:7), πιστεύω (1:7, 12), γινώσκω (1:10), παραλαµβάνω (1:11), λαµβάνω (1:12, 16), θεάοµαι (1:14), ὁράω (1:18) µαρτυρία (1:19), οἶδα (1:26), βλέπω (1:29), ὁράω (1:29, 33, 34; 3:26), οἶδα (1:31, 33), µαρτυρέω (1:32, 34; 3:26, 28), θεάοµαι (1:32); λαµβάνω (3:27), ἀκούω (3:29) ἐµβλέπω (1:36, 42), ὁράω (1:36, 39 [2x], 46, 47 [2x], 48, 50 [2x], 51), ἀκούω (1:37, 40), θεάοµαι (1:38), γινώσκω (1:48, 2:25 [2x]), πιστεύω (1:50, 2:11, 22, 23), µιµνῄσκοµαι (2:17, 22), θεωρέω (2:23), µαρτυρέω (2:25) οἶδα (3:2, 8, 11), ὁράω (3:3, 11), ἀκούω (3:8), γινώσκω (3:10), µαρτυρέω (3:11), µαρτυρία (3:11), λαµβάνω (3:11), πιστεύω (3:12 [2x], 15) πιστεύω (3:16, 18[3x], 36), µαρτυρέω (3:32), ὁράω (3:32, 36), ἀκούω (3:32), µαρτυρία (3:32, 33), λαµβάνω (3:32, 33) γινώσκω (4:1), οἶδα (4:10, 22 [2x], 25, 32, 42), θεωρέω (4:19), πιστεύω (4:21, 39, 41, 42), ὁράω (4:29, 35), θεάοµαι (4:35), µαρτυρέω (4:39), ἀκούω (4:42) µαρτυρέω (4:44), ὁράω (4:45, 48), ἀκούω (4:47), πιστεύω (4:48, 50, 53), γινώσκω (4:53)

Extended list of related terms φαίνω (1:5), ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ (1:5), καταλαµβάνω (1:5), φωτίζω (1:9), τέκνον (1:12), θέληµα (1:13 [2x]), ὀπίσω (1:15), ἐξηγέοµαι (1:18) ὁµολογέω (1:20 [2x]), ἀρνέοµαι (1:20), ὀπίσω (1:27, 30), φανερόω (1:31); µαθητής (3: 22, 25), ζήτησις (3:25) µαθητής (1:35, 37; 2:2, 11, 12, 17, 22), ἀκολουθέω4 (1:37, 38, 40, 43), ζητέω (1:38), θέλω5 (1:43), φανερόω (2:11)

θέλω (3:8)

φανερόω (3:21), σφραγίζω (3:33), ἀπειθέω (3:36)

µαθητής (4:1, 2, 8, 27, 31, 33), ζητέω (4:27), θέληµα (4:34), ἐπάρατε τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς (4:35) πυνθάνοµαι (4:52)

From the above figure, one can readily observe that the concept of apprehension mainly centres on the use of the key terms. Though the related terms are used relatively rarely, some of them like φαίνω (1:5) and ἐξηγέοµαι (1:18), are strategically located at important junctures of GJohn. Even more, the concept of apprehension could be expressed implicitly even when neither set 4 LN36.31: “adhering to the teachings or instructions of a leader and in promoting the cause of such a leader'.” 5 LN30.58: “making a decision.”

B. Development of Concept

49

of terms is used. For instance, witnessing terms are not found at all in 1:35– 51 but the concept of witness is clearly seen as the first disciples confess the messianic titles of Jesus (1:41, 45, 49). Similarly, in the same pericope, πιστεύω is used only once, to describe Nathanael’s conversion (1:50). Apparently, this does not mean that the rest of the first disciples have not believed in Jesus. Their conversion is clearly implied in the context. Therefore, the apprehension of Jesus in terms of the semantic clusters outlined in the previous chapters has to be analysed through a close reading of the text, bearing in mind the occurrence of the terms listed here and the literary features/structures that shaped John 1–4, to which we now turn.6

B. Narrative Overview of the Development of the Concept B. Development of Concept

There is a distinctive phase of apprehension in John 1–4. As illustrated by the following figure, along with 1:1–5, 9–18 and 3:16–21, 31–36 which consist of John’s introductions with inserted witnesses of John the Baptist, episodes in John 1–4 all end in the believing motif (1:50; 2:11, 22; 3:12, 15; 4:41–42, 50, 53). Except for the Nicodemus pericope, they are all positive encounters of Jesus which result in bringing the characters to faith in Jesus.

6 Concerning literary structures, we must note that for GJohn, there are many proposed structures posited by scholars with criticisms being made of the high degree of subjectivity involved. For instance, Henri Van den Bussche, “La Structure de Jean I-XII,” in L’Évangile de Jean: Études et Problèmes, ed. M. E. Boismard and F. M. Braun, Recherches Bibliques 3 (Bruges, France: Desclée de Brouwer, 1958), 61–109; G.H.C. MacGregor and A.Q. Morton, The Structure of the Fourth Gospel (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1961); Xavier Léon-Dufour, “Trois chiasmes Johanniques,” NTS 7, no. 3 (1961): 249–55; David Deeks, “Structure of the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 15, no. 1 (1968): 107–29; Mathias Rissi, “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums,” NTS 29, no. 1 (1983): 48–54; Jeffrey L. Staley, “The Structure of John’s Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel’s Narrative Structure,” CBQ 48, no. 2 (1986): 241–64; George Mlakuzhyil, The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel, AnBib 117 (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1987); Staley, First-Kiss, 58–73; William R. G. Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues (New York: Peter Lang, 1989); Charles H. Giblin, “The Tripartite Narrative Structure of John’s Gospel,” Bib 71, no. 4 (1990): 449–68; Gunnar H. Østenstad, Patterns of Redemption in the Fourth Gospel: An Experiment in Structural Analysis (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1998). Commenting on his own outline of GJohn, Michaels admits that even his proposed outline “does justice to some but by no means all of the evidence.” Michaels, John, 36. Bearing these diverse views in mind, literary structures proposed in this work are used primarily for the sake of a better understanding of the concept of apprehension of Jesus.

50

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

Table 2: Outline of John 1–4 1:1–5 Preamble 1:6–8 Witness of John the Baptist 1:9–18 Monologue 1:19–3:15 Encounter episodes ending with the believing motif –John the Baptist’s retrospective apprehension and Jesus’ calling the first disciples (1:19–51) –Jesus’ performing the first sign (2:1–12) –Jesus’ cleansing of the temple (2:13–22) Anticlimactic concluding remark and clarification (2:23–25) –Jesus and Nicodemus (3:1–15) 3:16–21 Monologue 3:22–30 Witness of John the Baptist 3:31–36 Monologue 4:1–54 Encounter episodes ending with the believing motif –Jesus and the Samaritan woman (4:1–42) –Jesus and the royal official (4:43–54)

The story of Jesus is introduced by the preamble and the monologues (1:1– 5, 9–18; 3:16–21, 31–36) which set the stage for apprehension of Jesus for the readers and explain how such apprehension is made possible. The “Word,” identified as God, the agent of creation, life, and light, now shines (φαίνω 1:5) in the darkness and enlightens (φωτίζω 1:9) every people through his incarnation (1:14). The incomprehension of the world, characterised by not knowing and not receiving Jesus (καταλαµβάνω7 1:5, γινώσκω, παραλαµβάνω 1:10, 11; λαµβάνω τὴν µαρτυρίαν 3:32), is contrasted with John’s comprehending “we” 8 who beheld Jesus’ glory (θεάοµαι 1:14) and received from his fullness (λαµβάνω 1:16). Apprehension of Jesus is made

7 The intellectual (“understood/comprehended”) and the hostile (overpowered/overcome) senses of καταλαµβάνω need not be mutually exclusive. The ambiguity highlights the fact that this world of darkness can neither comprehend (cf. 1:10) nor overcome (cf. 12:35) the light. Cf. Bennema, “Christ-Spirit-Knowledge,” 110. 8 There are different views on the identity of the “we” here. As analysed succinctly by Michaels, it can be understood as a personal “we,” signifying the author(s) (with or without the readers) as apostolic witness(es). Or it can be understood as a rhetorical “we,” signifying the author’s sympathetic alignment with those who received Jesus in 1:12–13. In fact, both can be intended by the author. From the perspective of apostolic witnesses, it is they that comprehended the true meaning of Jesus’ life on earth. From the rhetorical perspective, the readers as much as the author, through the mediated narrative of Jesus, are able to feel the presence of the incarnated logos and comprehend his glory. In this regard, Lincoln rightly said that this “we” (1:14, 16, 21:24) helps the readers to “enter into” and share “the perspective and values” of the narrative world and then to “exit from” it and take them back into their own world. Lincoln, Truth, 172–73. It is unnecessary to adopt an either-or approach here. Michaels, John, 75–76.

B. Development of Concept

51

possible as the Word dwelt among us (1:14), as the one and only God9 “explains” the unseen God and “guides the way” (ἐξηγέοµαι 1:18).10 He is the authoritative witness concerning what he has seen and heard (ὁράω, ἀκούω, µαρτυρέω 3:32). By receiving and believing Jesus (λαµβάνω, πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτου 1:12; 3:16, 18), the status of children of God and eternal life are granted. On the other hand, those who neither believe nor obey the Son are condemned with God’s wrath (πιστεύω 3:18–19, ἀπειθέω 3:36). People are faced with the choice of whether to accept God’s loving invitation to save. These are the foundational principles which the author lays bare in front of the readers before they read further through GJohn. Having stockpiled words like πᾶς (1:3, 7, 9, 16; 3:16, 20, 31 [2x], 35), ἄνθρωπος (1:4, 9; 3:19), κόσµος (1:9, 10 [3x]; 3:16, 17 [3x], 19), and ὅσος (1:12), the universalistic tone is prevalent; it works together with the apprehension terms to show that apprehension of Jesus is now available for everyone. Through these declarations in the beginning of GJohn, which foster readers’ identification, the author’s implicit evangelistic purpose appears to be well intended, not something perceived accidentally. With the preamble and monologues functioning as the readers’ interpretive aid thoughtfully placed in the beginning of GJohn, 1:19–3:15 introduces a series of encounters with Jesus. The testimony of John the Baptist recalls a retrospective account of how he came to follow Jesus which is followed by the conversion of the first disciples. The first disciples’ faith is developed in three stages, namely, their initial chain sequence of coming to faith and bearing witness (1:35–51), their deepening faith by seeing Jesus’ first sign at Cana (2:1–12), and further deepening in remembering Jesus’ words and scriptures beyond Jesus’ lifespan through the Temple Incident (2:13–22). This positive apprehension of Jesus is then counterbalanced by an anticlimactic reference to πιστεύω in 2:23–25, thereby signalling that true faith hinges on Jesus’ own authoritative discernment. I will further explore the apprehension concept and John’s rhetorical strategy for 1:19–2:25 in the next section. A semi-negative apprehension of Jesus by Nicodemus follows (3:1–15; particu9

For the discussion on the lectio difficilior µονογενὴς θεὸς, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 169–70; Schnackenburg, John-I, 1:1:280; Brown, John-I, 17; Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, NAC 25A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 124; Michaels, John, 92; Benjamin J. Burkholder, “Considering the Possibility of a Theological Corruption in Joh 1,18 in Light of its Early Reception,” ZNW 103, no. 1 (2012): 64–83. 10 Ἐξηγέοµαι is a double entendre signifying both revealing/explaining and guiding. See further de la Potterie, Vérité, 213–28; Ignace de la Potterie, “‘C’est lui qui a ouvert la voie’: la finale du prologue johannique,” Bib 69, no. 3 (1988): 340–70; R. Robert, “La double intention du mot final du prologue johannique,” RThom 87, no. 3 (1987): 435–41; R. Robert, “Le mot final du prologue johannique. A propos d’un article récent,” RThom 89, no. 2 (1989): 279–88; McHugh, John, 74–76.

52

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

larly, v.10 οὐ γινώσκεις, v.11 τὴν µαρτυρίαν ἡµῶν οὐ λαµβάνετε, and v.12 οὐ πιστεύετε), centring on the theme of spiritual regeneration and ending in Nicodemus’ failure to understand and believe,11 as well as Jesus’ invitation to everyone to faith. The remaining two encounters in John 4 resume the account of Jesus’ successful mission. Jesus’ encounters with both the Samaritan woman and the royal official recapitulate how people can come to faith in response to Jesus’ own challenges (contrasting Nicodemus). Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman, centring on living water, betrays a teaching pattern similar to that with Nicodemus.12 Firstly, Jesus actively reveals himself to the characters and teaches them (4:10; 3:3). The characters misunderstand his teaching but Jesus afterwards clarifies what they do not know (οἶδα 4:10–14; 3:4–8). Secondly, the characters claim certain knowledge about Jesus (θεωρέω 4:19; οἶδα 4:25; 3:2) but this knowledge was later shown to be inadequate. Thirdly, with Jesus’ further clarification and challenge, he showed himself to be the truly knowing one (οἶδα 4:22; 3:11). Similarly, Jesus is portrayed as the authoritative teacher as in the Nicodemus pericope. Even more, Jesus knows the past history of the woman (4:17, 29, 39) and actually planned the whole trip beforehand (γινώσκω 4:1, δεῖ 4:4, οὖν 4:5). In both encounters, he proves himself to be the omniscient one who knows all that is in people as introduced in 2:25. Jesus’ own divine apprehension of spiritual reality runs parallel to people’s apprehension of him. Regarding witnessing, when a decision to believe is made, a natural outcome of apprehending Jesus is to testify about him to others (4:28–30, µαρτυρέω 4:39). This is demonstrated in the case of the Samaritan woman and is also commanded by Jesus to the disciples in 4:31–38. Furthermore, through the conversion of the Samaritans, a direct apprehension of Jesus, instead of merely hearing other’s testimony, is encouraged (πιστεύω, ἀκούω, οἶδα 4:40–42). In the case of the royal official, GJohn warns against taking signs as a precondition and yet demonstrates how hearing Jesus’ words and seeing miraculous signs contribute to faith in Jesus. I will elaborate these aspects further in the next section. The above overview gives us a snapshot of how the apprehension terms function within the sub-plot of GJohn in John 1–4. In encountering Jesus, characters came to faith and grew in faith except that the not-yet-believing 11 At least in a state of hesitating doubt at that point. Note also his ambiguity in GJohn; Gabi Renz, “Nicodemus: A Narrative Sensitive Investigation,” in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. John Lierman, WUNT 2/219 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 255–83; R. Alan Culpepper, “Nicodemus: The Travail of New Birth,” in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Steven A. Hunt, D. François Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 314 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 249–59. 12 Contrast the rudimentary pattern in Culpepper, Anatomy, 152.

C. Exegetical Analysis

53

Nicodemus silently disappears from the scene. Nicodemus’ ambiguity prepares the way for the negative encounters with “the Jews” in Phase II (John 5–12) and Nicodemus’ final stance will be seen in Phase IV (John 18–21). Other than this thread connecting other parts of GJohn, we see in John 1–4 generally positive encounters of characters introducing Jesus as they see, hear, know, testify, remember, and believe in him. Now, some of the more subtle developments and interactions of the different apprehension terms will be explored more deeply through discussion on the two selected passages, 1:19–2:25 and 4:43–54.

C. Exegetical Analysis in Context C. Exegetical Analysis

As the previous section shows, apprehension of Jesus in John 1–4 is intricately connected to the overall purpose of GJohn stated in 20:30–31, namely that Jesus “did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.”13 Having noted a narrative overview to the development of the concept in John 1–4, two passages, 1:19–2:25 and 4:43–54 are selected for deeper exegetical analysis as well as discussion on the author’s rhetorical strategies. Through my analysis, I am going to show the importance of apprehending Jesus based on empirical senses as indicated in the conversion of John the Baptist and the first disciples (1:19–2:22), as well as Jesus’ apprehending his people as a counter-balancing theological thought of John (2:23–25). I will also discuss the importance of the double mention of characters’ acts of believing (2:1–22; 4:43–54) which is characteristic in this phase of apprehension, the significance of remembrance in the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (2:13–22), and Jesus’ criticism of signs as pre-requisite to faith while upholding their value (4:43–54). 1. Conversion of John the Baptist and the First Disciples, the First Sign, and the Temple Incident (1:19–2:25) a) John the Baptist’s Testimony and Conversion (1:19–34) On the one hand, the witness of John the Baptist, ἡ µαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου (1:19), connects up vv.19–34 with vv.6–8, 15. On the other hand, 1:19–34 is closely linked to 1:35–51 by the repeated temporal marker τῇ ἐπαύριον. Through the dialogue between John and “the Jews” sent from the Pharisees, the author points out three things: First, there is a heavy emphasis on John’s 13

English scriptural quotations are taken from NRSV unless otherwise stated.

54

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

denial of being the Christ, as the author piles up terms of the witnessing category (καὶ ὡµολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, καὶ ὡµολόγησεν v.20). Second, John the Baptist was humble enough to admit that he was inferior. He was only the voice of Isaiah 40:3 (John 1:23), and he even compared himself to an unworthy slave (1:27). The use of ὀπίσω is important here (v.27).14 It signifies both time and rank, that Jesus was not only coming later than John but also was following John as the leader;15 yet Jesus has a higher rank and existed before John. Third, John’s baptising ministry was explained as introducing Jesus whom “the Jews” did not know (οὐκ οἴδατε v.26), so that Jesus can be revealed (φανερόω) to Israel (v.31). It is unlikely that “the Jews” had completely no acquaintance with Jesus;16 but the sense John does stress, rather, is that they did not “know” Jesus as he is, i.e., his significance as the Lamb of God. These three ideas continue what has been introduced in 1:7–8, that “he came to bear witness to the light” “so that all might believe through him.” The second and third points above apparently have their importance in John’s encounter with Jesus in 1:29–34, especially in terms of empirical senses. In “seeing” (βλέπω) Jesus, John draws “the Jews’” attention by ἴδε (v.29, cf. v.36)17 and identifies Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. With µαρτυρέω (v.34 cf. v.32), he confesses Jesus as the Son of God. He stresses that he too did not “know” Jesus (v.31, 33), i.e., Jesus’ true significance as mentioned above. Not only did John compare himself with the Pharisees in v.26, his apprehension of Jesus was just like the unbelieving world as in 1:10 (ὁ κόσµος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω). But by “seeing” (θεάομαι v.32 cf. ὁράω v.33, 34) the Spirit descend and remain on Jesus (vv.32–33),18 John confirms that Jesus is the one who baptises with the Holy

14

Cf. the same ὀπίσω µου in 1:15, 30; 6:66. McHugh argues forcefully that ὀπίσω µου plus a verb of motion, ἐρχόµενος, could be understood in terms of rank. This understanding is plausible especially in light of the synoptic account that John baptized Jesus (most EVV understand ὀπίσω only temporally, i.e., “he who comes after me….” McHugh, John, 61–62. Cf. LN36.35. Nevertheless, McHugh ignores the fact that double entendre is so common in GJohn (as we shall see) such that both could be intended by the author (cf. 1:27, 30). Note that ἔµπροσθεν should also be understood similarly. 16 Cf. 6:42. 17 Note that de Goedt considers ἴδε as part of a revelation formula in GJohn. Michel De Goedt, “Un schème de révélation dans le quatrième Évangile,” NTS 8, no. 2 (1961): 142– 50. 18 Lincoln refuses to consider this seeing as belonging to an eyewitness report (cf. 1:14) and claims that “the actual reference of the seeing and testifying language… is not to an observable fact but to a belief about Jesus’ identity.” While the event may not be observable to others, it is certainly not so observable to the Baptist. This visual/visionary experience remains “the” criterion for him to recognize and believe in Jesus as the Son of God (1:34). The language of his experience is grounded in a claimed fact and not simply 15

C. Exegetical Analysis

55

Spirit (v.33). Accordingly, we can say that John’s retrospective account of his own apprehension of Jesus (his visionary experience) in 1:29–34 constitutes his “conversion”: how the Jesus who was following him (ὀπίσω µου) is now followed by him. Thus, after 1:1–18, apprehension of Jesus is first brought forward by the witness of the first character John the Baptist with his own apprehension of Jesus. John’s follower is now followed by John as he testifies Jesus’ identity as the Lamb of God, the Son of God, and the one who baptises with the Holy Spirit. Thus, John the Baptist functions to guide readers into the empirical narrative world. The metaphysical truth of Jesus’ heavenly origin outlined in 1:1– 18 is seen in the historic person of Jesus introduced by John’s witness here.19 Right at the beginning of GJohn, through the use of θεάοµαι/ὁράω/βλέπω, ὀπίσω, and µαρτυρέω, the Baptist is the first one who sees, believes, and testifies. The author’s rhetorical strategy is also seen in the subtle reversal of seniority of the Baptist’s role, which is in line with the interpretive frame set in 1:1–18 regarding Jesus’ divine status. Readers are guided not only to the knowledge of Jesus’ identity but to the apprehending experience of a trusted Jewish historical figure. While Christian or Jewish readers may have had prior knowledge regarding John the Baptist, readers even without such background knowledge can still grasp this basic message of apprehension, especially as a result of the Baptist’s testimony on Jesus’ mission and identity, not to mention the author’s additional guidance from 1:1–18 cast in an implicit faith-soliciting tone. What is more, the Baptist’s testimony had immediate effect: the conversion of his disciples to become Jesus’ disciples. b) Conversion of the First Disciples (1:29–51) The conversion of the first disciples is a continuation of John the Baptist’s witness. Taking 1:19–34 as explaining how the Baptist came to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God, from being followed (chronologically by Jesus) to following Jesus, a similar apprehension process is repeated for his disciples. With the temporal marker τῇ ἐπαύριον, these conversion stories are grouped in three parts, 1:29–34, 35–42, 43–51, which can be illustrated in the following figure. Through the Baptist’s introduction and confession of Jesus, two of his disciples started to follow Jesus (1:35–42). One of them, Andrew, ended up witnessing about Jesus, like the Baptist did. In a similar manner (1:43–51), the result of faith in Jesus. Lincoln, “Beloved Disciple,” 9. Similarly, Ricoeur, “The Hermeneutics of Testimony,” 137. Contrast Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 405–6. 19 Morna Hooker’s comment on John’s role in 1:6–8 is applicable here as well, “the references to John the Baptist serve to link the subsequent historical statements with the metaphysical truths there outlined.” Morna D. Hooker, “John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue,” NTS 16, no. 4 (1970): 354–58.

56

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

Philip also “followed” Jesus (note the same ἀκολουθέω) and ended up witnessing about Jesus. Table 3: Conversion of John the Baptist and the first disciples (1:29–51) (Arrows indicating the verbal connections)

Temporal marker Seeing/ hearing

Knowing Believing

Witnessing/conf essing messianic titles

John the Baptist (1:29–36) Τῇ ἐπαύριον (v.29)

Two disciples (1:35–41) Τῇ ἐπαύριον πάλιν (v.35)

Peter (1:42) /

Philip (1:43–45) Τῇ ἐπαύριον (v.43) /

Saw Jesus and invited others to see (βλέπει and ἴδε v.29; ἐµβλέψας and ἴδε v.36) Saw the Holy Spirit on Jesus (τεθέαµαι τὸ πνεῦµα vv.32–34)

Heard John’s words (ἤκουσαν v.37, 40) Jesus saw (θεασάµενος v.38) them and invited them to “come and see” (ἔρχεσθε καὶ ὄψεσθε) and they came and saw (v.39)

Jesus looked at Peter and gave him a new name (ἐµβλέψας αὐτῷ v.42)

Did not know Jesus before (οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν v.31) /

Jesus asked them what they seek (τί ζητεῖτε v.38) Followed Jesus (ἀκολουθησάντων αὐτῷ v.40 cf. v.37)

/

/

/

Testified (µαρτυρέω vv.32, 34) that he saw the Spirit and Jesus is “the Son of God” (v.34); confessed Jesus as “the Lamb of God” (vv.29, 36)

(Andrew) found (εὑρίσκει) Peter and told him that “we have found the Messiah” (v.41); brought Peter to Jesus (v.42)

/

Jesus invited him to follow (ἀκολούθ ει µοι v.43) Found (εὑρίσκει) Nathanael and told him that “we have found the one Moses… wrote about” (v.45)

Nathanael (1:46–51) / Philip invited him to “come and see” (ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε v.46) Jesus saw him and invited others to see (εἶδεν and ἴδε v.47); saw him under the fig tree (εἶδεν vv.48, 50) Jesus promised greater things to be seen (ὄψῃ, ὄψεσθε vv.50–51) Questioned Jesus how he knew him (πόθεν µε γινώσκεις v.48) Jesus considered him to have believed (πιστεύεις v.50)

Answered Jesus by saying that “you are the Son of God” and “the King of Israel” (v.49)

C. Exegetical Analysis

57

While the key apprehension terms are not used evenly and systematically across parts of 1:29–51 as shown in the above figure, the characters all become Jesus’ disciples at the end of the “day.”20 Moreover, the narrative reflects a roughly common chain-sequence: They encountered Jesus through empirical senses, got to know him, believed in him, and bore witness to him. By using second person plural ὄψεσθε in 1:51 towards the end of the pericope, Jesus addresses the disciples as a whole and promises further “greater things” to be seen. From this, we can observe that the disciples began by seeing or hearing Jesus. While some (the two disciples and Nathanael) heard about Jesus through another’s witness, they then came to know him face to face. Initially they all did not know Jesus. But with Jesus’ question τί ζητεῖτε; (1:38)21 and invitation to “come and see” (vv.39, 46),22 they became acquainted with him. In particular, Nathanael was struck by the fact that Jesus knew what was in his heart (ἐν ᾧ δόλος οὐκ ἔστιν 1:47 cf. 2:25) and saw him from afar (εἶδόν σε 1:48). Realising that Jesus had known him, Nathanael confessed Jesus as “the Son of God” and “King of Israel” as other characters similarly did. This time Jesus explicitly said that Nathaniel “believed” (though all were converted evidently). Thus, by hearing another’s witness and “coming and seeing” Jesus, one knows him and believes in him. The fact of their conversion is shown by their confession of Jesus’ identity and by their testimonies to other people (1:41, 45, and 49).23 Here, although the first sign has yet to be performed by Jesus, the language of seeing Jesus and hearing him already functions complementarily to lead the first disciples to faith. However, this type of apprehension represents only the initial stage of faith. This is illustrated in two ways. First, their conversion is straightforward without questioning anything (contrast the characters in the next phase of apprehension). Second, in answering Nathanael, Jesus promises greater things to be 20

Except John in a stricter and physical sense. Ζητέω, pertaining to the knowing concept, shows Jesus’ guidance for the two disciples to inquire further. Estes calls 1:38a a “sequence question” which is persuasive to the readers in asking them to reflect on what they are desiring in their life. Douglas Estes, The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric and Persuasive Discourse, BIS 115 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 105–7. 22 Although the future indicative ὄψεσθε is used in 1:39 instead of the aorist imperative ἴδε in 1:46, they can be seen as an example of stylistic variation since ὄψεσθε can also be understood as an imperatival future. The reading ἴδετε attested in ‫ א‬A C3 Θ f13 Û latt suggests a scribal attempt at harmonization. 23 The lack of response/confession from Peter and the author’s only mentioning his renaming by Jesus are somewhat strange. But compare Σίµων Ἰωάννου in 1:42 and 21:15–17, which can be seen as an inclusio spanning the entire gospel. Jesus knew Peter (Σίµων Ἰωάννου) as he was from the beginning and will keep his promise in strengthening him as a “rock” (Cephas) even when he fails (cf. John 21). See further Blaine, Peter, 33–38. 21

58

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

seen (1:50), as they will “see” heaven opened and the work of God24 in Jesus himself (1:51). Further spiritual perception in the sense of revelation 25 is assured to people who choose to believe him.26 As for these characters, apprehension of Jesus has now started. Thus, the author is guiding the reader through such portrayals using the apprehension terms. A combination of seeing, hearing, knowing, believing, and witnessing Jesus, together with the experience of John the Baptist, forms a pattern illustrating to the readers what it means to receive Jesus as highlighted in 1:11–12. Given the author’s persuasive intention and universalistic tone regarding faith in Jesus declared in 1:1–18 as I surveyed in the narrative overview, the first disciples’ conversion account thus provides a model before the readers; they can similarly experience Jesus and are promised to know him further.27 c) The First Sign (2:1–12) The idea of experiencing Jesus further is continued in 2:1–12. This wedding account at Cana is the first miracle narrative in GJohn. It is the first28 sign, which happened “on the third day” (v.1), which provides a linkage signifying that the “greater things” pledged in 1:50 start to be fulfilled here. In this narrative, although a number of characters are involved, namely, Jesus, Jesus’ mother, disciples, the servants, the steward of the feast, and the bridegroom, the focal point is primarily Jesus and his disciples which echoes what I highlighted in 1:29–51. After all, it is their believing in Jesus that captures John’s attention in recording this unique event (2:11). The crucial role of πιστεύω in reference to the disciples is significant. On the one hand, this is the first instance where the disciples’ faith is pronounced collectively. But on the other 24

For allusions to Gen 28:12 and Isa 64:1, see McHugh, John, 165–67. For the revelatory idea signified by τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα, see Schnackenburg, John-I, 1:321–22. 26 Thus, we also see that characterisation in GJohn should be placed under the framework of John’s gradual plot development which is analysed in this work. Some Johannine character studies, in singling out characters’ portrayals, could neglect the function they play in the stage of apprehension within the plot, even though some of their complex traits may be analysed. For instance, it might be too shallow to flatly categorise characters’ responses to Jesus as adequate/inadequate; see the depiction of Andrew and Philip in Bennema, Encountering, 47–52. Contrast the more sophisticated categories, Hopkins, “Faith,” 56–68. 27 While Larsen also sees Jesus’ promise as directly addressing the readers, the readers are by no means “voyeurs” according to what I have traced from the perspective of apprehension. With John’s rhetorical strategy, they are invited to participate, not merely to observe. Contra Larsen, Recognition-Scenes, 110–11. 28 Ἀρχή (2:11) can also mean “beginning” such that this pericope represents the beginning of the author’s selected signs of Jesus. See Barrett, John, 193; Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, BNTC (London: Continuum, 2005), 130. 25

C. Exegetical Analysis

59

hand, the readers know clearly that they had believed already in 1:29–51 (where they confessed the various messianic titles; see my comments in the preceding section). Here, the reason for their belief is accounted for differently. By placing their belief at the end of the pericope, it is clear that they believed through seeing and knowing Jesus’ miracle.29 Such a ground of faith is obvious, albeit seeing and knowing terms are not used in the pericope. John chooses to depict their faith as the result of such apprehension of Jesus. They believed now, not as a conversion faith, but in a reinforced manner. Thus, Jesus’ sign helped reinforce their faith.30 In terms of the author’s rhetorical strategy, sign/miracle played a positive role in the process of the disciples’ further apprehension of Jesus, an act that revealed Jesus’ glory (2:11). Another observation has to do with the steward of the feast. In 2:9, he is explicitly mentioned as “not knowing.” As with other characters, he experienced the same sign of Jesus; yet he is not “in the know,” so to speak, contrasting sharply with his servants (v.9). Thus, while the sign here functioned as a way through which Jesus’ glory could be manifested to all, not everyone was able to perceive it, let alone know it. This reflects what has already been stated in the preamble: καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν (1:5). The reason the disciples were able to “comprehend the light” in this pericope is explained in the Johannine monologue (1:9–18) already: as they had received Jesus (1:12, 16), they belonged to the comprehending “we” in 1:14.31 The Cana pericope thus elaborates and recapitulates this spiritual truth: Jesus’ glory is “manifested” (φανερόω 2:11)32 to everyone; yet only the faithful could truly “see” (θεάοµαι 1:14) this glory of the Word and further believed. Glory is seen only with believing eyes. They are the insiders of the spiritual reality. Here, the author’s strategy should be noted: No matter what response readers may have towards the characters, John indicates the fact that the privilege of a true knowledge of Jesus is inevitably given to the believing characters/readers. d) The Temple Incident (2:13–22) The next pericope, the Johannine temple incident, is famous for its differences with the Synoptic account. This is not the place for a detailed evalua29

John did not mention how the disciples came to know the details but apparently it is easily accessable as the servants were the first hand eyewitnesses. Thus, “literal eyewitnessing” is not altogether impossible. Contra Lincoln, “Truth Claims,” 180–81. 30 It is unwise to speculate about the faith of Mary at this point as the author is silent on this. She functioned mainly to highlight Jesus’ sole control of his “hour.” Contra Maccini, Testimony, 193; Farelly, Disciples, 30–31. 31 Note that 1:14 and 2:11 are the only two verses where δόξα is used in John 1–4. 32 This manifestation motif which runs through GJohn (1:31; 2:11; 3:21; 7:4; 9:3; 17:6; 21:1, 14) should be interpreted in light of the concept of apprehension of Jesus.

60

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

tion of different proposals.33 But what remains significant in our observation is not its position here or its timing in Jesus’ ministry; but that as I have indicated, similar to the previous Cana pericope, the temple incident pericope also ends up in describing the faith of the disciples (2:22). The thrust of the account is, again, the disciples’ apprehension of Jesus. This suggests that 1:35–2:25 should be understood as a whole, a series of connected pericopae focusing on apprehension of Jesus, and not as three unrelated events. They illustrate not merely the outcome of belief of certain groups of people but also the different ways of how they come to it and John’s strategic use of apprehension terms in relation to it. First, similar to the role Mary played in the Cana pericope, “the Jews” here function to highlight Jesus’ sole control in performing “signs.” Jesus’ reply, just like his response to Mary, is perplexing and ambiguous. On the one hand, he seems to refuse their request (2:18) by not showing a sign to them immediately. He does not satisfy their suspicious visual demand. But on the other hand, his words, “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (v.19), represent a riddle and an answer to their request (therefore an implicit “sign”), both serving to aid perception for the readers, especially with the author’s annotation in vv.21–22.34 The readers are, unlike “the Jews” here (cf. the steward of the feast in the Cana pericope), “in the know.” With the narrator’s comment, the readers can decipher that the Johannine Jesus was trying to say two things at once. First and foremost, although “the Jews” will destroy Jesus’ physical body (σῶµα v.21), he will raise it up (ἐγείρω)35 in three days! Second, while the physical temple will be destroyed due to “the Jews’” unbelief, a fact that happened in A.D.70, Jesus will rebuild (ἐγείρω)36 another temple (ναός v.21), the figural reference to his “body,” i.e., the church.37 Thus, this strange riddle which puzzled “the Jews” (v.20) now becomes a tool for the author to reveal the spiritual truth (a “sign”38). Jesus’ foreknowledge 33 See further Brown, John-I, 116–25; Hartwig Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, HNT 6 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 151–63; McHugh, John, 201–2. 34 C. H. Dodd, for instance, considers the cleansing of the temple a sign. See Chapter 1, section B.1. 35 BDAG, s.v. “ἐγείρω, 6 and 7.” Cf. John 12:1, 9, 17; 21:14. 36 Cf. 1 Esd 5:43 and Sir 49:13 for instance. See further BDAG, s.v. “ἐγείρω, 9;” McHugh, John, 207–8. 37 The elusive language used here suggests that both views may well be intended by the author. McHugh, in opting for the latter choice, has no good reasons for refuting the possibility of the former. McHugh, 213–16. To the reader, the raising of Jesus’ body naturally refers to Jesus’ resurrection as the same ἐγείρω is used in the immediate comment about Jesus’ resurrection (2:22) and in the later resurrection account (John 20– 21). This case is strengthened given the fact that “the Jews” here will know about Jesus’ resurrection finally. 38 BDAG, s.v. “σηµεῖον, 1”: “a sign or distinguishing mark whereby someth. is known, sign, token, indication.”

C. Exegetical Analysis

61

and prophecy of his own resurrection is signalled well before the passion narrative; and at the same time, the physical temple of Herod, representing the old religious system, will be replaced by a spiritual one. From this perspective, this biggest and future miracle (Jesus’ resurrection), Christologically and ecclesiastically speaking, is now foretold in an implicit and soon-to-be fulfilled coded statement (a “sign”). This echoes what we have observed with regard to apprehension of Jesus in the previous passages: Jesus and his words, though elusive and perplexing to outsiders (“the Jews”), can be comprehended by the faithful readers when they reflect upon what the earthly Jesus said with the help of the narrator (v.21). It is this understanding of things that is reflected in the statement that the disciples believed when they remembered these words of Jesus after his resurrection (v.22). Now, this apprehended knowledge of the meaning implicit in the sign, being unknown to “the Jews,” is disclosed to every reader of GJohn via the narrator. Thus, from the perspective of rhetorical strategy, the riddle of Jesus, together with the character of “the Jews,” function as tools for John to bring readers to an understanding in line with the disciples in the post-resurrection era, which is also John’s, that the true meaning of Jesus and his words is glimpsed through faith.39 Second, from the perspective of the disciples, this also brings us to another aspect of apprehension of Jesus, namely, the relationship of remembrance and faith. It is not a coincidence that the narrator used µιµνήσκω twice here to tell us that the disciples remembered (2:17, 22 cf. 12:16). As we have seen in the previous investigations in Chapter 1, the Johannine remembrance is an interpretive event, not merely recollection of facts, as Mussner and others noted. In the first case of 2:17, via remembrance, the disciples recognised the link of Jesus’ words to the OT (Psa 68:10 [LXX] and 118:139 [LXX]).40 In the second instance, 2:22, via the same remembrance and from a postresurrection perspective, the disciples recognised the correct meaning of Jesus’ words uttered before his crucifixion, and thus acknowledged that Jesus had been talking about his body as the true temple.41 These two occurrences 39 The role of “the Jews’” unbelief in this current phase of apprehension, is apparently minimised and will only be brought out in the next phase of apprehension. 40 Zumstein, “Mémoire,” 309. It is unclear whether the remembrance was made during the Temple Incident or from a post-resurrection perspective like 2:22a. But in view of its insertion rightly in between Jesus’ complaint and “the Jews’” reply without further clarification on the timing (contrast 2:22), this remembrance is more likely to have taken place at the time of the incident. Contra Mussner, Sehweise, 38; Lincoln, John, 138. If so, this signals the disciples’ preliminary perception in recognizing some echoes between Jesus’ words and the Scripture upon which they reflect after Jesus’ resurrection and that leads them to further comprehension. This suits more the sense of remembrance in 2:22 as stressing the correct memory of core facts. 41 For John’s post-resurrection perspective here, see further Culpepper, Anatomy, 27–32; Zumstein, “Mémoire”; Jean Zumstein, Kreative Erinnerung: Relecture und Auslegung im

62

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

signal a process of perception that the disciples have undergone beyond the framework of GJohn’s storyline. Although this Paraclete-aided remembrance will be discussed further in Chapter 5, it is clear here that John aims at showing the rich symbolism of the earthly Jesus’ sayings and deeds yet to be explored. But added to such discussion of scholars, an integral element of John’s use of remembrance lies in his stress on the certainty of what Jesus said. As part of their perceiving process, these two instances of the disciples’ remembrance involve both their assurance of things remembered and the reconfiguration/interpretation of the remembered facts. It is the interpretive mnemonic process that led the disciples to a fuller faith (2:22). Yet it is the aspect of assurance of what is recalled (and interpreted) that is conveyed to the readers from the standpoint of the disciple’s post-resurrection faith. 42 Noticing the fact that the two objects of πιστεύω in 2:22b (τῇ γραφῇ and τῷ λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς) correspond to the two objects of μιμνήσκω in 2:17 (ὅτι γεγραµµένον ἐστίν…) and 2:22a (ὅτι τοῦτο ἔλεγεν), remembrance does form part of a cognitive process leading to faith, contrary to what Thatcher says.43 The rhetorical function of such remembrance terminology essentially points to the veracity John claims where the event’s interpretation and the event itself are not separate. 44 Remembrance thus expresses what one has gone through after a process of reflected knowledge with conviction. Furthermore, the use of remembrance language reveals not only John’s cognition Johannesevangelium, 2nd ed., ATANT 84 (Zürich: Theologischer, 2004), 47–63. Thus, Tom Thatcher rightly says that three currents intersect here: “the recall of things that the historical Jesus presumably did and said; a post-resurrection understanding of Jesus’ ultimate destiny; and a messianic interpretation of the Hebrew Bible… The interplay of memory, faith, and Scripture may therefore be viewed as John’s christological formula.” Tom Thatcher, “Remembering Jesus: John’s Negative Christology,” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 173– 74. 42 Scholars like Schnackenburg, Brown, and Thatcher argue that the “vague” reference τῇ γραφῇ (2:22b) does not refer specifically to 2:17. But in light of these clear textual connections, John must have had the scriptural text in mind (cited in 2:17) when he uses ἡ γραφή in 2:22. At least, Psa 68:10 [LXX] should constitute part of what he means by ἡ γραφή. Barrett, John, 201; Brown, John-I, 116; Schnackenburg, John-I, 1:353; Thatcher, “Remembering,” 173n.13. 43 Thatcher, Why John Wrote a Gospel, 37. Contrast Audi’s idea of memory as the “preservation of belief and knowledge;” Robert Audi, Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2011), 62–79. 44 To use Henri de Lubac’s words, in GJohn “historical realities… are to be understood in a spiritual manner: ἱστορικά πνευµατικῶς; conversely, spiritual realities… are to be understood historically: πνευµατικά ἱστορικῶς.” Henri de Lubac, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man, trans. Elizabeth Englund and Lancelot C. Sheppard (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), 165.

C. Exegetical Analysis

63

but also expresses John’s intention to influence the readers. John does not merely aim at laying bare the disciples’ post-resurrection apprehension. Such apprehension is tied to the readers’ apprehension in reading the acts and deeds of the earthly Jesus. No matter what response readers may have towards the narrated event, readers are guaranteed its truthfulness which the author emphasises in laying out his account. Such a rhetorical strategy is even more important in light of the fact that this is placed at the beginning stage of Jesus’ ministry.45 Framing Jesus’ public ministry together with µιµνῄσκοµαι in 12:16, this assuring aspect of the remembrance language, as I argue, has an important role in guiding the reader’s understanding of the gospel itself.46 Thus, apart from 1:35–51 and 2:1–12, 2:13–22 constitutes a narrative of faith in its special way. This time, John states that one’s faith is elicited when a sign is understood in a time beyond the period of the earthly Jesus (contrasting with the miraculous sign of the earthly Jesus in 2:1–12). This strategy is very relevant to the readers. It shows that apprehension of Jesus, including perceiving his significance and believing him, is something that not only happened in the narrated past but also has an on-going effect thereafter, particularly when one reflects upon Jesus’ own words. Thus, the remembrance language signifies another level of narration on top of the narrated storyline about the earthly Jesus. Readers’ participation in John’s message of faith is thereby facilitated through this post-resurrection perspective wherein assurance of John’s interpreted account is upheld. Thus, summarising what is going on in 1:19–2:22, the three pericopae represent three cycles of believing which inform the readers in a progressive manner about apprehending Jesus: (1) Faith comes from seeing, knowing, and following Jesus, which leads to confessing his identity and further apprehension promised. (2) Faith develops further in seeing miraculous signs. (3) Faith is refreshed further through remembrance and reflection on the Scriptures and 45 If, for some readers, the event is familiar to that of the synoptic accounts which happened in the last stage of Jesus’ ministry, or if the event could possibly be identified as such as some scholars argue, then John’s possible move/mention in this beginning stage of Jesus’ ministry will appear even more intentional and strategic which could be explained as due to his stress of certainty/veracity as I argue. To these readers’ awareness, John could be deliberately creating a sense of intrusiveness via such move/mention to highlight his own authoritative stress of remembrance and its rhetorical impact which is missing in the synoptic accounts. As a result, these readers are implicitly urged to ponder upon the meaning of such out-of-sequence. Of course, we still have to admit that, in spite of this, the Johannine readers’ knowledge of the synoptic gospels is an issue still debated. 46 Thus, Thatcher’s proposal that GJohn is intended as a weapon against the Antichrists (see my brief account in Chapter 1, section B.5) should be weighed against John’s didactic (faith-soliciting) purpose through his use of apprehension language. It is unnecessary to set John’s “rhetorical” function and “archive” function in dichotomy. In fact, my alternative analysis of John’s rhetorical strategy (in terms of the assuring aspect of the remembrance language) shows a collaboration of both functions for future generations of readers.

64

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

Jesus’ historic words, through which the readers are involved. These can be summarised by the following: Table 4: Apprehension process as reflected in 1:29–2:22 1:29–51 Initial apprehension of John the Baptist and the first disciples John, Jesus, and his disciples /

2:1–12 Jesus performing the first sign

2:13–22 Jesus cleansing of the temple

Jesus and his disciples The innocent steward of the feast -not knowing (contrasting with his servants)

Apprehension of Jesus

Getting to know Jesus through empirical senses; began believing him in confessing his identity

Further knowledge of Jesus via sign (his glory manifested) and through empirical senses

Result

Faith of the disciples (and John) (conversion) and bearing witness

Faith of the disciples (growing faith)

Jesus and his disciples The suspicious “Jews” requesting signs -not knowing and being puzzled (contrasting with the disciples after Jesus’ resurrection) Further knowledge about Jesus’ enigmatic words (an implicit “sign”) via postresurrection remembrance and reflection on the Scriptures Faith of the disciples beyond the storyline (growing faith)

Nature of events Key characters Other noteworthy characters

From the figure, we see that on the one hand, a certain apprehension of Jesus is tangible and accessible to people through one’s empirical senses, in particular seeing Jesus’ miraculous signs and hearing his words. But, on the other hand, Jesus cannot be further apprehended without an initial faith. Spiritual perception begins not only by observing, but following Jesus (1:29–51). This initial faith subsequently assists believers to comprehend further truths such that they can see more fully Jesus’ glory, which in return further reinforces their faith (2:1–12). This perception continues even beyond the life-span of the earthly Jesus via what the author portrays as remembrance (2:13–22) which strategically backs up the trustworthiness of John’s account. e) Anticlimactic Concluding Remarks (2:23–25) With the pericopae we analysed, we arrive at a brief and often neglected section, 2:23–25. Most scholars consider this brief section as the introduction to

C. Exegetical Analysis

65

the Nicodemus pericope.47 Some consider it merely transitional.48 There are only a few exceptions.49 Based on the evidence from the sense-unit delimitations observed in the earliest manuscripts and the assessment of its narratival linkages to 1:35–2:22 and 3:1–15, I argue in a separate article that 2:23–25 should be seen as an anticlimactic concluding remark connected to 1:35–2:22. This has implications for the significance of this underestimated brief section.50 In 2:23, John mentions that many people saw (θεωρέω) Jesus’ “signs”51 just as his disciples did (2:11). They appeared to have believed in Jesus’ name too in the manner that is required in 1:12.52 Contrary to many commen47

Edwyn C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. F. N. Davey, 2nd ed. (London: Faber & Faber, 1947), 210; C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 235; Bultmann, John, 130; Brown, John-I, 126; Schnackenburg, John-I, 1:360; Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium: Ein Kommentar, ed. Ulrich Busse (Tübingen: Mohr, 1980), 211; Xavier Léon-Dufour, Lecture de l’Evangile selon Jean, 4 vols. (Paris: Seuil, 1988), 1:276; Thomas L. Brodie, The Gospel according to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 195; Beasley-Murray, John, 46; Wengst, JohEv-I, 123–24; Thyen, JohEv, 183; Michaels, John, 172; Culpepper, “Nicodemus.” Even NA27 and NA28 have a new paragraph starting at 2:23 instead of 3:1. 48 Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John: Based on the Revised Standard Version, NCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 145; D. Moody Smith, John, ANTC (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999), 91; Keener, John, 531; McHugh, John, 218. See my detailed assessment in Josaphat C. Tam, “When Papyri and Codices Speak: Revisiting John 2:23–25,” Bib 95, no. 4 (2014): 570–88. 49 Barrett appends 2:23–25 to 2:13–25 but does not provide explanation. Barrett, John, 201–2. Moloney briefly identifies 2:23–25 as a conclusion to the preceding pericope. Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, SP 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 84. Borchert finds it “a decisive summation concerning Jesus and the nature of believing;” yet he believes that Nicodemus “serves as a first-class example of why Jesus did not believe in human believing (2:24)” (similarly Schnelle). This is unconvincing since Jesus clearly identifies him as unbelieving in 3:12. Borchert, John-I, 168, 170; Schnelle, Johannes, 78. 50 Tam, “John 2:23–25.” Some materials in this section are taken from this article of mine. 51 Obviously these signs, which were done in Jerusalem, are neither the sign at Cana (2:11), nor the implicit sign in 2:18. More likely, these signs should be what Jesus did at the Passover feast not recorded by John. Cf. 21:25; Origen, Commentary on the Gospel According to John: Books 1–10, trans. Ronald E. Heine, FC 80 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 10.319. 52 Notice the exact construction πιστεύω+εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτοῦ is used in the general invitation to faith in 1:12. Brown notices that the faith produced by seeing signs here is not satisfactory, similarly Bernard. J.H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. A. H. McNeile, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928), 99; Brown, John-I, 127, 530–31. But from the perspective of the narrative development, up to this point, faith in signs is not altogether useless by itself. At least the

66

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

tators, from the plot of the narrative up to 2:23, the author provides no clues for us to identify their faith as “shallow” or “inauthentic.”53 On the contrary, the portrayal of their faith, though based on signs, falls in line with what the author has been persuading the readers about so far. Nevertheless, a negative judgment is ascribed to Jesus in 2:24. How is the people’s faith different from the disciples’? I assert that the difference hinges, not on the so-called “signs faith,” but on Jesus’ own authoritative discernment. The author is trying to correct a naïve distinction of believing vs. unbelieving, an impression one may have after reading 1:35–2:22. He wants to show that the way people get to know and believe in Jesus (the disciples and the people alike) is neither totally one’s own autonomous free choice nor could it be discerned phenomenologically. The discernment rests exclusively upon Jesus himself. One really knows Jesus only when Jesus recognises that one does. True faith, like that of the disciples, goes hand in hand with Jesus’ omniscience.54 Different people came to know Jesus in various ways but it is only Jesus who knows (γινώσκω) all people (πάντας) and what is really in them (τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ cf. 1:48). By this, the people’s faith and the disciples’ are distinguished as he knows them all.55 Brown’s analysis of the vocabulary and the disciples belonged to this category. The negative evaluation of the faith here is neither because of signs nor the people themselves. This is because the same portrayal of people believing in Jesus will be repeated in John 4 where the same πολλοὶ and πιστεύω are used (πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν 4:39) which is strikingly similar to 2:23 (πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτοῦ). Yet Jesus did not criticize their faith. 53 To use 2:23–25 as a proof that any faith based on signs is rejected by the author has underestimated the significance of the same portrayal of the faith of the people and the disciples. To do so is to ignore the real complexity encoded in this final form of GJohn. Based on the portrayal here, a faith based on signs should neither be understood as superficial nor inadequate. Contra R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary, ed. C. F. Evans (London: Oxford University Press, 1960); Brown, John-I, 127; Schnackenburg, John-I, 1:358; Wilkens, Zeichen und Werke, 44, 141–142; Becker, “Wunder.” For a “doubtful value” of such faith as generated by miracles, see Bultmann, John, 131; Haenchen, JohEv, 212–13. Thus, Willis Salier rightly notes that the “flaw does not reside in the signs, rather it resides in the perceiver of the sign.” For a view similar to mine, see Marinus de Jonge, Jesus, Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective, trans. John E. Steely, SBLSBS 11 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977), 136; Zane Clark Hodges, “Untrustworthy Believers: John 2:23–25,” BSac 135, no. 538 (1978): 139–52; Thompson, Humanity, 63–64; Michael Labahn, “Between Tradition and Literary Art: The Miracle Tradition in the Fourth Gospel,” Bib 80, no. 2 (1999): 178–203; Bonney, Caused-to-Believe, 68; Salier, Semeia, 53; Lincoln, John, 144– 45. 54 For Hellenistic parallels of this extraordinary knowledge, see Bultmann, John, 71. For rabbinic parallels, see Beasley-Murray, John, 47. Jer 17:9–10 remains an important background here; McHugh, John, 219. But it is Keener who rightly notes the important linkage of Jesus’ omniscience to his deity here. Keener, John, 531–32. 55 Here the author paves the way for an utterly false faith in 8:31–47.

C. Exegetical Analysis

67

various stages of faith in GJohn is unfortunately deficient with regard to the significance of Jesus’ omniscience and its relation to his πιστεύω.56 Along this line of thought, the wordplay involving πιστεύω in 2:23–24 is similarly subtle. We have noted that the previous pericopae all end with the believing motif. The repetition of πιστεύω here is no coincidence. This is the only instance in GJohn in which Jesus is the subject of πιστεύω (v.24).57 Jesus’ negation of πιστεύω is actually contradicting the people’s πιστεύω (v.23). Thus, in a remarkable way, 2:23–24 represents to the readers incisively an anti-climax to the faith passages we have seen so far. The main ground to this anti-climax is Jesus’ omniscience as illustrated above (γινώσκω vv.24–25), a divine characteristic echoing the preamble (1:1–5). Soon we will find that this idea of the omniscience of Jesus is part of the backbone of the Johannine concept of apprehension of Jesus.58 Regarding the use of µαρτυρέω, from the previous pericopae, the readers have seen different characters (from John the Baptist to the disciples) bearing witness to Jesus. Yet, conversely, Jesus needs no one to do so (2:25). His divine attribute, contrasting with the limitation of the characters in the narrative, is again stressed here (cf. 1:1, 18). In light of the above, 2:23–25 partly concludes the previous pericopae by giving further nuances to apprehension of Jesus. The reference to Jesus’ apprehension contrasts in a significant manner with the use of apprehension terms with reference to characters in the preceding narratives. To the reader, this corrects a possible impression that is understandable but is false, that a professing faith (based on signs) is necessarily true by itself. This hints that some professing faith could be unreliable. With these anticlimactic remarks, the characters’ positive apprehensions of Jesus in 1:29–2:22, exciting as they seem, are counterbalanced by the negative depiction here. The contrast is summarised as follows:

56

Brown, John-I, 512–14, 530–31. Similarly McHugh, John, 219. Michaels, in this regard, shared a similar view with me although he did not see 2:23–25 as primarily connected to John 2. Michaels, John, 173–75. 57 See Chapter 2, section B.6. and Appendix, section F. 58 We need to be reminded that this does not contradict the Johannine claim of Jesus’ filial subordination/dependence to the Father (e.g. 3:35; 5:26–27; 10:29; 13:16; 14:28). In GJohn, the two ideas exist in tension. See the insightful analysis of Adesola J. Akala, The Son-Father Relationship and Christological Symbolism in the Gospel of John, LNTS 505 (London: T&T Clark, 2014).

68

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

Table 5: Comparison of Jesus and other characters in 1:29–2:25 Knowing

Believing Witnessing

Conclusion

Characters in 1:19–2:22 Came to know Jesus in various degrees (John, the disciples, the steward of the feast, “the Jews,” and finally the people [2:23]) Believed Jesus through seeing signs (the disciples and the people [2:23]) Needed witnesses (e.g. the disciples) in order to know Jesus

Jesus in 2:23–25 Knew everyone and their thoughts (2:25a, c)

Never entrusted himself to the people (2:24) Never needed such witnesses in order to know people (2:25b) A person’s apprehension of Jesus has to go hand in hand with Jesus’ own apprehension of him/her

From a wider context, John’s rhetorical strategy is clear. He is intentional in having arranged the apprehension experiences in 1:19–2:22 in this way, and they are brought into contrast with Jesus’ apprehension in 2:23–25. They show a programmatic display of how apprehension of Jesus is accomplished, a process involving initially empirical senses, knowing and witnessing, memory, and faith-engendering and -fostering. In particular, the author interacts with the readers in two ways, (1) through his use of remembrance language which brings in another level of narration together with his assurance to the readers, and (2) through his anticlimactic concluding remarks on Jesus’ omniscience which ties the two ideas of apprehending Jesus and Jesus’ apprehending. These two noted strategies of John will affect the way we understand the development of the concept of apprehension in GJohn subsequently. 2. The Second Sign: Jesus and the Royal Official (4:43–54) If people “saw” what Jesus “did” and “believed” him at the Passover feast in 2:23, in 4:45, the Galileans “saw” what he “did” in the same feast and “welcomed” him. Coupling with the repeated mention of “Cana in Galilee” in 4:46, the pericope 4:43–54 of Jesus’ “second sign” (4:54) is situated not only in the same place as Jesus’ first sign but also in a setting reminiscent of 1:19– 2:25 which helps to bring to a close this phase of apprehension in John 1–4. Similar to the previous pericopae, this pericope again ends up in the believing motif. Like the Samaritans in 4:39–42 and the disciples in 2:1–22, the royal official is said more than once to have “believed” (4:50, 53). The short dialogue consists only of two rounds of conversation:

C. Exegetical Analysis

69

Table 6: Dialogue between Jesus and the royal official (4:47–50a) First round (4:47–48)

Second round (vv.49–50a)

Characters Royal official: Jesus:

Royal official:

Nature and content of dialogue Implored Jesus to heal his son Criticised him and others for requesting signs and wonders as a precondition for faith (ἐάν µὴ σηµεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἴδητε, οὐ µὴ πιστεύσητε v.48) Imploration repeated

Jesus:

Healed his son by words

It is noteworthy to see that Jesus’ criticism of the royal official was not directed to him alone; the second person plural ἴδητε and πιστεύσητε (4:48) suggests that Jesus has both him and the Galileans in mind. Thus, he was criticising people’s demand for a sign as a pre-requisite to faith.59 For this reason, initially in v.48, Jesus refused to show them any sign, as he did also in 2:18–19. He refused a “rationalistic/humanistic” view of faith, so to speak. Only after the royal official’s sustained request did he answer πορεύου, ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ (4:50a). Having heard Jesus’ reply, the official believed his word (ἐπίστευσεν… τῷ λόγῳ v.50b) without seeing the result. Both his decision of faith and return back home unmistakably indicate that he trusted Jesus on the basis of his words alone, not his signs.60 Only after “inquiring”61 of his servants did he “know” (v.53) that it was at the same time that his son started to get better. Confirming Jesus’ healing at a distance, the author says 59 Jesus’ word could be construed as a question, as McHugh puts, “Is it the case that unless you first see signs and wonders, your party will not begin to believe?” McHugh, John, 319. Cf. the similar uses in the cases of Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, via these second person plural verbs of Jesus, readers’ attention is also drawn to his challenges to the characters. There is a rhetorical impact suggesting and expecting readers, as outsiders, to evaluate Jesus’ challenges and to judge the characters’ following responses to see if they make sense. Their empathy and identification/alienation with the characters are also motivated. 60 I have refuted Brown and others’ idea that πιστεύω with the dative refers to an inferior faith, see Chapter 2, section B.6. The characters’ faith commitments should be analysed from their corresponding contexts rather than by simply referring to the grammatical constructions. Here one may argue that by believing Jesus’ word only, the official’s faith was provisional and intermediate in 4:50. It only became complete upon seeing the sign in v.53. This view should be rejected because his determination to go back home (an obedient act in observing Jesus’ command) and not to find any other means of healing suggests that he had a firm faith in Jesus’ word. Actually, back in his second imploration by saying κύριε, κατάβηθι…, we can already see “a very real sense” of trust in Jesus as a healer, as McHugh correctly pointed out. Ibid., 320. Contra Léon-Dufour, Jean, 1:408. 61 Occurring only here in GJohn, πυνθάνοµαι shows the seriousness of the official to verify the fulfilment of Jesus’ words.

70

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

that the man and his entire household “believed” (v.53). Thus, this second mention of his act of believing can be seen as showing his strengthening and ongoing faith, similar to the experience of the Samaritans and the first disciples.62 From the perspective of apprehension of Jesus, firstly, it is clear that Jesus discouraged a faith that takes signs as a precondition. This is reminiscent of Jesus’ ambiguous reply to “the Jews” who ask for a sign in 2:18. But here in 4:48, it further signals an implicit warning to the readers. This does not mean that signs have no positive value at all in one’s coming to faith.63 Because if faith based on signs were completely unsatisfactory, the author would not have used πιστεύω again to describe the official’s reaction upon seeing the sign (4:53). A faith that arises out of seeing Jesus’ signs and a faith arising out of hearing Jesus’ words should not be compared unfavorably or be seen as competitive with each other. Rather, they work together in the narrative to bring a person to Christ. The faith of the disciples, who saw Jesus’ signs first (2:1–12), is then reinforced by hearing his words (2:13–22). The faith of the official, who heard Jesus’ word first (4:47–50), was then reinforced by seeing the sign worked by Jesus (4:51–53).64 Thus, the present pericope delicately upholds the value of signs for faith, via the official’s positive apprehension, and at the same time denounces the idea of taking signs as a prerequisite for faith, via Jesus’ negative criticism. Secondly, another focus of the pericope is on restoring the official’s son to life. This is the reason the official came to Jesus. This life motif is carefully connected to the Samaritan pericope via the first uses of ζάω (4:10, 11, 50, 51, 53). The noun form ζωή is used in the Johannine preamble and monologues as has already been mentioned, and the term also appears in the Samaritan pericope (4:14, 36). The participle form of ζάω is also used to modify ὕδωρ in the Samaritan pericope (4:10, 11). But in the present pericope, through the healing of the man’s son, the life motif is expressed by the verb ζάω. With Jesus’ words πορεύου, ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ, the son comes back to life dramatically. This significance of ζάω is also seen in the servants’ report (v.51) and the official’s knowledge (γινώσκω v.53). In the Samaritan perico62 I do not find the first act of faith incomplete or only the second one as saving faith (see footnote 60). Moloney, John, 154–55; Beck, Discipleship, 81. Contra Eva Krafft, “Die Personen des Johannesevangeliums,” EvT 16 (1956): 18–32; Bultmann, John, 209; Schnackenburg, John-I, 1:467–68; Dodd, Historical Tradition, 193; Bennema, Encountering, 96–97. 63 Schnackenburg, John-I, 1:466; Thompson, Humanity, 68–69; Salier, Semeia, 57–59; Thyen, JohEv, 291. Contra Dodd, Interpretation, 141. 64 Contra Koester, “Hearing-Seeing-Believing,” 327–48. Koester has posited a dubious tension between hearing Jesus’ words and seeing his signs. I contend that the tension rests, rather, primarily on encouraging direct apprehension of Jesus vs. demanding signs as the criterion to faith. Cf. Labahn, Lebensspender, 212.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

71

pe, through his words, Jesus promises living water welling up to eternal life. In this pericope, again through his words, he grants life to the son at the point of death without physical contact. Comparing the two, we can say that the physical life, first promised through Jesus’ words and then granted through his sign, actually foreshadows and demonstrates the eternal life assured through believing in Jesus. A desired apprehension of Jesus and the promise of eternal life are directly linked. With these observations in mind, thematically and theologically, 4:43–54, like 4:1–42, signifies the impact of encountering Jesus upon the characters who respond to faith positively. Apprehension of Jesus comes via a miraculous sign in this royal official pericope; the same happens via a dialogue (without sign) in the Samaritan pericope. Actually, if we tabulate all the episodes of encountering Jesus in John 1–4 together, we can have the following figure, showing that seeing Jesus’ signs and hearing his words in this royal official pericope echoes what has happened in the previous pericopae. Table 7: Seeing vs. Hearing in the Episodes of John 1–4 Episodes in John 1–4 (all end with the believing motif)

Means of apprehending Jesus

1:19–51 John the Baptist’s retrospective apprehension and Jesus’ calling the first disciples

Hearing words

2:1–12 Jesus’ attending the wedding 2:13–22 Jesus’ cleansing of the temple

Seeing sign

3:1–15 Jesus and Nicodemus 4:1–42 Jesus and the Samaritan woman 4:43–54 Jesus and the royal official

Hearing words which is an implicit sign Hearing words Hearing words Hearing the word of sign first and seeing the sign later

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact on the Readers D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

Having analysed 1:19–2:25 and 4:43–54 with the backdrop of the concept of apprehension in John 1–4, it is time to sum up our findings by way of synthesis and reflect on some of the author’s intended impact on the readers through such display of the concept. 1. Synthesis Our narrative overview in section B gives us a snapshot of how the apprehension terms function within the sub-plot of GJohn in John 1–4. In encountering Jesus, characters came to faith and grew in faith. In it, we see generally positive encounters of characters introducing Jesus as they see, hear, know, testify,

72

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

remember, and believe in him. We have noted the characteristic language and function of the Johannine introductions (1:1–5, 9–18; 3:16–21, 31–36). Framed by 1:1–18 and 3:16–36 is the central part 1:19–3:15 which contains pericopae all ending in the motif of faith. This central part begins with a positive apprehension of Jesus by John the Baptist and the first disciples. In particular, the first disciples’ faith is developed in three stages, namely, their initial coming to faith (1:35–51), deepening faith by seeing Jesus’ sign (2:1– 12), and further deepening in remembering Jesus’ words and scriptures beyond Jesus’ lifespan (2:13–22). Then this positive apprehension of Jesus is counterbalanced by an anticlimactic reference to πιστεύω in 2:23–25, thereby signalling that true faith hinges on Jesus’ own authoritative discernment. This clarification is then followed by a semi-negative apprehension of Jesus by Nicodemus (3:1–15).65 It ends in his failure to believe, or at least in a state of hesitating doubt at that point, and Jesus’ invitation to everyone to faith. After 1:19–3:15, John utilises two further encounters of Jesus to illustrate how a positive apprehension of Jesus could be achieved, again, highlighting the faith motif at the end of each (4:42, 53). These two stories serve a concluding function by recapitulating how a person can come to faith in response to Jesus’ own challenges. When a decision to believe is made, a natural outcome of apprehending Jesus is to testify about him to others. This is demonstrated in the case of the Samaritan woman (and is also commanded by Jesus to the disciples). In the case of the royal official, GJohn warns against taking signs as a precondition and yet demonstrates how hearing Jesus’ words and seeing miraculous signs contribute to faith in Jesus. Within John 1–4, I have selected two passages, 1:19–2:25 and 4:43–54, for further exegesis and discussion on John’s rhetorical strategies (section C). My analysis spotlights features characteristic of this phase of apprehension. In particular, I have indicated the importance of empirical senses in the initial apprehension of Jesus as shown in the conversion of John the Baptist (his visionary experience, the use of ὀπίσω and the effect on Christian or Jewish readers) and the first disciples (straightforward conversion with further spiritual perception promised) in 1:19–2:22. Such empirical stress functions to guide readers from the metaphysical truth laid out in 1:1–18 into the empirical narrative world. I also discussed the importance of the double mention of characters’ acts of believing in pericopae (2:1–22; 4:43–54). Being characteristic in this phase of apprehension, they involve both coming to faith and growing in faith.66 To these believing characters, the privilege of a true knowledge of Jesus is ex65

For Nicodemus’ subtle changes in 7:50 and 19:39, see the corresponding sections in this work. 66 For the case of 2:13–22, it involves also a process of perception that the disciples have undergone beyond the framework of GJohn’s storyline.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

73

clusively given (glory manifested 2:11; “the Jews” vs. the narrator via the riddle of the implicit sign 2:21). In the royal official pericope, the double mention of πιστεύω reveals that seeing Jesus’ signs and hearing Jesus’ words work together complementarily to bring a person to faith, a pattern echoing what can be observed in the preceding pericopae (See Table 7). However, the positive role of a sign in the process of apprehension of Jesus, an act that revealed Jesus’ glory (4:52–53 cf. 2:1–12), is in tension with Jesus’ criticism of people’s demand for signs as pre-requisite to faith (4:48). The characters’ positive apprehension of Jesus is further coupled with Jesus apprehending people in 2:23–25. Via the use of γινώσκω, πιστεύω, and µαρτυρέω, 2:23–25 functions as a counter-balancing theological thought of GJohn. The way people get to know and believe in Jesus is not totally one’s own autonomous free choice. The discernment rests upon Jesus himself. True faith goes hand in hand with Jesus’ omniscience. John thereby signals to the reader that a professing faith is not necessarily true by itself. Thus, this hints that some professing faith could be unreliable which prepares the readers for the next phase of apprehension. Furthermore, John’s rhetorical strategy is also seen in the significance of remembrance in narrating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (2:13–22). On top of scholars’ discussion that the Johannine remembrance is an interpretive event, such remembrance, as part of a cognitive process leading to faith, also conveys an aspect of assurance of what is recalled and interpreted. It has a rhetorical function, pointing to the veracity the author claims where the event’s interpretation and the event itself are not separate. It also expresses the author’s intention to influence the readers through guaranteeing the truthfulness of his account. Framing Jesus’ public ministry together with µιµνῄσκοµαι in 12:16, this has an important bearing on guiding the reader’s understanding of the gospel itself. It signifies another level of narration on top of the narrated storyline about the earthly Jesus and thus facilitates readers’ participation in GJohn’s message of faith. 2. Intended Impact on the Readers With these discussions in mind, I attempt further to postulate the author’s intended impact on his readers which would relate to concerns in the Johannine scholarship we noted in Chapter 1. While John may have intended to impact his readers in various ways, I only focus on how the impact is made through GJohn’s use of the apprehension vocabulary, drawing on the concept of apprehension and his persuasive strategies mentioned in the previous sections B and C. This impact can be evaluated by asking the following questions:

74

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

–What effect did the author hope to have on his readers by depicting the characters’ apprehension of Jesus67 in John 1–4? –How is Jesus’ own apprehension of spiritual reality relevant to the readers’ perception about apprehension of Jesus? –What did the author tell his readers in attempting to help them understand the role of the signs and words of Jesus in their apprehension of Jesus? –For the readers, how can a perception of Jesus without faith be possible/impossible? a) Readers’ Understanding of the Characters’ Apprehension of Jesus and John’s Writing Purpose As I proposed in the previous sections, apprehension of Jesus is firstly made possible to the uncomprehending world through the interpretive framework of 1:1–5, 9–18; 3:16–21, 31–36 and thereby attempting to control readers’ perception of apprehension of Jesus. Through the series of pericopae ending with the believing motif, readers can sense GJohn’s rhetorical strategy through the portrayal of characters’ apprehension. This combination of rhetorical strategy and narrative account creates an impact on the readers. With these in mind, readers are impressed by the characters’ initial encounters with Jesus. Through the guiding thoughts articulated in the Johannine introductions and the experience of the characters in the pericopae, readers are summoned to join the same faith-encounters as they experienced.68 67

For further discussion on how an author utilises the text for his purpose through the reader’s perception of the characters, including identification and alienation, see Roger Fowler, Linguistics and the Novel (London: Methuen, 1977), 33–41; Seymour B. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978), 107–45; Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002), 61–72; Petri Merenlahti, “Characters in the Making: Individuality and Ideology in the Gospels,” in Characterization in the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism, ed. David M. Rhoads and Kari Syreeni, JSNTSup 184 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 49–72; Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, trans. Christine van Boheemen, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), 75–180; Fotis Jannidis, “Character,” in Handbook of Narratology, ed. Peter Hühn et al., Narratologia 19 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 14–29. For the Johannine rhetorical strategy employed in relation to the “implied” readers, including utilization of levels of narrative discourse, focalization, and victimization, see Staley, First-Kiss, 74–118. For broader discussions on the relationship of implied readers to real readers, Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 3:166–79. 68 Such readers’ participation is duly noted by O’Day for the Samaritan pericope in her criticism of Bultmann’s understanding of the Johannine revelation. Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 49–92. Of course, here I assume, as Culpepper does, that the implied reader “accurately represents the intended audience and that the author’s judgments about his actual audience were also accurate.” Culpepper, Anatomy, 212.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

75

The combined usage of different apprehension terms culminating in the use of πιστεύω functions to persuade the readers to faith through the historic deeds and teaching of Jesus reliably reported and interpreted.69 Also, readers’ empathy is motivated such that they will identify themselves with the characters. The readers share with the author’s view in recognising the absurdity of Nicodemus in not understanding Jesus’ illustrations and not receiving Jesus’ testimony. Similarly, they are delighted by the Samaritan woman’s gradual perception in recognising Jesus’ true identity. Readers are thereby invited to (re)discover Jesus, not from hearsay, but by their own direct apprehension through the mediated words of GJohn. Thus, just as with the characters in the narratives, the text engenders as well as fosters the act of πιστεύω in the readers. 70 GJohn appears neither purely faith-fostering nor purely faithengendering. Scholars’ either-or debate appears unnecessary. 71 This impact on the readers can also be seen from John’s strategy in the double mention of πιστεύω for the same characters as I have shown. With these initial encounters, the dual impact of faith-engendering and -fostering is felt, long before the purpose statement in 20:30–31. Thus, our findings from the perspective of apprehension suggest a more complex and multiple purpose of GJohn than scholars often allow.

69

Thus, my study of apprehension terms in John 1–4 suggests that John maintains a balance of providing a retrospective historic record of Jesus integrated with his own reflection and interpretation. The two can hardly be separated but have not been fused into one. This runs counter to Lincoln’s view that John’s witness is altogether confessional and any possibility of literal eyewitnessing elements should not be taken at face value. As the beginning chapters take a crucial function to guide readers to read the whole gospel, the text up to now betrays no obvious hint that John’s factual reporting of the past should be seen as verisimilitude. Lincoln, Truth, 378–97; Lincoln, “Beloved Disciple,” 7–10; Lincoln, “Truth Claims,” 180–83. Lincoln seems to have been influenced by Ricoeur and his apriori view that the ancient readers were “both disinclined and frequently unable to disentangle the factual and the legendary.” Ibid., 186. Consequently he interprets the empirical aspect of John’s testimony as purely literary devices solely to serve John’s confessional purpose. While it is one thing to question the reader’s willingness to distinguish fact from legend, it is another thing to assume the author was unwilling to. In fact, J. L. Moles has made a contrary comment that even the ancient historians are concerned with “key historical questions concerning truth, falsehood, plausible falsehood, the reliability of eye-witness testimony, and the importance of learning from eyewitnesses.” J. L. Moles, “Truth and Untruth in Herodotus and Thucydides,” in Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World, ed. C. Gill and T. P. Wiseman (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993), 88–121; 116. For John’s historical credibility, compare Tom Thatcher and Richard A. Horsley, “Verisimilitude vs. Verification,” in John, Jesus, and the Renewal of Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 120–34. 70 Cf. the similar observations on John’s use of Nicodemus to address both nonbelieving and believing audience in Renz, “Nicodemus.” 71 See Chapter 1, section B.6.a).

76

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

b) Readers’ Understanding of Jesus’ Own Apprehension Other than my proposal that the author has piled up apprehension terms in his portrayal of the characters such that the readers can see from them their own apprehension of Jesus, apprehension terms are also used in the depiction of Jesus himself in John 1–4. I have indicated in this chapter that Jesus knows, Jesus sees, Jesus witnesses, and Jesus trusts. In contrast to other literary characters in GJohn, these portrayals point towards Jesus’ own divine knowledge and authoritative testimony. First, Jesus’ own apprehension is seen in his portrayal as the authoritative and competent witness. Concerning the heavenly things, he bears testimony to what he has seen and heard (3:11, 31–32). These seeing, hearing, and witnessing terms function to underline his sole authority as a result of his unique heavenly origin (cf. 3:27). Only he is the truly knowing one in relation to spiritual reality (cf. 1:18). The readers, thus, face an unquestionable claim that Jesus’ own testimony can either be accepted or rejected in total; the spiritual reality he reveals can neither be verified nor examined. We are told that human beings are simply out of reach of this sphere of heavenly things. The readers can only decide whether or not to receive the testimony conveyed by this “stranger from heaven.”72 Second and more importantly, in highlighting Jesus’ omniscience in 2:23– 25, I have argued that Jesus’ divine knowledge of people is plainly laid out to the readers at a strategic location, functioning as an anticlimactic concluding remark. With the irony of the use of πιστεύω with reference to the people and Jesus, John shows the readers that true faith is distinguished and identified by the divine Jesus alone (see Table 5). Ostensibly, one may see and believe but one’s faith may not be valid; it is genuine only when it is known by Jesus.73 While Jesus’ omniscience echoes with Jesus’ divine identity introduced in the preamble, one should also note that these divine portrayals are backed up by the anticipated fact of Jesus’ resurrection as well, which is brought into view already in 2:22. Given Jesus’ divine status highlighted above and the close proximity of 2:22 and 2:23–25, the text creates an impact that forces readers to suspect that the Jesus narrated in GJohn is still “living.” They would have been struck by the idea that the earthly Jesus, as the risen Christ,74 may have intruded from the narrated world of GJohn into their own. 72

A term taken from de Jonge, Jesus. This divine knowledge is also apparent in the Samaritan woman pericope. Jesus not only foreknew his mission in Samaria (4:1, 4), he also knew the situation of the woman thoroughly. 74 The difficulty of modern people in understanding the deep gulf between the earthly Jesus and the risen Christ did not exist to the “ancients” as pointed out in the classic work of Martin Kähler, Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus (Leipzig: Deichert, 1892). Or to use Mussner’s words, “in dieser 73

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

77

To the readers, this Jesus of GJohn may have known them and their faith just as in the narrative. As will be seen in the later chapters of GJohn, this Jesus has never left his followers/readers. 75 Contrary to Larsen, GJohn is not an etiology of Jesus’ absence; it rather conveys the presence of Jesus to the readers.76 He stays with the readers upon their meeting with the characters through the act of reading. Unless they treat it as purely legend or cast serious doubts on John’s claims (therefore remaining unbelieving), this message of a “living and omniscient” Jesus inevitably creates a significant and even perhaps disturbing impact on the readers’ mind. Deriving from John’s rhetorical strategy, such an impact invites readers to experience the Johannine Jesus in a vivid and concrete manner not experienced before. c) The Role of Signs and Words in the Perception/Apprehension of Jesus As noted in Chapter 1, the role of signs in GJohn has caused considerable controversies among Johannine scholars. Not only do signs in John 1–4 help to lead the characters to faith, but as I have shown, it is a faith arising out of seeing Jesus’ signs and also hearing his words, which work complementarily to one another. The incongruity alleged does not exist upon close scrutiny. Having believed by seeing Jesus’ signs, one is further strengthened with the same response of πιστεύω by hearing his words. The same holds true for one having believed by hearing Jesus’ words first. This shows that, in view of GJohn as a whole, a “signs faith” should not be seen as altogether insufficient, contrary to some Johannine scholars.77 What the author does warn against, rather, is a false understanding that takes Jesus’ signs as an absolute requirement/pre-condition for faith (2:18, 4:48). This critique of a “rationalistic/humanistic” view of faith, so to speak, will be further picked up and elaborated in John 5–9. But it suffices to say for now that the readers here are discouraged from taking this view through the author’s portrayals. This said, however, from the readers’ perspective, we should note that even the signs in GJohn are now articulated in the form of words. These signs have become the words about signs, demanding trust from the readers. Thus, to the readers, what matters more is the trustworthiness of John’s words (concerning both Jesus’ signs and utterance). GJohn seems not so much concerned with the idea that the readers should or should not believe from seeing signs as that the readers should believe from this account of Jesus. This implication will further be elaborated in 20:29, 30–31 but can already be inferred here. „Verschmelzung” [of John’s time-horizons] wird die Vergangenheit nicht annulliert; sie behält in der Aktualisierung für die Gegenwart und in der Gegenwart durchaus ihre Bedeutung.” Mussner, Sehweise, 43. Cf. Zumstein, “Mémoire,” 315–16. 75 E.g., he even promised to make his home with his believers/readers (14:23). 76 Larsen, Recognition-Scenes, 20–21. 77 See further Chapter 1, sections B.1.a) and 2.a).

78

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

d) The Role of Faith in One’s Perception/Apprehension of Jesus In John 1–4, faith is crucial to a true apprehension of Jesus. Faith distinguishes insiders from outsiders. Within the storyline, although apprehension of Jesus is said to be offered to everyone, Jesus’ true identity could only be perceived through the lens of faith (“beholding the glory”). Already in the monologues (3:16–21, vv.31–36), the decision to believe, and God’s loving intention to save the world are brought into sharp focus. God’s salvific offer is universalistic, as apprehension of Jesus is offered to everyone in the world (cf. 1:5, 9). Yet whether people receive Jesus’ testimony or not determines their own apprehension of Jesus as we have seen in the selected passages 1:19–2:25 and 4:43–54. More importantly, their eternal destiny is at stake: It is a matter of eternal life vs. eternal condemnation. This seems to suggest that, likewise, the readers are unable to appreciate Jesus adequately without faith.78 This is evident in the case of Nicodemus, whose failure to understand Jesus’ notion of rebirth/spiritual regeneration is essentially due to his lack of faith (3:12). Nicodemus’ obduracy, even though he is not hostile towards Jesus, bars him from further apprehension. This demonstrates that while belief/unbelief is the end result of one’s process of apprehension of Jesus, it is paradoxically also one’s presupposition in encountering Jesus.79 This represents John’s thoughtful concern for the readers. There is another disturbing thought having an impact for the readers. We mentioned that the knowledge of Jesus’ true identity (as Son of God and Messiah) remains an insider’s apprehension which is reserved for the faithful. However, with GJohn’s readers, whether they are believing or unbelieving, this is now disclosed and declared. Will the readers be able to recognise Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour of the world? This poses a difficult question for the readers themselves. Their perception of the mediated words and deeds of Jesus through GJohn is not the same experience as that which was portrayed inside John’s story world. The unbelieving, or not-yet-believing character, like Nicodemus at the point of John 3, did not fully know Jesus as the Son of God. But now the readers are given this piece of information. Yet, they still have to decide if they will accept the narrator’s own point of view, 78 See further Farelly’s reflection on faith as the foundation for understanding; Farelly, Disciples, 228. Similarly, Bennema, “Christ-Spirit-Knowledge,” 122–24. 79 As Lincoln aptly comments, “people are not simply free inquirers after truth from a position of neutrality.” Lincoln, Truth, 367. This is where Bennema’s analysis of Johannine epistemology is lacking. The Johannine belief/unbelief is not just linearly derived from the volitional aspect of a cognitive perception based on sensory perception. The Spirit is undoubtedly the “epistemic agent” as Bennema claims; yet a person’s predisposed views towards Jesus also determine his/her outcome of apprehension. Prior to encountering Jesus, he/she is not merely in a state of lacking understanding. Bennema, “Christ-SpiritKnowledge,” 111, 126.

E. Summary

79

just as the characters needed to decide if they would accept Jesus’ challenges. If readers receive Jesus’ testimony conveyed via GJohn, they become like the Samaritans or the royal official. If they remain unconvinced, the disclosed message of Jesus as the Saviour of the world will still be meaningless to them. They still stand outside of the characteristic Johannine “we” in 1:14 (“and we have seen his glory… ”). Thus, although the readers react with regard to apprehension of Jesus somewhat differently from the characters in the narratives, the faith challenge readers perceived is similar.80

E. Summary E. Summary

Paying attention to the use of apprehension terms, I have shown in this chapter that John 1–4 depicts the first encounters with Jesus characterised by a generally positive and sincere reception. Having listed the apprehension vocabulary (the key terms and the related terms), I provided a narrative overview to the concept in John 1–4 by giving a snapshot of how the relevant terms function within the sub-plot of GJohn. I have then selected 1:19–2:25 and 4:43–54 for deeper exegesis and discussion of John’s persuasive strategies adopted. I have shown the distinctive ways that apprehension terms are used to convey the conversion of John the Baptist and the first disciples via empirical senses. I also discussed the importance of the double mention of characters’ acts of believing, the rhetorical function of the counter-balancing theological thought of the neglected 2:23–25, and the significance of remembrance in narrating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. There is also a tension between the positive role of sign in the process of apprehension (4:52–53 cf. 2:1–12) and Jesus’ criticism of people’s demand for signs as pre-requisite to faith. These characteristic rhetorical strategies shed new light on our understanding of how the author engages the readers to promote a desired reading of GJohn. With these analyses and rhetorical strategies noted, I further evaluated John’s intended impact for the readers. First, the collaboration of apprehension terms culminating in the use of πιστεύω in John 1–4 functions to persuade the readers to come to faith as well as to grow in faith. I argued that this suggests John’s dual writing purpose of faith-engendering and faithfostering for his readers.

80 Regarding the reader’s expected understanding, this pattern of faith challenge seems to better represent John’s primary/theological intention than the sophisticated claims of Martyn and Brown that the first encounters (esp. 1:35–51) are the history of formation of an early Johannine community; Martyn, History and Theology, 93–98; Brown, Community, 27.

80

Chapter 3: Phase I First Encounters (John 1–4)

Second, I discussed John’s use of apprehension terms with reference to Jesus. Jesus is not only portrayed as the authoritative and competent witness. The portrayal of his divine omniscience together with the idea of the still living Jesus creates a significant impact on the mind of the readers. Through this, John invites readers to experience the Johannine Jesus in a vivid and concrete manner. Third, seeing Jesus’ signs and hearing his words are not only significant for the characters but also for readers. For the characters, faith was generated by both signs and words. Therefore, a “signs faith” should not be seen as altogether insufficient as scholars claim. At the same time, we should also note the readers’ situation; for them, the narrated signs are words already. Thus, what the author really conveys is a criticism of a “rationalistic/humanistic” view of faith, i.e., taking signs as a prerequisite for faith. Lastly, readers are confronted with the importance of faith in apprehending Jesus. In one sense, it is important in that it would affect the readers’ eternal destiny, namely, salvation or condemnation. But in another sense readers are also struck by the notion that belief/unbelief is not only the end result of one’s process of apprehension of Jesus, it is also paradoxically one’s presupposition prior to the same apprehension. With these findings in mind, I will turn to John 5–9, to examine the role of the apprehension vocabulary in the next stage of apprehension of Jesus.

Chapter 4

Phase Two: Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12) Belief and unbelief coexist in the real world. From one group of people, the gospel message brings forth a very good reception while from the other, it invites adamant opposition. In the last chapter on John 1–4, I analysed the first phase of apprehension which includes initial encounters with Jesus characterised by a generally positive and sincere reception. I also explored specific rhetorical strategies of the author, including the double mention of characters’ act of believing, John’s initial stress of his remembrance, Jesus’ omniscience counter-balancing characters’ apprehension, and the subtle function of signs. However, in John 5–12 the positive situation changes upon Jesus’ further revelation of himself. From the point of view of plot development, John 5–12 presents primarily the opposition to Jesus’ public ministry. 1 From the perspective of apprehension of Jesus, the conflicts over Jesus’ works and words in John 5–9,2 with 10–12 as transition, mark it a clear unit, unparalleled in both John 1–4 and 13–17 as I will show in this Chapter. From a geographical point of view, John 5–12 is also marked by Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem (5:1),3 back to Galilee (6:1; 7:1), and to Jerusalem again (7:14). Plots to kill Jesus also constitute a characteristic element of this section. Furthermore, the prominence of the trial motif that sets Jesus as “on trial” before “the Jews” remains characteristic of John 5–12.4 In view of the above narrative development, I will trace the development of the concept of apprehension of Jesus in this chapter, following a similar structure as in the last chapter. With the narrative overview which focuses on how the concept of apprehension of Jesus is at work across John 5–12, I have selected 5:19–47; 9:1–41; 12:12–19; and 12:37–43 for deeper exegetical

1

Or the failure to “produce an anagnorsis.” Culpepper, “The Plot of John’s Story of Jesus,” 354; Larsen, Recognition-Scenes, 143–45. 2 Clear thematic and literary ties between John 9 and 5–8 have been noted by J. Warren Holleran, “Seeing the Light: A Narrative Reading of John 9,” ETL 69, no. 1 (1993): 7. 3 After 5:1, the combination of Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα appears the second time in 12:12. But as John 10–12 functions as the transition from John 5–9 to 13–17, Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem in 12:12 (from Bethany instead of Galilee) rightly functions to prepare the coming of John 13–17 and 18–21. 4 See further Chapter 1, section B.4.a).

82

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

analysis and discussion on John’s rhetorical strategy. Further questions relating to John’s intended impact on the readers will then be explored. From these analyses, I will show John’s delicate and distinctive design in utilising apprehension terms which demonstrates how a desired and truthful apprehension of Jesus is rejected and yet urged at the same time. I will also illustrate how the Johannine Jesus, in his omniscience, discloses a “theology of unbelief,” so to speak, through his interactions with the characters via his signs and words. Jesus’ message always means driving a wedge among people, differentiating true believers from the superficial and counterfeit ones. All these characteristic features of John 5–12 are relevant to readers’ apprehension of Jesus and are thoughtfully embedded by the author.

A. Overview of the Use of Apprehension Vocabulary A. Use of Apprehension Vocabulary

Based on the semantic clusters identified in Chapter 2, the distribution of apprehension vocabulary in John 5–12 is illustrated as follows. Table 8: Distribution of the apprehension vocabulary (John 5–12) The healing at the pool of Bethesda (5:1– 18) The controversies prefaced (5:19–47)

The feeding of the five thousand (6:1–15) Jesus walks on water (6:16–21) The first controversy (6:22– 71)

The unbelief of Jesus’ brothers

Key terms ὁράω (5:6, 14), γινώσκω (5:6), οἶδα (5:13)

Extended list of related terms τυφλός (5:3)

οἶδα (5:32), ὁράω (5:37), εἶδος (5:37), βλέπω (5:19), ἀκούω (5:24, 25 [2x], 28, 30, 37), πιστεύω (5:24, 38, 44, 46 [2x], 47 [2x]), µαρτυρέω (5:31, 32 [2x], 33, 36, 37, 39), µαρτυρία (5:31, 32, 34, 36), γινώσκω (5:42) θεωρέω (6:2), θεάοµαι (6:5), οἶδα (6:6), γινώσκω (6:15) θεωρέω (6:19)

δείκνυµι (5:20 [2x]), ἐραυνάω (5:39), γράµµατα (5:47), ζητέω (5:30, 44), ἐλπίζω (5:45), θέλω (5:21, 35, 40), θέληµα (5:30 [2x]), δοκέω (5:39, 45), λαµβάνω (5:43[2x])

πιστεύω (6:29, 30, 35, 36, 40, 47, 64 [2x], 69), θεωρέω (6:40, 62), οἶδα (6:42, 61, 64), ἀκούω (6:45, 60 [2x]), γινώσκω (6:69) θεωρέω (7:3), πιστεύω (7:5), µαρτυρέω (7:7)

µαθητής (6:3, 8, 12), ἐπαίρω τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς (6:5), πειράζω (6:6) µαθητής (6:16), θέλω (6:21) µαθητής (6:22 [2x], 24, 60, 61, 66), ζητέω (6:24, 26), σφραγίζω (6:27), θέληµα (6:38 [2x], 39, 40), µανθάνω (6:45), σκανδαλίζω (6:61), ἀπέρχοµαι εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω (6:66), θέλω (6:67) ζητέω (7:1, 4, 11), θέλω (7:1), µαθητής (7:3), φανερόω (7:4), ἐν

A. Use of Apprehension Vocabulary (7:1–13)

The second controversy (7:14–8:59)5

A concluding illustration (9:1–41)

οἶδα (7:15, 27, 28 [3x], 29; 8:14[2x], 19[3x], 37, 55[3x]), γινώσκω (7:17, 26, 27, 49, 51; 8:27, 28, 32, 43, 52, 55), πιστεύω (7:31, 38, 39, 48; 8:24, 30, 31, 45, 46), ἀκούω (7:32, 40, 51; 8:26, 38, 40, 43, 47 [2x]), µαρτυρέω (8:13, 14, 18 [2x]), µαρτυρία (8:13, 14, 17), θεωρέω (8:51) βλέπω (9:7, 15, 19, 21, 25, 39 [3x], 41), θεωρέω (9:8), ἀναβλέπω (9:11, 15, 18 [2x]), οἶδα (9:12, 20, 21 [2x], 24, 25 [2x], 29 [2x], 30, 31), πιστεύω (9:18, 35, 36, 38), ἀκούω (9:27 [2x], 31 [2x], 32, 35, 40)

Transition: The good shepherd and the last controversy (10:1–42)

ἀκούω (10:3, 8, 16, 20, 27), οἶδα (10:4, 5), γινώσκω (10:6, 14 [2x], 15 [2x], 27, 38[2x]), θεωρέω (10:12), πιστεύω (10:25, 26, 37, 38 [2x], 42), µαρτυρέω (10:25)

Transition: Experiencing the Lord of resurrection and life (11:1– 12:11)

ὁράω (11:3, 31–34, 36, 40; 12:9), ἀκούω (11:4, 6, 20, 29, 41, 42), βλέπω (11:9), πιστεύω (11:15, 25, 26 [2x], 27, 40, 42, 45, 48; 12:11), θεάοµαι (11:45), γινώσκω (11:57; 12:9), οἶδα (11:22, 24, 42, 49)

5

83

κρυπτῷ (7:4, 10), ἐν παρρησίᾳ (7:4), φανερῶς (7:10), πλανάω (7:12), παρρησίᾳ (7:13) γράµµα (7:15), µανθάνω (7:15), θέλω (7:17, 44; 8:44), θέληµα (7:17), ζητέω (7:18[2x], 19, 20, 25, 30, 34, 36; 8:21, 37, 40, 50 [2x]), ὄψις (7:24), παρρησίᾳ (7:26), πλανάω (7:47), ἐραυνάω (7:52), ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ (8:12), ἀκολουθέω (8:12), µαθητής (8:31), χωρέω (8:37), τέκνον (8:39), τηρέω (8:51, 52, 55), κρύπτω (8:59) τυφλός (9:1, 2, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 32, 39, 40, 41), µαθητής (9:2, 27, 28 [2x]), φανερόω (9:3), ὀφθαλµός (9:6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 21, 26, 30, 32), ἀνοίγω τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς (9:10, 14, 17, 21, 26, 30, 32), συντίθηµι (9:22), ὁµολογέω (9:22), θέλω (9:27 [only the second occurrence has the sense of “making a decision”]), θέληµα (9:31) ἀκολουθέω (10:4, 5, 27), φεύγω (10:5, 12), εὑρίσκω (10:9), µαίνοµαι (10:20), τυφλός (10:21), ἀνοίγω τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς (10:21), παρρησίᾳ (10:24), αἴρω τὴν ψυχὴν ἡµῶν6 (10:24), δείκνυµι (10:32), ζητέω (10:39) µαθητής (11:7, 8, 12, 54; 12:4), ζητέω (11:8, 56), δοκέω (11:13, 31, 56), παρρησίᾳ (11:14, 54), συµµαθητής (11:16), εὑρίσκω (11:17), λάθρᾳ (11:28), τυφλός (11:37), ἀνοίγω τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς (11:37), ὀφθαλµός (11:41), λογίζοµαι (11:50), τέκνον7 (11:52), βουλεύοµαι (11:53; 12:10), βουλεύω (11:53, 12:10), δοκεῖ (11:56)

Excluding the pericope adulterae, 7:53–8:11. LN30.36: “(an idiom, literally 'to lift up the soul of someone') to keep someone in suspense so that one cannot come to a conclusion in one's thinking.” 7 LN36.40: “a person who looks to another as being, so to speak, a father in the faith and thus becomes a disciple of that person.” 6

84

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

Transition: Closure of Jesus’ public ministry and the beginning of his glorification (12:12–50)

ἀκούω (12:12, 18, 29, 34, 47), γινώσκω (12:16), µιµνῄσκοµαι (12:16), µαρτυρέω (12:17), ὁράω (12:19, 21, 40, 41), θεωρέω (12:19, 45 [2x]), οἶδα (12:35, 50), πιστεύω (12:36, 37, 38, 42, 44 [2x], 46)

µαθητής (12:16), ὀπίσω (12:19), ἀκολουθέω (12:26), ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ (12:35, 46), κρύπτω (12:36), υἱός8 (12:36), ἀκοή (12:38), ἀποκαλύπτω (12:38), ὀφθαλµός (12:40[2x]), πωρόω (12:40), πηρόω αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν9 (12:40), στρέφοµαι (12:40), νοέω (12:40), τυφλόω τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς (12:40), ὁµολογέω (12:42), φυλάσσω (12:47), λαµβάνω (12:48), ἀθετέω (12:48)

From the above chart, we can observe that, for John 5–9, the clusters of apprehension terms, both in terms of frequency and range, centre comparatively on 5:19–47; 6:22–71; 7:14–8:59; and 9:1–41 (these passages in italics above) whereas, for the transition chapters John 10–12, distribution of clusters of apprehension terms is slightly more even.

B. Narrative Overview of the Development of the Concept B. Development of Concept

In the previous chapter, we noticed how seeing, hearing, knowing, remembering, and witnessing terms help to achieve the ultimate goal of believing Jesus. But in John 5–12, things are different. Apprehending Jesus inevitably leads to a decision of either belief, or unbelief; it is the latter aspect and its relation to other apprehension terms that receives John’s major attention as will be shown in the following overview.

8 LN36.39: “one who is a disciple or follower of someone, with the implication of being like the one whom he follows (a reflection of the Semitic use of υἱός in the expression 'son of').” 9 A reading testified in î66,75 ‫ א‬K W 579 syhmg. LN27.53: “to cause someone to be unwilling to learn.”

B. Development of Concept

85

Table 9: Outline of John 5–12 5:1–18 Jesus’ healing on Sabbath (a sign) 5:19–47 THE CONTROVERSY PREFACED 6:1–21 Jesus’ feeding the five thousand and walking on water (two signs) 6:22–71 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY (superficial faith exposed) 7:1–13 Jesus’ distancing himself from his unbelieving brothers 7:14–8:59 THE SECOND CONTROVERSY (counterfeit faith exposed) 9:1–41 A CONCLUDING ILLUSTRATION: (a sign) belief amidst stern unbelief (10:1–12:50 Transition) 10:1–21 Introducing relational apprehension of the Good Shepherd 10:22–42 THE LAST CONTROVERSY 11:1–12:11 Preface: Experiencing the Lord of Resurrection and Life (a sign) 12:12–50 Closure of Public Ministry and Beginning of His Glorification –Triumphal Entry (12:12–19) –True Meaning of Seeing Jesus (12:20–36) –Inability to apprehend (12:37–43) –Last Evangelistic Proclamation (echoing 5:19–30) (12:44–50)

From the above outline of John 5–12, intense conflicts (5:19–47; 6:22–71; 7:14–8:59; 9:1–41) between Jesus and “the Jews” happen in John 5–9 which are introduced by either seeing Jesus’ signs or hearing his words (5:1–18; 6:1–21; 7:1–13). While these conflicts continue in a last controversy in 10:22–42, John 10–12 prepares readers for the end of the conflict as well as the beginning of Jesus’ profound teaching. In the healing miracle in 5:1–18, Jesus’ seeing and knowing (5:6) contrasts with the paralytic’s not knowing (v.13). The paralytic’s lack of apprehension purposely contrasts with the perceptive royal official in the preceding pericope. Moreover, the pericope, unlike the previous ones, does not end with the believing motif, breaking the pattern in chapters 1–4. This miracle on the Sabbath, being reported to “the Jews,” initiates the whole series of conflict.10 The controversies are prefaced by Jesus’ speech to “the Jews” in 5:19–47. Along with scholars’ observation of juridical metaphor being in use, there is a strong universal appeal to faith and eternal life from the perspective of eschatological resurrection and judgment via John’s use of hearing and believing terms (vv.19–30) which I will elaborate in the next exegetical analysis section. With Jesus’ challenge to believe resembling his earlier one to Nicodemus (v.47 cf. 3:12), he uncovers that the obstacle to a desired apprehension of Jesus lies in what is within a person. Then, apprehension of Jesus is further explained in terms of superficial faith and its exposure after the event of seeing further signs in 6:1–21.11 With 10

See further Culpepper’s extensive parallels between the paralytic (5:1–18) and the blind man (9:1–41) which supports the inclusio noted here; Culpepper, Anatomy, 139–40. 11 Jesus’ walking on water (6:16–21) signals the motifs of theophany and the second Exodus promised in the OT. Such seeing experience resonates strongly with people’s

86

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

Jesus’ omniscience (6:5, 6, 15) and people’s superficial confession (vv.14, 24), Jesus discloses himself as the bread of life (6:22–59) and explains its spiritual significance. To those who believe superficially, Jesus discloses their motive of greediness (v.26). Nevertheless, he still teaches them and invites them to faith (vv.29, 35). Even to “the Jews” who take signs as the criterion/prerequisite for faith (v.30) and do not believe (v.36), he still directs their attention to seeing the Son and believing in him (v.40).12 But he also warns that in refusing to come to/believe in him, the crowd is shut off from being able to be taught by God. He maintains that he is the sole means to the apprehension of the Father (via seeing terms, v.46) and repeats his evangelistic appeal by his declarative “I am” statement coupled with the pithy construction of ὁ+participle (vv.47–48). Despite “the Jews’” imperceptiveness, Jesus continues and elaborates his difficult message of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. These statements point to an inevitable conclusion: The crowd’s unperceptive state, because of their unbelief, can only worsen upon Jesus’ further revelation. Not only is the superficial faith of “the Jews” debunked with Jesus’ words, even the disciples’ faith is tested (vv.60–71). Finding it hard to “hear” Jesus’ word, some disciples even turn away from Jesus.13 Nevertheless, with Peter’s confession (ἡµεῖς πεπιστεύκαµεν καὶ ἐγνώκαµεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεου v.69), the twelve stand firm alongside the antecedent believing characters in John 1–4. Again, “the Jews’” and others’ withdrawal and the contrasting faith confirmed by the twelve remain under the scrutiny of Jesus’ omniscience (ᾔδει ἐξ ἀρχῆς 6:64).14 Thus, as a result of Jesus’ message, we see a redefinition of what it means to believe and know Jesus. With this development of the theme of apprehension of Jesus, Jesus enters into a second controversy in 7:14–8:59. Whereas the first controversy takes seeing the previous feeding miracle (vv.1–15) to show that Jesus is the divine Messiah who gives manna to his people and overcomes the sea, paving the way for the controversy in vv.22–71. Cf. Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo, NovTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1965); Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, NovTSup 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 92; Brown, John-I, 255–56. For the possible divine connotations to the Greco-Roman audience, Salier, Semeia, 109–11. 12 Jesus tries to posit a legitimate alternative criterion for faith: not seeing signs but seeing him intelligently since seeing him (6:36, 40a) is more important than seeing signs (v.30). To such a seeing, both eschatological resurrection (v.40b) and quenching of one’s hunger and thirst in a metaphorical sense (v.33, 35) are promised. 13 Note that in using the same word γογγύζω (“grumbled” 6:61), some of the disciples are portrayed as ostensibly unbelieving as “the Jews” (v.41). Their “drawing back” in v.66 reveals some to be as unbelieving as those Jesus described in v.64 (... οὐ πιστεύουσιν). 14 Cf. 6:6 αὐτὸς γὰρ ᾔδει τί ἔµελλεν ποιεῖν; v.61 εἰδὼς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν ἑαυτῷ… It is with this knowledge that Jesus points the disciples to the experience of “seeing” his ascension in the future (θεωρέω v.62).

B. Development of Concept

87

place in the synagogue (6:59), this one happens in the temple (8:20). This time, through failing to hear truly Jesus’ word, the counterfeit faith of “the Jews” is exposed. Prefaced by Jesus’ distancing himself from his unbelieving brothers (7:1–13), Jesus teaches in the temple where his knowledge confronts people’s false knowledge. “The Jews” marvel and puzzle over Jesus’ learning (v.15) and earthly origin (vv.26–27). But Jesus stresses the heavenly origin of his teaching (vv.16–18, 28) and reveals the inner thoughts of some of them as seeking to kill him (vv.19, 21–24). Yet the Pharisees remain adamant (vv.45– 52) and challenge Jesus’ testimony (8:13–20). They do not truly know Jesus’ origin and destination and thus challenge the validity of his testimony. These show that they neither really know Jesus nor his Father. Meanwhile, via terms pertaining to believing (7:37–39; 8:12), 15 Jesus continues to proclaim his universal evangelistic message as the source of “living water” and “light of life.” 16 However, unless the Pharisees admit that Jesus is from above and believe his statement “I am he” (ἐγώ εἰµι 8:24), their death in sin is certain. Although “the Jews” express their faith in the same manner as others, they stumble over Jesus’ teaching in 8:31–59. They refuse to admit that they, as Abraham’s descendants, are also slaves to sin who need to be set free through knowing the truth. Via terms for seeing and hearing (vv.26, 38, 40), Jesus points to their different origin from him (the devil vs. the Father). Their lack of understanding is due to their refusal to listen to his/God’s word (vv.43, 47).17 This, in turn, is explained by the fact that they are not of God. Nevertheless, Jesus’ invitation to faith is still open to these false believers (vv.45– 46, 51), and even from a post-resurrection perspective (v.28). Unfortunately, the more Jesus discloses himself, the more adamant and ignorant they become. They claim to “know” that he is demon-possessed. They do not even understand Jesus’ heavenly message (vv.48, 52–53, 57). Because of Jesus’ divine claim, “before Abraham was, I am” (v.58), the controversy is escalated to the point where “the Jews” throw stones at him. Thus, while Jesus’ divine claim as well as his omniscience regarding hidden human situations is constantly reflected (cf. v.37b), hearing Jesus’ heavenly message always means driving a wedge among the people, differentiating true believers from the false ones.

15 At the high point of the narrative introduced by 7:37, the “ὁ+participle form of πιστεύω” construction in 7:38 and the “ὁ+participle form of ἀκολουθέω” in 8:12 express a universal overtone to the readers (cf. 5:24). 16 Adding to the notion of Jesus as “the bread of life” in 6:51, the three items, bread, water, and light (6:51; 7:37–38; 8:12) have been identified as the three “Exodus gifts” emphasised in Second Temple Judaism. See the classic treatment in T. Francis Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London: SCM, 1963), 62–64, 86–94. Also Hamid-Khani, Revelation-Concealment, 266–70. 17 This use of ἀκούω echoes strongly with John’s multiple sense of “hearing” in 5:19– 29 (cf. 6:60).

88

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

This is similar to what seeing signs does in the first controversy (6:22–71): differentiating true believers from those having superficial faith.18 The unbelieving rejection of Jesus is summarised in the concluding illustration in 9:1–41. “The Jews’” and the Pharisees’ stern unbelief hinders them from the correct apprehension of Jesus in such a severe manner that even the blind beggar can spot their blind-spot (9:24–34). The factuality of the sign (cf. v.25b) gradually leads the beggar to faith in Jesus but it leads “the Jews”/Pharisees to stronger unbelief. “The Jews’”/Pharisees’ decision yields death in sin (8:24) but the beggar’s involves the light of life (8:12). Such a reversal of blindness and eyesight (9:39), as I will elaborate in the exegetical analysis, represents the impact of Jesus’ ministry as it concludes chapters 5–8. After the concluding illustration, I suggest that John 10–12 functions as transition from the current phase of hostile responses to Jesus to the next phase of a more personal and intimate encounter with Jesus. The events anticipate the farewell discourse, the central piece of Jesus’ intensive teaching on deeper apprehension. In John 10–12, this deeper apprehension of Jesus is introduced while key issues in chapters 1–9 are also brought to a close. On the one hand, with a contrast of terms related to hearing (10:3 cf. v.16), knowing (v.4, 5), and believing (v.4, 5), the good shepherd parable presents the apprehension message via the contrasting figures in the parable and the unbelieving “Jews”/Pharisees in the narrated world (v.6 cf. v.27). The immensely personal touch revealed in the mutual apprehension between the shepherd/Jesus and the sheep/believers is clear. 19 Continuing the theme of Jesus’ omniscience, the Lazarus episode (11:1–12:11) brings forth the experience of resurrection to Lazarus, Martha, Mary, and the disciples. Through it, their apprehension of Jesus, expressed through the knowing and believing terms (11:22, 24, 27), is challenged to go deeper (11:15, 25–26, 40, 42). Furthermore, we see unusual uses of apprehension terms in 12:12–50, signalling the coming of a new phase of apprehension. These include: a) The disciples/twelve being portrayed as needing to understand Jesus again (12:16), contrasting their faithful response throughout chapters 5–9; b) The disciples’ authoritative remembrance attesting subjective interpretation of OT and objective veracity (12:16–19; see further my treatment in the following section); c) Jesus’ concern for the true meaning of “seeing” him as “serving” and “following” him (12:21, 26), and 18 The unperceptiveness of Jesus’ audience in the first controversy is also escalated to overt hostility in the second controversy. 19 The contrast of seeing terms, viz., the hireling “sees” (θεωρέω) the wolves and then disappears from sight (φεύγω 10:12), tells the fact that the hireling cares nothing for the sheep (v.13). Conversely, for Jesus, his mutual knowledge of the flock is even comparable to that between himself and the Father (γινώσκω v.14 [2x], 15 [2x]). It is this “knowledge” which prompts him to lay down his life for them.

C. Exegetical Analysis

89

d) The crowd’s positive testimony about Jesus’ sign (12:17–18 cf. v.19), so unlike the unreceptive chapters 5–9. On the other hand, the current phase of apprehension has not been abandoned. The collocation of the resurrection motif in the Lazarus episode and the ἀκούω motif in the good shepherd episode reminds readers of the eschatological resurrection in 5:19–30 where the double sense of “hearing” in the eschaton and “hearing” Jesus’ word is used.20 Key issues in the current apprehension phase are preserved and concluded, particularly, the author’s evangelistic purpose and the problem of unbelief. Jesus’ evangelistic endeavours are evident in 10:9, 37–38; 11:42; 12:35–36, 44–5021 as they are in chapters 1–9. Integrated within these transition chapters, unbelief shown in the Pharisees’ not “knowing” (10:6), “the Jews’” not “listening” (10:20), and their last controversy with Jesus (10:22–42) prove their exclusion from belonging to the flock (10:25–26). Also, the unbelief motif receives a final theological explanation in 12:37–43. In it, as the following exegetical analysis will show, Jesus’ “omniscience” in his authoritative discernment of the authenticity of people’s faith in 2:23–25 is strategically coupled with his “omnipotence” over people’s ability to apprehend.

C. Exegetical Analysis in Context C. Exegetical Analysis

As indicated in the above overview, apprehending Jesus in GJohn unavoidably leads to a decision of either belief, or unbelief. The four passages selected for more detailed analysis under this section, namely, 5:19–47; 9:1–41; 12:12–19 and 12:37–43, reveal such an emphasis brought about via the author’s use of apprehension terms in the current phase. Through this deeper exegetical analysis section, I am going to show in detail the author’s rhetorical strategies as how he (1) makes his evangelistic appeals through criticising unbelief and challenging his readers implicitly, (2) guides them to accept the truthfulness of his account, and (3) asserts a “divine” factor behind the characters’/readers’ seemingly autonomous process of apprehension.

20

Of course, this foretaste of the eschatological resurrection in the Lazarus episode also points to Jesus’ own resurrection in the next phase of the apprehension. 21 Note the pithy constructions of ὁ+participle form of πιστεύω and θεωρέω in 12:44– 46 (For Jesus’ “seeing God” notion, see my discussion on 14:7–10 in the next Chapter). Underscoring the fact that he represents the Father, Jesus repeats his light and world motifs in 12:46 (cf. 8:12).

90

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

1. Controversies Prefaced: Testimony and the Eschatological Life (5:19–47) John 5:19–47, being not a controversy in itself but a speech,22 introduces a series of controversies between Jesus and “the Jews”23 that appear later on. Apparently, the healing at the pool of Bethesda (5:1–18) on the Sabbath is the event leading to the speech.24 With the analysis of 5:19–47, I will show that even after the sign/miracle of healing at the pool, people can remain unperceiving. This contrasts to what happened in John 1–4. Nevertheless, through Jesus’ eschatological message and the validity of his witness, John highlights Jesus’ appeal to faith based on both external attestation and internal motivation. This carries an impact to the readers as they face the same appeal as “the Jews” do.

22 Although Jesus was responding to “the Jews” (5:19), they did not reply to him. Neither exchanging viewpoints nor arguing back and forth can be seen. Furthermore, Jesus’ words in v.19 correspond to v.17 which in turn relates to the narrator’s comment in v.16, not any direct speech made by his opponents. 23 Johannine scholars debate on what οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι means. Scholars like Martyn, von Wahlde, and Michaels take it to mean exclusively the religious authorities (the chief priests) while Motyer sees it as the Pharisees and their followers. Still, Culpepper, Reinhartz, Dunn, and Bennema consider that the common ethnic Jews or even non-Judaeans should be included. Kierspel sees it as “intentionally unspecific.” Martyn, History and Theology, 84– 89; Stephen Motyer, Your Father the Devil?: A New Approach to John and “the Jews,” Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), 54–56; Culpepper, Anatomy, 129–30; Urban C. von Wahlde, “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John: Fifteen Years of Research (1983–1998),” ETL 76, no. 1 (2000): 30–55; Adele Reinhartz, “‘Jews’ and Jews in the Fourth Gospel,” in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, ed. Didier Pollefeyt, Reimund Bieringer, and Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2001), 213–27; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 294–97; Lars Kierspel, The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context, WUNT 2/220 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Cornelis Bennema, “The Identity and Composition of Oi Ioudaĩoi in the Gospel of John,” TynBul 60, no. 2 (2009): 239–63; Michaels, John, 422. This monograph takes οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι as a combination of different constituents (see the helpful Venn diagram in Bennema, “Ioudaĩoi,” 260.) Perhaps John is not as specific as modern Johannine scholars are on the exact identity of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Yet one should note that the phenomenon of changing audience, in for instance 7:14–8:59, does not necessarily indicate a sign of disparate traditions brought together. Pace Lincoln, John, 247. 24 For the unnecessary rearrangement of John 5 and 6 proposed by Bultmann and others, see Bultmann, John, 209–10; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, trans. Cecily Hastings et al., vol. 2, 3 vols. (London: Burns & Oates, 1980), 5–9; Michaels, John, 286.

C. Exegetical Analysis

91

a) Event Leading to 5:19–47 Through John’s use of seeing and knowing terms, the miracle of healing at the pool of Bethesda (5:1–18)25 does display readily a person’s obtuseness, contrasting with Jesus. As in John 1–4, Jesus’ foreknowledge is explicitly displayed via γινώσκω in 5:6. After the paralytic’s background is introduced, Jesus is immediately said to have “seen” (ὁράω) him and “knew” (γινώσκω) that he had been in such a condition for a long time. When we compare the previous uses of the knowing terms in describing Jesus (2:25, 4:1), this knowledge is in accordance with his divine foreknowledge. Yet, due to one’s ignorance, a correct apprehension of Jesus is not necessarily guaranteed even by the occurrence of miracles. In the pericopae of Nicodemus (3:1–15) and the Samaritan Woman (4:1–42), the characters display their ignorance in not actually knowing Jesus. But despite a miracle, the paralytic is even more obtuse. Having been healed, he shows no response to Jesus. There is no wondering about what authority Jesus had, no questioning about his identity, and as indicated in 5:13, the man did not even “know” (οἶδα) who it was. This is in sharp contrast to the totally different apprehension by the royal official in the previous healing pericope. Worse still, having encountered Jesus again and being summoned by him to sin no more (v.14), the man “repays” his debt of gratitude by reporting it to “the Jews,” thus shifting to Jesus his responsibility for it being not lawful to carry his pallet (v.15 cf. v.10).26 These shifts represent John’s rhetorical strategy in signalling to the readers that a somewhat different yet more profound display of Jesus’ works and words is forthcoming. To John’s readers, the failure of the sign to generate faith prepares them for Jesus’ speech in 5:19–47 and the unbelief arising in the controversies in chapters 6–12; such a lack of faith/unbelief echoes the same unbelief that readers may know of in their own world. b) The Controversies Prefaced (5:19–47) As the healed paralytic remains unperceiving even after a miracle, “the Jews,” having seen the fact of the miracle, are similarly unperceptive in understanding Jesus’ riddle “My Father is still working, and I also am working”

25

While not immediately called a “sign,” this miracle is called a sign later in 6:2. John mentions there that the crowd follows Jesus because they saw “signs” which he was doing for the sick. From its previous context, the only other healing miracle, other than the royal official pericope (4:46–54), is here. 26 Bennema critiques Beck well that the paralytic here shows that not all anonymous characters serve as models for the readers. Bennema, Encountering, 5; Beck, Discipleship, 90–91. The paralytic represents an example of ingrate to his benefactor, rather than “persistent naïveté” (contra Brown). Brown, John-I, 209; Haenchen, JohEv, 1:247; Smith, John, 41; Michaels, John, 299.

92

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

(5:17).27 This statement has its significance in not only increasing “the Jews’” eagerness to kill Jesus, but also in preparing for Jesus’ extended teaching in light of the hostility here. This long speech of Jesus can be divided into two sections. The first, 5:19– 30, deals with the Son’s disclosure of the eschatological judgment, which is described as “the greater works” (µείζονα ἔργα v.20). Hearing terms are mainly used here. The second, 5:31–47, deals with the validity of Jesus’ “greater testimony” (τὴν µαρτυρίαν µείζω v.36) and the absurdity of “the Jews’” unbelief, where witnessing and believing terms are used. Jesus’ testified message of the eschatological resurrection in the first section (vv.19–30) is backed up by the plurality of witnesses in the second (vv.31–47), whereas the unbelief of “the Jews” criticised in the second will be subject to the eschatological judgment forewarned in the first. 5:19–30 concerns predominantly the future with an implication for one’s faith in the present (v.24), whereas 5:31–47 concerns the present state of “the Jews’” unbelief with an implication of a future accusation by Moses (v.45). Apprehension of Jesus is set in this framework of eschatological and here-and-now tension. In view of this relationship, in the following sections, I will discuss the importance of the multiple senses of hearing the eschatological message and the multiple natures of testimony to Jesus and their relevance to believing/unbelieving. (1) Greater Works Testified: Eschatological Life and Judgment of the Son (5:19–30) The structure of this “greater works” section is indicated below (with apprehension terms underlined). Based on it, I shall argue that Jesus’ proclaimed eschatological judgment hangs on the criterion of people’s “hearing” and “believing.”

27

Jesus’ works and God’s works are evidently viewed as one here. For a sustained discussion on the “work” terminology and its possibility as ipsissima verba Jesu instead of a Johannine creation, see Paul W. Ensor, Jesus and His Works: The Johannine Sayings in Historical Perspective, WUNT 2/85 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996).

C. Exegetical Analysis

93

A. 5:19 Jesus declaring his reliance on the Father: doing what he sees from his Father B. 5:20–22 The Father will show the Son greater works (to be marvelled at): giving life and carrying out judgment C. (1) 5:23 Purpose for all people: honour the Son as the Father (2) 5:24 Universal promise of eternal life declared to everyone: through hearing/(give heed to) and believing; life and no judgment for believers B′. 5:25–29 Jesus declaring that the dead hearing Jesus’ voice will live (“fusion” of future and present resurrection): life and authority to execute judgment granted; future resurrection vs. judgment upon hearing (not to be marvelled at) A′. 5:30 Jesus’ reliance on the Father: judging based on hearing; seeking the Father’s will Jesus’ reliance on the Father is stressed at the outset as A parallels A′. The inclusio is apparent when one observes that οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν (v.19) parallels οὐ δύναµαι ἐγὼ ποιεῖν ἀπ᾽ ἐµαυτοῦ οὐδέν (v.30). Thus, seeing (βλέπω v.19) and hearing (ἀκούω v.30) also function similarly as they both take the Father as their object (eclipsed in v.30). Through the empirical seeing and hearing, Jesus imitates his Father and relies on him. As for B and B′, they both involve themes of eschatological judgment and life. B highlights the Son’s apprehension through the use of δείκνυµι by the Father (v.20 [2x]). What the Father will “show” are the greater works than the healing miracle “the Jews” have seen (which mediates physical life). These greater works, involving the Son’s eschatological life-giving and judgment (vv.21–22), are recapitulated in B′ (v.26, 27, 29). In B′, there is a collapse of time regarding hearing Jesus’ voice (v.25 [2x], 28). Firstly, through the use of ἔρχεται ὥρα, it is apparent that Jesus refers to the future eschatological resurrection (v.25). Yet with the immediate καὶ νῦν ἐστιν, the future “has already entered the present”28 in people’s hearing of Jesus’ voice (cf. 4:23 and

28

Beasley-Murray, John, 76–77. With Douglas Estes, this belongs to a kind of temporal event that is “deterministically intercalated and interwoven into the narrative”, revealing a “mechanics that warp the temporality of a text.” See Douglas Estes, The Temporal Mechanics of the Fourth Gospel: A Theory of Hermeneutical Relativity in the Gospel of John, BIS 92 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 200. For a devastating attempt to deconstruct Bultmann’s contradistinction of the Evangelist’s “present” eschatology being redacted to the

94

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

16:32). Thus, according to John, the eschatological hearing and resurrection are realised partially by Jesus’ hearers.29 These “dead,” if they hear Jesus’ voice, will live immediately. The “dead,” thus, refers to the physically dead people in the future as well as the spiritually dead hearers in Jesus’ time. These two temporal senses of hearing, as another kind of “fusion of horizons,” meet here via the use of ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν.30 Moreover, there could also be another double entendre for ἀκούω in 5:25. With v.24 in view, people’s hearing of Jesus’ voice in his time on earth can involve more than aural hearing; it can possibly connote an idea of giving heed/listening to.31 The dual concerns of life and judgment, in the eschaton and now, hinge on one’s relationship with Jesus, i.e., whether one is willing to hear him or not. The central concerns in vv.23–24 (C) are the necessity of honouring the Son and the invitation to faith. Both are universal in scope. The first highlights honouring the Son as the Father which is required by “all” (v.23). While this is ironic when compared to “the Jews’” attempt to kill him (v.18), ἵνα and πάντες denote that such expected honour is targeted universally.32 This universal overtone is repeated in v.24 as the ὁ+participle form of πιστεύω is reminiscent of the Johannine monologues. The readers should not be unaware of this characteristic phrase being used to persuade them to faith, although this is found on the lips of Jesus now. The relationship of eternal life and one’s decision to believe is again stressed here. Eternal life is awarded when one “hears” and “believes.” 33 Ἀκούω here very likely refers to both aural hearing and giving heed. Thus, a positive reception of Jesus’ message is the criterion for the eschatological eternal life available now. Therefore, although this section develops the theme of judgment set out in embryo in 3:16–19 and 3:36, and although John 5–9 looks negative in general, the universal appeal to faith is nevertheless clear. A positive apprehension of Jesus is still expected and urged, not only from “the Jews,” but also from the “future” eschatology in GJohn, see Jörg Frey, Die Johanneische Eschatologie III, WUNT 117 (Tübingen: Mohr, 2000), 463–81. 29 Thus, the future and present dimensions are “als ein vom johanneischen Autor durchaus absichtsvoll gewähltes sprachliches Ausdrucksmittel aufzufassen sein.” Jörg Frey, Die Johanneische Eschatologie II, WUNT 110 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998), 151. 30 Cf. 4:23. See further Jörg Frey, Die Johanneische Eschatologie I, WUNT 96 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1997), 418–21; Frey, Eschatologie II, 285–98; Frey, Eschatologie III, 322–402; 463–81. 31 LN31.56 and LN36.14. 32 Thus, Sim rightly says, ἵνα “introduces a thought about a state of affairs which is potential and may not in fact be realised.” Margaret G. Sim, Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek: New Light from Linguistics on the Particles HINA and HOTI (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010), 19. 33 For πιστεύω+personal dative object used here, see Chapter 2, section B.6.

C. Exegetical Analysis

95

readers. This is done in two ways: Firstly, via Jesus’ “greater works” foretold; secondly, via John’s subtle use of people’s “hearing,” both in the eschaton and now, which has the double entendre, aural hearing as well as giving heed. Both these multiple senses of people’s “hearing” and the eschatological judgment of Jesus help readers transcending from the world of the text to their own world, challenging them whether they have similarly “heard”/”believed” Jesus’ message properly, though being physically and temporally distanced from the events narrated. (2) Greater Testimonies Borne: Validity of Jesus’ Witness and the Absurdity of “the Jews’” Unbelief Foretold (5:31–47) The structure of the second section, concerning the “greater testimony,” backing up “the greater works,” is illustrated below: A. 5:31–35 On “bearing witness to myself” 1. Jesus himself bearing witness and knowing another’s testimony as true (vv.31–32) 2. John the Baptist bearing witness to Jesus; not receiving testimony from man (vv.33–35) B. 5:36–40 On greater testimonies: 1. Jesus’ works: testified that the Father has sent the Son (v.36) 2. The Father: has borne witness to Jesus; “the Jews” have never heard and seen and do not have his word abiding –reason: not believing Jesus (vv.37–38) 3. The Scriptures: bearing witness to Jesus; “the Jews” think that in them they have eternal life, yet they are not willing to come to him (vv.39– 40) C. 5:41–44 Absurdity of unbelief: On receiving glory -Jesus vs. “the Jews” 1. Jesus: not receiving glory from men but knowing “the Jews” and what is in them (vv.41–42) 2. Jews: not receiving Jesus but receive glory from one another; not seeking God’s glory –questioning “the Jews” as unable to believe (vv.43– 44) D. 5:45–47 Absurdity of unbelief: On accusing “the Jews” -Moses vs. Jesus 1. Moses as “the Jews’” accuser (v.45) 2. The logic of believing Moses: believe Jesus (v.46) 3. The logic of not believing Moses’ writings: not believe Jesus’ words (v.47) As indicated in 5:19–30, Jesus’ greater works involve solemn eschatological judgment and the criterion of people’s “hearing and believing.” In the following, I will show that Jesus’ greater testimonies involve a multiplicity of different witnesses pointing to faith in Jesus and yet people are absurdly reject-

96

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

ing the claims offered by them. Thus, 5:31–47 couples with vv.19–30 to show to the readers the importance of believing Jesus and the absurdity of not believing. The emphasis on the multiplicity of witnesses finds its elaboration in sections A and B above. First of all, Jesus points out that his testimony of the eschatological life (vv.19–30) is not simply his self-assertion. There are four other witnesses who back up Jesus’ claim (v.31 cf. Deut 19:15). Lincoln and others point out that in light of John 5:16, 18, Jesus should be “the accused” and speaks there in his own defence. Nevertheless, he has shown himself to be “the judge” also and now he even appears as the prosecutor to convict “the Jews” of their crime (v.30).34 The accusers have become the accused. But one should note that vv.31–47 also function as John’s warrant to his readers that Jesus’ eschatological testimony in vv.19–30 is justified and trustworthy. The reversal helps to reinforce Jesus’ challenges to “the Jews” and his analysis of their unbelief, which speak to any unbelief of the readers and/or their friends’. Following from this, Jesus mentions his first witness, John the Baptist (5:32–35). While Chrysostom and von Wahlde consider ἄλλος in v.32 to refer to the Baptist,35 most see the Father as the preferred choice.36 But taking ἄλλος as the Father ignores the role John the Baptist plays immediately in vv.33–35.37 There is no doubt that there are greater testimonies than John’s 34

Lee, Symbolic Narratives, 107; Lincoln, Truth, 73; Lincoln, John, 202; Michaels, John, 324. Note that Asiedu-Peprah objects to this reversal in the form of forensic trial and considers it as a two-party juridical controversy only, based on the O.T. ‫ ריב‬pattern. As this juridical controversy fails to be resolved, it becomes “trilateral,” bringing forth the forensic trial before Pilate. See Asiedu-Peprah, Conflicts, 22–24; 33–35. However, the theme of unbelief, in its interaction with other apprehension terms, coheres John 5–9 as a whole, to which the forensic/juridical motif runs only secondary to it. For an analysis of the juridical rhetoric of 5:19–47 through the lens of Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks and progymnasmata, see Alicia D. Myers, “‘Jesus Said to Them...’: The Adaptation of Juridical Rhetoric in John 5:19–47,” JBL 132, no. 2 (2013): 415–30. 35 John Chrysostom, The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. John, 2 vols. (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1848), 345–46; Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John: Vol. 2: The Gospel of John, ECC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 255. Contrast the earlier Urban C. von Wahlde, “The Witnesses to Jesus in John 5:31–40 and Belief in the Fourth Gospel,” CBQ 43, no. 3 (1981): 386n.5. 36 Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel according to S. John, 2 vols. (London: J. Parker, 1874), 281–82; Bernard, John, 248; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, 271; Dodd, Interpretation, 329; Brown, John-I, 224; Bultmann, John, 264; Schnackenburg, John-II, 2:121; Donald A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1991), 260; Wengst, JohEv-I, 216; Thyen, JohEv, 320; Schnelle, Johannes, 125; Michaels, John, 324. Strangely, Frederick Bruner sees this ἄλλος as the first cryptic reference to the Spirit. Frederick Dale Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 337. 37 Dodd takes 5:33–35 (reference to the Baptist) as parenthetic but does not explain it satisfactorily. Dodd, Interpretation, 329.

C. Exegetical Analysis

97

(v.36), but John’s “witness to the truth” (v.33) is obviously “true” (v.32). The reason that Jesus does not accept testimony from people (v.34a) is due to the requirement of the witnessing person to be comparable to Jesus himself who comes from heaven (3:31). This is why the following testimonies are greater. Nevertheless, the Baptist’s testimony is never rejected by Jesus. Since the beginning of GJohn, the importance of John the Baptist in testifying Jesus based on his apprehension has not been precluded but rather valued as he faithfully testified what he “saw” and “heard.” The “greater” testimonies Jesus mentioned in 5:36–40 (B) are: Jesus’ works, the Father, and the Scriptures. Jesus’ works in v.36 refers specifically to the miracles he has worked so far, at the least the healing in 5:1–18 is in view. 38 From the perspective of Jesus’ audience, these works are verifiable deeds pointing to the fact that the Father has sent him. For the next witness, the Father,39 Jesus stresses that “the Jews” have no direct access to his testimony, since, aurally and visually speaking, it remains out of the reach of “the Jews” (οὔτε φωνὴν… ἀκηκόατε οὔτε εἶδος… ἑωράκατε v.37b). What is worse, they do not have the Father’s word abiding in them (v.38a) due to their unbelief in Jesus (v.38b) who, in turn, is the sole access to the Father’s testimony. Thus, “the Jews’” stubborn decision of rejecting Jesus has barred them from the desired apprehension of Jesus. The next witness, the Scriptures, needless to say, is both important and familiar to “the Jews.” Jesus has made use of their perception that they think (δοκεῖτε) the Scriptures offer eternal life (v.39).40 The irony, again, is that this source of life is pointing towards Jesus, and yet they refuse to come to him to whom the Scriptures bore “witness” (v.39). Notice “the Jews’” unbelieving decision in the mouth of Jesus: οὐ θέλετε ἐλθεῖν πρός µε (v.40 cf. v.38b). We should note that these witnesses, including John the Baptist’s, are either familiar to or verifiable by “the Jews.” They all testify to the validity of Jesus’ message in vv.19–30 and the absurdity of “the Jews’” unbelief. The different and multiple natures of the testimony provide the important warrant 38

For a broader sense of ἔργα, cf. 4:34; 5:20. Cf. 5:17. Taking καὶ in 5:37 as meaning “and so,” Schnackenburg and Michaels identify the testimony of Jesus’ works as the testimony of the Father. Schnackenburg, John-II, 2:123– 24; Michaels, John, 329. But given the parallel construction of v.36b (αὐτὰ… µαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐµοῦ) and v.37a (ὁ πέµψας µε… µεµαρτύρηκεν περὶ ἐµοῦ), it is more satisfactory to see them as separate. Others treat this testimony as the testimony at Jesus’ baptism (Schnackenburg, John-II, 2:123–24), the theophany at Sinai (Brown, John-I, 227), the words of Scriptures (Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, 273; Bultmann, John, 266), the words of Jesus given by the Father (von Wahlde, “John 5:31–40,” 390), or believers’ internal testimony (Bernard, John, 250–51; Dodd, Interpretation, 266; Brown, John-I, 227–28; Trites, Witness, 102; Barrett, John, 267). The last option appears quite probable. 40 Cf. e.g., the rabbinic tractate Pirqe Avot 2:8, 6:7. 39

98

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

for Jesus. These witnesses, in particular the latter three, cannot be simplistically understood as collapsed into one, viz., the Father, as is often done by commentators, so that the whole discourse of testimony becomes closed and “self-authenticating.”41 The failure of such a multiplicity of testimonies to convince “the Jews” is further explained in vv.41–44 (C). Jesus’ knowledge of “the Jews” and their motive (ἔγνωκα ὑµᾶς ὅτι… v.42a) signifies his all-knowing character of what is in people, echoing 2:23–25. “The Jews’” lack of love of God (5:42b) is transparent to Jesus. This is evidenced by their favouritism as they receive those who came in their own name, instead of Jesus who came in his Father’s name (v.43) and thus renders them “unable to believe” (v.44a cf. 12:39). Thus, based on his omniscience, Jesus exposes the real nature of the unbelief of the supposed elect of God. The last section 5:45–47 (D) involves Jesus’ exposing another false perception of “the Jews.” They “think” (v.45) that Jesus may be accusing them to the Father; but it is Moses who is their real accuser. This is highly ironic since Moses is the one on whom they have set their hope (v.45).42 Their eschatological hope for salvation has now become challenged with a warning of being accused. The logic is apparent. In Jesus’ eyes, Moses wrote of him and thus anyone believing Moses should believe Jesus also (v.46). Conversely, as they do not really believe Moses’ writings (and hence Moses), they will not believe Jesus’ words (v.47). Thus, the absurdity of unbelief highlighted in vv.41–44 and 45–47 contrasts with the different and multiple nature of testimony in vv.31–40. Receiving testimonies, especially such a multiplicity of different witnesses demonstrated here, is an important step in apprehending Jesus, both to “the Jews” as well as the readers. (3) Concluding Thoughts From these two sections on greater works and greater testimonies (5:19–30; 31–47), with the acknowledgment of the use of trial/juridical metaphors, we observe how an apprehension of Jesus is conveyed through Jesus’ speech. First of all, in vv.19–30, via the use of hearing and believing terms, Jesus unpacks his idea of “work” stated in v.17 by showing forth his universal appeal to faith and eternal life based on his proclaimed eschatological resurrec41 See, for instance, Brown, John-I, 227; Barrett, John, 267; von Wahlde, “John 5:31– 40,” 386; Lincoln, Truth, 78. Having said this, the self-authentication of the Father is not independent from the other three. John was sent from him (1:6); Jesus’ works are granted by him (5:36); the Scriptures are his words (10:35). They all originated from the Father yet remain assessable and verifiable by the audience. Thus, they are not altogether selfauthenticating. 42 Meeks shows that “the Jews” consider Moses as their intercessor at the final judgment. The eschatological overtone is apparent. Meeks, Prophet-King, 161.

C. Exegetical Analysis

99

tion and judgment. Then, in vv.31–47, Jesus backs up this notion of greater works by a multiplicity of testimonies. With a view towards “the Jews’” salvation, Jesus accepts the testimony from John the Baptist. Furthermore, his works, the Father, and the Scriptures each bears witness to him. However, Jesus explains that at the core it is not a matter of credentials. He points to “the Jews’” biased rejection of him. With Jesus’ omniscience, he reveals the bias is due to “the Jews’” lack of the Father’s word abiding (v.38), their lack of God’s love (v.42), their not seeking God’s glory (v.44), and not believing Moses (vv.45–47). It is these internal motives that bar them from being able to see Jesus’ credentials. Towards the end, Jesus condemns “the Jews” for not believing (εἰ… οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς… πιστεύσετε; v.47). This pattern of questioning in this passage (v.44, 47) resembles his previous challenge to Nicodemus (3:12). To both Nicodemus and “the Jews,” the key impediment to recognising the value of Jesus’ witnesses, his deeds, and his message, lies in what is within a person. Thus, Jesus’ appeal to faith based on external attestation (greater works and testimonies) and internal motivation (warning of biased rejection) is most distinctive here. Thus, readers are given the deeper explanation for the crucial importance of believing/not believing Jesus not seen in John 1–4 via the seeing and witnessing terms. The verifiable/familiar external attestation and internal motivation disclosed in accordance to Jesus’ omniscience (5:31–47 witnessing and believing) works together with the collapse of time regarding the eschatological and present hearing and believing (vv.19–30) to create an impact to the readers on the importance of faith in Jesus. The portrayal of Jesus’ heavenly message, both from the perspective of the future, past, and present as well as the external and internal sides in relation to “the Jews”/readers, is now presented vividly. The rhetorical design is thoughtful. 2. An Ironic Concluding Illustration: Seeing, Not Seeing, and Believing (9:1–41) After Jesus’ speech (5:19–47) and the two long controversies (6:22–71; 7:14– 8:59), the story of healing a man born blind (9:1–41) may appear at first as merely an appended anecdotal story. Yet my analysis will show that it represents a concluding illustration, recapitulating “the Jews’” and the Pharisees’ incomprehension in John 5–8 (see the narrative overview section).43 Yet, in

43

For further analysis of the seeing and light motifs in 9:1–41 and 1:1–18, see Michael Labahn, “‘Blinded by the Light’: Blindheit, Sehen und Licht in Joh 9: Ein Spiel von Variation und Wiederholung Durch Erzählung und Metapher,” in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation, ed. Gilbert Van Belle, Michael Labahn, and P. Maritz, BETL 223 (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 453–509. For comparison with the other healing miracle 5:1–9, Culpepper, Anatomy, 139; Jeffrey L. Staley, “Stumbling in

100

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

spite of the illustrated stern unbelief, a desired apprehension of Jesus is still achieved in it through the subtle and ironic contrast of seeing/listening/knowing/believing and not seeing/listening/knowing/believing. These two key elements reflect John’s rhetorical strategy to challenge his readers. With a view to apprehension terms used, 9:1–41 can be divided as follows, the beggar’s dialogues with the Pharisees/“the Jews” as central concerns:44 A. 9:1–7 JESUS–DISCIPLES–BEGGAR: Jesus’ seeing the man; the problem of sin and the beggar’s blindness; working God’s works; light of the world; and miracle: blindness→eyesight B. 9:8–12 Transition: BEGGAR–his NEIGHBOURS on how his eyes have been opened; the man’s not knowing (Jesus’ whereabouts) C. 9:13–17 BEGGAR–PHARISEES: on how his eyes have been opened; division among Pharisees: Jesus’ not keeping the Sabbath/a sinner/not from God vs. ability to do signs B′. 9:18–23 Transition: “JEWS”–BEGGAR’S PARENTS on “the Jews’” unbelief; on how his eyes have been opened; the parents’ knowing and not knowing; reason for not confessing Christ C′. 9:24–34 “JEWS”–BEGGAR: Division between the man and “the Jews” on the knowledge of Jesus: from God vs. a sinner; on how his eyes have been opened; “the Jews” being challenged for not listening; Moses’ disciples vs. Jesus’ disciples; “the Jews’” not knowing (Jesus’ origin) vs. the man’s knowing (Jesus from God); the beggar being labelled as born in sin and cast out A′. 9:35–41 JESUS–BEGGAR–PHARISEES: the beggar’s seeing Jesus and believing; eyesight↔blindness; the Pharisees’ problem of sin and eyesight

the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in John 5 and 9,” Semeia, no. 53 (1991): 55–80. 44 An alternative division and detailed narrative exposition can be found in Martyn, History and Theology, 30–36; Holleran, “Seeing the Light I”; J. Warren Holleran, “Seeing the Light: A Narrative Reading of John 9,” ETL 69, no. 4 (1993): 354–82; Lee, Symbolic Narratives, 164–65; Lincoln, Truth, 97; Sandra M. Schneiders, “To See or Not to See: John 9 as a Synthesis of the Theology and Spirituality of Discipleship,” in Word, Theology, and Community in John, ed. John Painter, R. Alan Culpepper, and Fernando F. Segovia (St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002), 189–209. Such scholars, based on their scheme, see vv.18–23 as the central and significant. Yet with respect to the literary plot, they fail to explain how the dialogue between “the Jews” and the beggar’s parents could be more central to John 9 than C and C′ on Jesus’ identity.

C. Exegetical Analysis

101

Jesus’ knowledge continues to be the backbone of the narrative. In A, John appears to mention Jesus as casually “seeing” the man born blind (9:1), but with the readers’ memory of previous pericopae where similar apprehension terms are used in Jesus’ encounter with the characters, Jesus’ “seeing” can hardly be a coincidence.45 He physically “sees” this beggar and understands him also.46 Thus, in response to the disciples’ question on the problem of sin, he confidently foretells, with reference to the blind man, that “God’s works might be revealed47 in him” (9:3 cf. 2:11). The notion of God’s work echoes 5:17–30, where Jesus’ doing God’s work refers to the theme of judgment and life.48 It also echoes 6:27–29, where people’s doing God’s work refers to faith in Jesus. Jesus further elaborates his idea of mission as he is “the light of the world” (8:12). By giving light to the blind so that he “sees” (9:7), first physically and then spiritually, Jesus’ evangelistic appeals in John 5–8 finally receive a truly positive answer.49 The next sections 9:8–12 (B) and vv.18–23 (B′) both function as transitions. The neighbours (B) and the beggar’s parents (B′) play relatively minor roles in the plot. 50 B expresses the amazement of the beggar’s neighbours who had seen him before (θεωρέω51 v.8) and the beggar’s lack of knowledge concerning Jesus (οἶδα v.12) whereas B′ reiterates the unbelief of “the Jews” (v.18 cf. John 5–8) reflected in their intimidating the man’s parents with the threat to put anyone who “confesses” Jesus out of the synagogue (9:22). Under such intimidation and quasi-forensic proceedings,52 the parents can only 45 Jesus “knew” and “heard” about the Pharisees (4:1); he “saw” and “knew” about the paralytic (5:5); he “saw” the multitude coming to him (6:5). In the later part of these narratives, Jesus is shown to have planned for what he would do. 46 LN24.1; 27.5; 30.45; 32.11. 47 Φανερόω pertains to the concept of knowing. 48 Also, hearing/obeying plays a major role in 5:1–47 while seeing/perceiving plays a major role here. For a more detailed comparison of John 5 and 9, see Labahn, Lebensspender, 375–77. 49 For the opening of the eyes of the blind as a sign of restoration of Israel in the Second Exodus, esp., Isa 29:18; 35:5 and 42:6–7 and similar backgrounds, see Salier, Semeia, 114–17. 50 Contra the over-interpreted reading of “crypto-Christians” in the Johannine community; Brown, Community, 71–73. 51 While Abbott’s distinction of θεωρέω as superficial beholding and ὁράω as spiritual understanding appears convincing when 9:8 is compared with v.1, according to my analysis, further comparison with v.37 shows that both verbs are actually synonymous. In v.37, Jesus could hardly have meant that the beggar has spiritually understood (ὁράω) him since v.36 just shows that he does not know Jesus’ identity at all. Again, John’s subtly differentiated meaning lies not in his use of different verbs but in the narrative plot. Abbott, Vocabulary, §1597–98. 52 For the forensic rhetoric used in John 9, see further Wright, Rhetoric and Theology, 167–82, 201–3; Lincoln, Truth, 96–105. Note that after a detailed treatment of John 9, Wright considers the forensic dimensions are only secondary. A “larger epideictic

102

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

say that they “do not know” (v.21) how their son’s eyes have been opened and who did that (vv.22–23). However, for C and C′, contrasting apprehension terms are vividly used in the beggar’s confrontation with the Pharisees and “the Jews.” These Pharisees and Jews, having played vital roles throughout John 5–8, now illustrate their unbelieving apprehension of Jesus. The narrator’s mention of Sabbath in 9:14 also reminds the readers of the only other comparable healing in 5:1–18 which together with this account of the blind man bracket chapters 5–9. The division of people generated in this section echoes the same division in 7:43 in the second controversy. While the beggar’s anarthrous προφήτης in his reply to the Pharisees’ question about Jesus’ identity reflects his initial lack of a clear conception (9:17 cf. 4:19), it shows that a person not yet believing is keener in his insight than the unbelieving Pharisees and Jews.53 He knows more than those religious leaders. It is also “the Jews’” unbelief (9:18) that prompts them to further question further the man’s parents and subsequently to call again the man for confrontation (C′). In C′, “the Jews” stress that they “know” (v.24) Jesus is a sinner, expressing their firm judgment and bias rather than accurate knowledge. Refuting “the Jews,” the beggar argues for his knowledge and the factuality of the sign he experienced (οἶδα v.25). In responding to the repeated question about how his eyes were opened (v.26), he ridicules “the Jews” as not “listening” to what he had told them (v.27a). He counter-questions them whether they want to become Jesus’ disciples (v.27b), a highly ironic depiction given their outright unbelief expressed in chapters 5–8. Their claim to be Moses’ disciples and not Jesus’ (9:28) reminds the readers of the repeated comparison of Jesus and Moses in the previous controversies and the logical necessity of believing Jesus if one truly believes in Moses (5:45–47; 6:32, 35; 7:22–23). They claim knowledge about Moses but do not “know” Jesus’ origin (9:29). To the readers, this is apparently anomalous in light of their previous repeated queries (6:41–42; 7:15, 27, 31, 40–43; 8:25, cf. 7:52; 8:19) and Jesus’ repeated sayings (5:43; 6:38–39, 51; 7:16–18, 28–29; 8:23–24, 26, 38, 40, 42, 55).54 This proves that they are really not “listening,” just as the man claims (9:27). Those who ought to have listened and believed are not really listening and believing. By now, it is clear that their knowledge is not based on facts but on their own prejudice. Common knowledge shows that God only listens to one who does his will, and not to a sinner (οἴδαµεν v.31 cf. οὐκ οἴδατε in v.30). concern” on Jesus’ identity as the light of the world via the use of “mixed chreia” remains at the centre. Here Asiedu-Peprah again insists that it is not a trial but just juridical controversy. Asiedu-Peprah, Conflicts, 31n.79. 53 Contrasting the unperceptive paralytic in 5:1–18. 54 Duke rightly points to the irony at work. Paul D. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1985), 68–69. The Pharisees seldom admit that they do not know but essentially what they admit here is what they most need to know.

C. Exegetical Analysis

103

Even the beggar observes the fact that such an unprecedented miracle implies logically that Jesus comes from God (vv.32–33 cf. v.16b; 3:2). This simple analysis by the beggar is rewarded with blame for having been born entirely in sin (9:34 cf. vv.2–3) and expulsion. These reactions show that “the Jews” are entirely stubborn. By asking σὺ διδάσκεις ἡµᾶς; (v.34), they ironically demonstrate that even a lower-class beggar can teach them the correct fact. A desired apprehension of Jesus triumphs as the beggar gets to know Jesus finally in A′. This is the work of God as introduced in v.4. In A, the man received physical eyesight. Now he receives spiritual eyesight, echoing the theme of Jesus as the light of the world in v.5 and 8:12. Jesus “saw” the beggar in A and now the beggar finally “sees” him in A′. Only after “hearing” (9:35) that the man was cast out does Jesus invite him to “believe” in the Son of man, which again shows Jesus’ intentional planning (v.3).55 By asking τίς ἐστιν, κύριε, ἵνα πιστεύσω εἰς αὐτόν; (v.36), the beggar apparently does not understand what Jesus said.56 Jesus ironically says that the man has “seen” him (v.37),57 a style of invitation reminiscent of 4:26. The beggar pronounces his faith immediately by “believing” and “worshipping” Jesus (9:38).58 The deliberate use of προσκυνέω here is significant and brings the narrative to a climax. On the one hand, προσκυνέω in all its occurrences in GJohn is used in religious sense. It always takes the Father as its object (4:21, 23–24). 59 On the other hand, given this Johannine usage, the 55 Jesus’ question σὺ πιστεύεις εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;, according to Estes, belongs to a mildly “loaded question” which functions to convince the audience in a mildly coercive way. Estes, Questions, 147–52. For the argument that sees “the Son of Man” as a circumlocution for the speaker (Jesus), see Mogens Müller, “‘Have You Faith in the Son of Man?’ (John 9:35),” NTS 37, no. 2 (1991): 291–94. 56 Such ignorance shows the unlikelihood that the beggar has had an initial faith of trusting obedience in going to the pool of Siloam as Koester claims. The beggar’s faith grows out of seeing a sign, like “the Jews” in John 6. Koester, “Hearing-SeeingBelieving,” 341–42. 57 The beggar was blind when he left Jesus and is mentioned to have met Jesus again only in this conversation (9:35–41). He could not have “seen” Jesus before. Schlatter’s comment is astute: “Der Anblick geschieht eben jetzt und gibt dem Sehenden einen Besitz, den er nicht mehr verlieren kann (Perfekt).” Adolf Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975), 231. 58 Ὁ δὲ ἔφη· πιστεύω, κύριε· καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (9:38–39a) is omitted in î75 ‫ *א‬W b but present in î66 ‫א‬2, A, B, D, L. Scholars incline to take this as original due to “the overwhelming preponderance of external attestation.” The omission may be due to a textual accident. Bernard, John, 339; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 195; Wengst, JohEv-I, 383; von Wahlde, John-II, 437; Michaels, John, 568. Contra Brown, John-I, 375. 59 Beasley-Murray and Schnackenburg argue that formal worship is not in view here. They argue that προσκυνέω only represents prostrating oneself before another person and kissing his feet. Schnackenburg, John-II, 2:254; Beasley-Murray, John, 160. Yet from my observation here, there is an overtone of deity. For John, to worship is a natural result of

104

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

Johannine Jesus did not stop the beggar from worshipping him but rather implicitly acknowledged his action as being able to “see” (βλέπω 9:39). Adding these two facts together, it ironically fulfils what 5:18 says, “he was not only breaking the Sabbath, but was also… making himself equal to God,” forming another inclusio for John 5–9. Whereas the believing beggar’s worship contrasts vividly with the attitude of the unbelieving Pharisees, Jesus’ dialogue with them comes to another high point (9:39–41). Jesus states that his purpose for coming into the world is for the reversal of blindness and eyesight (ἵνα οἱ µὴ βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ οἱ βλέποντες τυφλοὶ γένωνται v.39).60 Now the Pharisees suddenly become perceptive. Unlike the previous instances, they now appear to be able to “hear”/understand the subtlety (ἀκούω v.40a). They were not listening (v.27) but not so now. They know that Jesus was speaking against them. A highly ironic double entendre is at play: during the lengthy debate in John 5–8, they refuse to “listen” to Jesus’ salvific message (ἀκούω, in the sense of acceptance, 9:27; 8:43; 7:51; 5:24). Now, at the last moment, they can “hear” (in the sense of hearing and understanding) but it is about “judgment” (9:39) and not salvation. Their reply to Jesus shows that they think that Jesus has called them blind, whether physically or spiritually, just like the beggar was. Jesus’ reply is another riddle which can be understood in two ways: If they were blind physically (τυφλοί) like the beggar, they would have no sin (thus echoing Jesus’ saying in v.3). They would be eligible for “the reversal of blindness” (οἱ µὴ βλέποντες βλέπωσιν). But now that they claim they see “physically,” thus differentiating themselves from the beggar, their sin remains because they do not believe, unlike the beggar. Alternatively, Jesus’ riddle could mean: If they were truly blind spiritually just like the beggar who had not heard of Jesus, they would not be guilty because of sheer ignorance. But now that they claim they see spiritually; their sin remains since they lie to others (and themselves) as they are still spiritually blind because of their unbelief.61 faith. See Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, 359; Brown, John-I, 376; Bultmann, John, 339n.3; Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 143; Lincoln, John, 287; Larsen, Recognition-Scenes, 159; Schnelle, Johannes, 190; Michaels, John, 569. 60 This is a riddle pronouncement according to Tom Thatcher, The Riddles of Jesus in John: A Study in Tradition and Folklore, SBLMS 53 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 247–52. 61 The alternative possible meaning of “blindness” referring to spiritual blindness as lack of a proper understanding of Jesus here is missed by Larsen, Recognition-Scenes, 161. In GJohn, lack of understanding (“blindness”) is conceptually differentiated from sin as a result of unbelief (contra Larsen). The volitional and intellectual aspects should not be confused. See Gaffney, “Believing-Knowing,” 240; Bennema, “Christ-Spirit-Knowledge,” 128.

C. Exegetical Analysis

105

In either case, because of their adamant unbelief in encountering Jesus in light of chapters 5–8, they prove to be spiritually blind. With Jesus’ words, they are burdened with sin. They belong to “the reversal of eyesight” (οἱ βλέποντες τυφλοὶ γένωνται 9:39). The question of sin committed by the beggar (v.2) and by Jesus as falsely claimed (v.25) is now settled by Jesus’ verdict thus ending the pericope, ἡ ἁµαρτία ὑµῶν µένει (v.41). Such sin of “the Jews” has to be located in the larger context of John 5–8; it recapitulates Jesus’ earlier warning about their death in sin (8:21–29) and hammers home the consequence of unbelief for the readers (cf. 5:29).62 With the above exegetical observations, it is clear now that the story of John 9 is not coincidentally placed. The beggar’s and the Pharisees’ experiences illustrate what is meant by seeing and not seeing, knowing and not knowing, listening and not listening, and at the heart of it, believing and not believing. Also, the story recapitulates the essence of what has been argued between Jesus and “the Jews”/Pharisees in John 5–8, proving “the Jews’” and Pharisees’ knowledge is not based on facts but their own prejudice. Strikingly, the beggar’s conversion, especially in his final giving to Jesus the worship only due to God, shows a desired apprehension of Jesus in being able to “see” Jesus’ true identity.63 Such a reversal of “blindness” and “eyesight” speaks to the experience of the believers and the non-believers. Initiated by Jesus’ speech in 5:19–47 (hearing, witnessing, and believing) and concluded by this illustration (seeing, knowing, and believing), the two passages illustrate both the intention and the impact of Jesus’ ministry to the public, whether they chose to believe him (superficially, falsely, or genuinely) or not. This has a thought-provoking effect on the readers, challenging their own senses of apprehension, whether they have seen, heard, known, and believe Jesus as well as acquire testimony similarly as the characters do.

62

Thus, Staley aptly notes that the repeated τυφλός in 9:39 (cf. v.1) adds a deeper metaphorical meaning to the word which brings out a “strong sense of closure” to the readers. This is especially true with my tracing of the development of the concept of apprehending Jesus from John 5 till here. (But, contra Staley, τυφλός is firstly used in 5:3, not 9:1.) Staley, First-Kiss, 63n.38. 63 Resseguie rightly comments that the experience of the beggar resembles “light gradually transforms darkness into day.” However, the Pharisees certainly do not “move from litheness to rigidity” in John 9, especially in light of John 5–8. James L. Resseguie, “John 9: A Literary-Critical Analysis,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis, vol. 2 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1982), 295–303; James L. Resseguie, The Strange Gospel: Narrative Design and Point of View in John, BIS 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 142.

106

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

3. Closure of Jesus’ Public Ministry and the Beginning of His Glorification (12:12–19, 37–43) As I have indicated in the narrative overview section, John 10–12 represents a transition from chapters 5–9 to 13–17. From the two selected pericopae, namely Jesus’ triumphal entry (12:12–19) and John’s theological explanation for belief/unbelief (vv.37–43), I will demonstrate how they bring Jesus’ public ministry to a close as well as introduce the beginning of his glorification. By doing so, I will also show the strategic roles they play in John 10–12 through the different uses of the apprehension terms. These include John’s deliberate assertion of the truthfulness of his account of Jesus and that the human (in)apprehension of Jesus as actually determined by him. a) Triumphal Entry Remembered (12:12–19) After the sign of raising Lazarus (11:1–12:11), “hearing” of Jesus’ coming to Jerusalem “the next day” (12:12 cf. 1:29, 35, 43), the crowd hail Jesus as “King of Israel” (12:13) as his action of entry is linked to Zech 9:9. In this strategic moment of Jesus’ ministry in entering Jerusalem, John’s ideas of understanding, remembering, and witnessing play a key role in shaping the beginning of a forthcoming new stage of apprehension of Jesus in the following ways. First, it is significant to see the disciples not understanding this event (οὐκ ἔγνωσαν 12:16). Throughout John 5–9, the truly believing disciples with other believing characters, in contrast to the unbelieving Jews, are usually presented as being able to understand (e.g. 7:28; 8:14, 27, 43, 55; 9:29; 10:6 even though sometimes they misunderstand). It is unusual to see them unequivocally depicted as not understanding here after such positive portrayals. This is reminiscent of their initial encounter with Jesus in John 1–4, where they underwent a process from not knowing to knowing (e.g. 1:31; 4:22, 32). Now, towards the beginning of another cycle of apprehension, they are similarly waiting to be enlightened again. Second, the disciples’ remembrance in 12:16 is significant in view of the forthcoming new stage of apprehension of Jesus. If the “not understanding” language signals another apprehension process, the rare “remembering” language signals the same. The readers are informed that only when the disciples underwent a remembering/interpretive process from a post-resurrection perspective do they recognise the significance of Zech 9:9 and the crowd’s action.64 Such remembrance after Jesus’ resurrection undoubtedly echoes similar language in the previous apprehension cycle in 2:17, 22. Both happen before Passover; one marks the start of Jesus’ public ministry while the other stands at its closing. 64

Οὐκ ἔγνωσαν… τὸ πρῶτον, ἀλλ’ ὅτε… τότε ἐµνήσθησαν… (12:16).

C. Exegetical Analysis

107

As I pointed out in Chapter 3, section C.1.d, µιµνῄσκοµαι signifies a perception process beyond the framework of the storyline, something that has an on-going effect, taking Jesus’ resurrection for granted. As is also the case in 2:13–22, the Johannine remembrance here highlights both the scripture fulfilment and the claimed veracity of what happened to Jesus (12:16).65 Both from a post-resurrection perspective, the patterns are strikingly similar which are not difficult for readers to discern. In 2:17, 22, the remembrance involves a cited scriptural text and Jesus’ fulfilling it through his words which lead to the disciples’ belief. In 12:16, the same mode of remembrance is used: a scriptural text is also cited (ταῦτα ἦν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ γεγραµµένα cf. vv.14–15) and Jesus also fulfilled it, now by his works instead (ταῦτα ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ); while the account is remembered by the same disciples, these works now lead them to a new understanding in the post-resurrection era as noted in the first point above.66 Thus, post-resurrection remembrance, being engaged with (OT) scripture and Jesus’ fulfilment, brings in a new understanding. This understanding, collaborating with µιµνῄσκοµαι, functions as the disciples’ authoritative testimony to the readers, integrating John’s interpretation of OT with his assured “eyewitness” report in which his subjective interpretation and claimed objective veracity67 are bound together, similar to what I have analysed from 2:13–22. This represents John’s rhetorical strategy which claims to the readers the truthfulness of his account of Jesus through this remembrance from a post-resurrection perspective. This strategic insertion frames Jesus’ entire public ministry on the one hand68 and on the other hand introduces the next phase of apprehension as Jesus enters Jerusalem. Towards the end of Jesus’ public ministry and the beginning of introducing the relational side of apprehending Jesus, this assuring aspect of the remembrance language 65 In this regard, Nineham rightly reminds that eyewitness attestation should not be equated with historicity immediately. D. E. Nineham, “Eye-Witness Testimony and the Gospel Tradition, III,” JTS 11, no. 2 (1960): 257. But cf. GJohn’s historical realism, claims Paul N. Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, LNTS 321 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 58–97; Paul N. Anderson, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011), 196–99. 66 Note the pattern of remembering leading to believing in 2:17, 22 and remembering leading to knowing in 12:16: 2:17: ἐµνήσθησαν οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι γεγραµµένον ἐστίν... 2:22: ὅτε οὖν ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἐµνήσθησαν οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι τοῦτο ἔλεγεν, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. 12:16: ταῦτα οὐκ ἔγνωσαν αὐτοῦ οἱ µαθηταὶ τὸ πρῶτον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε ἐδοξάσθη Ἰησοῦς τότε ἐµνήσθησαν ὅτι ταῦτα ἦν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ γεγραµµένα καὶ ταῦτα ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ. 67 In the sense that Jesus literally sat on a donkey as written in entering Jerusalem (Zech 9:9). 68 Signalling GJohn as “self-consciously written” as in Painter, “Memory,” 244.

108

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

has the purpose of reinforcing readers’ perception of the trustworthiness of the gospel. Furthermore, in guaranteeing readers GJohn’s truthfulness which the author emphasises, the remembrance language, similar to 2:13–22, signifies again another level of narration on top of the narrated storyline about the earthly Jesus. This strategically facilitates readers’ participation in John’s message of faith. Third, Jesus being hailed by the crowd is explained as related to his sign (raising Lazarus). The text says that the crowd “bears witness” about Jesus’ sign (12:17). As another crowd “hears” this, they go to greet him as king (v.18). In GJohn, µαρτυρέω never takes the crowd as its subject except here.69 Because of this, the Pharisees urge one another to “see/understand” (θεωρεῖτε v.19) that ἴδε ὁ κόσµος ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθεν. Such positive reception shows that Jesus’ sign and the crowd’s testimony are effective in bringing people closer to faith (cf. v.11). Again, the positive correlation of signs to faith is reminiscent of 2:11, the beginning of the current phase of apprehending Jesus. Thus, John's rhetorical strategy in these transition chapters is clear: While echoing the current phase of apprehension, the disciples’ rare lack of understanding, their uniquely attested remembering, and the crowd’s positive reception of Jesus’ sign all function collectively to signal to the perceptive readers that something more profound is coming, which is best explained in terms of a new phase of apprehension different from what we see in John 1–9. In particular, through 12:12–19, John claims to the readers the truthfulness of his account of Jesus through his remembrance from a post-resurrection perspective. Also, by strategically signifying again another level of narration on top of the narrated storyline about the earthly Jesus, 12:12–19 facilitates readers’ participation in John’s message of faith. b) The Ability to Apprehend (12:37–43) After the strategic portrayal of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, another pericope is placed before the farewell discourse which has its unique function in John 10–12. In contrast with the report of believing in 11:45; 12:11 and Jesus’ exhortation to faith in 12:36, the narrator in 12:37–43 spells out the unbelief of the crowd of bystanders70 in spite of so many signs done. In order to explain this, John uses two Isaianic texts, Isa 53:1 and 6:10. In quoting Isaiah’s rhetorical question, John perceives Jesus’ signs (John 12:37) as Yahweh’s

69

See section D of the Appendix. Ἔµπροσθεν αὐτῶν refers to the bystanders in 12:29, 34, not the believing crowd in v.17. Contra Michaels, John, 408. 70

C. Exegetical Analysis

109

arm “revealed” (v.38b) in Isa 53:1. 71 It naturally follows that the crowd’s unbelief should also be understood in light of Isaiah’s prophecy. Based on this, John asserts their inability to believe (John 12:39). While such inability is not new (5:44; 6:44, 65), John for the first time explains this through the lens of Isa 6:10, that such inability to “see” (ὁράω), “perceive” (νοέω), and “turn” (στρέφω, synonymous to πιστεύω) is predestined by Yahweh.72 What is more astounding is John’s reasoning for Isaiah’s statement, ὅτι73 εἶδεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐλάλησεν περὶ αὐτοῦ (John 12:41). In view of v.40, the two αὐτοῦ (v.41) naturally refer to Yahweh since Isaiah saw Yahweh’s glory in the Isaianic context. 74 But right in v.42, αὐτός is repeated and ὅµως µέντοι suggests the thought continues. Yet compare with v.37, ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν is unmistakably referring to Jesus. Such dissonance instructs readers to re-read v.41 as saying that Isaiah spoke of “Jesus” as he saw Jesus’ glory (λαλέω and ὁράω cf. 3:11; 5:39).75 By identifying Yahweh’s glory in Isaiah’s vision as Christ’s, John boldly sees Jesus as Yahweh (though we see that the Son is constantly distinguished from the Father in GJohn).76 Thus, 71 Catrin H. Williams, “‘Seeing the Glory’: The Reception of Isaiah’s Call-Vision in John 12:41,” in Judaism, Jewish Identities, and the Gospel Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maurice Casey, ed. James G. Crossley (London: Equinox, 2010), 198. 72 For an evaluation of various proposed sources of quotation, see Ronald L. Tyler, “The Source and Function of Isaiah 6:9–10 in John 12:40,” in Johannine Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack, ed. James Eugene Priest (Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University Press, 1989), 205–20. Painter avoids the crux of “predestination” problem by suggesting the devil blinded unbelievers. But this ignores John’s respect of the Isaianic context. John Painter, “Monotheism and Dualism: Reconsidering Predestination in John 12:40,” in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney, ed. Rekha M. Chennattu and Mary L. Coloe (Rome: LAS, 2005), 119–39. Similarly, Bennema considers the passage merely refers to “the resulting condition and inevitable consequence of rejecting Jesus.” Yet the author is apparently providing a divine reason of unbelief here. Bennema, “Christ-Spirit-Knowledge,” 112. 73 The reading ὅτε could be understood as highlighting the fact that Isaiah did see Yahweh’s glory in Isa 6:10 (v.1 LXX). 74 For tracing the idea of seeing God/God’s glory in Isaiah’s call-vision, see Catrin H. Williams, “Isaiah in John’s Gospel,” in Isaiah in the New Testament, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J.J. Menken (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 111; Williams, “Seeing the Glory,” 190–94. Scacewater’s identification of the one Isaiah saw (Isa 6:10/John 12:40) as “the mission of the Servant of the Lord” does not do justice to the context of Isa 6 and John’s use of it. Todd A. Scacewater, “The Predictive Nature of Typology in John 12:37–43,” WTJ 75, no. 1 (2013): 129–44. 75 It is this Christological bearing that is missed in Craig Evans’ treatment of the Isaianic significance in 12:37–43. Craig A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation, JSOTSup 64 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 129–35. 76 To Bauckham’s words, Jesus is identified “directly with the one God of Israel” and is included “in the unique identity of this one God;” or, as Wright claims, Jesus is the

110

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

God’s glory that shone forth in predetermining “the Jews’” seeing, perceiving, and turning in Isaiah’s time, is now seen in the light of “the Jews’” unbelief in Jesus’ time. 77 Thus, through John’s faith-lens, the glory of Yahweh is glimpsed. Compared with 2:11, where the same τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ is used in the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, we see now that both belief (2:11) and unbelief (12:37–41) are the responses to the manifestations of Jesus’ glory (cf. 1:14). These observations have momentous implications not only for Jesus’ divinity but also for the concept of faith: A desired apprehension of Jesus is actually granted and taken away exclusively by Jesus (though it is at the same time the Father who draws people to him). Those to whom the arm of the Lord is to be revealed (12:38) and whose eyes and heart the Lord would blind (τυφλόω) and harden (πωρόω 78 v.40) are in fact acting out a decision/intention of Jesus. This is a noteworthy development of 2:25. In view of the concept of apprehension of Jesus, Jesus’ omniscience is now supplemented by his omnipotence.79 Bringing to a close the message in John 5–12, John underscores that Jesus’ power is at work behind the characters’/readers’ ostensible unbelieving choices. Conversely speaking, then, faith remains a gift from the divine Jesus. This serves as a strategic foundation for the deepening message in chapters 13–16 as well as a concluding theological statement regarding the unbelief in chapters 5–12. Just as 12:16 couples with 2:13–22 regarding the importance of remembering, believing, and knowing (see the above section), 12:37–41 now couples with 2:11, 23–25 to stress the importance of divine providence behind people’s apprehension of Jesus. The notion of signs seen and the characters’ believing as under Jesus’ πιστεύω, all-knowing, and being witnessed

embodied, personal return of Yahweh. Richard J. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 3; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 2 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 615–24. Cf. “The enthroned figure whom the prophet saw was none other than Jesus” in Williams, “Seeing the Glory,” 200. Also, Edwin D. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John, NovTSup 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 84n.5. 77 Cf. 9:39 where Jesus’ concluding words οἱ βλέποντες τυφλοὶ γένωνται also find their explanation here. Craig Evans even argues that Isa 6:9 is alluded to in John 9:39. Together with the excommunication language, 12:37–43 is connected with 9:1–41. Evans, To See, 134. It is important to see that Yahweh’s/Jesus’ glory here hinges on the fulfilment of “the Jews’” unbelief. Thus, the reference to Jesus’ earthly glory is possible (cf. 1:14) but should not be set dichotomously with his pre-existent glory. Isaiah saw Yahweh himself and John now explains that this is Jesus. Contra Maarten J.J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form, CBET 15 (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996), 119. 78 The reading πηρόω (footnote 9) does not alter the sense here. 79 Cf. the similar concept in Ign. Smyrn. 4.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

111

(2:11, 23–25) is now paired up the notion of signs done and the characters’ unbelieving as under Jesus’ blinding and hardening them (12:37–41). As unbelief is not the last word in John 5–9, the same is true here in 12:42. John stresses that some of the authorities “believe” in Jesus. These believing authorities are different from those “Jews” whom Jesus criticised in 5:41–44. These believing authorities, however, love God’s glory/praise but they love man’s more (12:43). In 5:41–44, those unbelievers receive man’s glory but refuse to receive Jesus; they do not even seek God’s glory and are “unable to believe” (5:44 cf. 12:39). Here, these secret believers are afraid of confessing Christ because of the threatened excommunication (12:42). Their frailty of faith nevertheless stands under Jesus’ omnipotence. They are close to Nicodemus, one of these authorities (7:50). It takes time for God to work in their hearts to bring them to full faith. This is a hint foreshadowing the courageous appearance of the secret believers later in 19:38–39. Thus, the short pericope 12:37–43 provides a timely reflection on apprehension of Jesus. At the strategic location in the plot development, John shows his readers that human apprehension is never autonomous from God/Jesus. When characters encounter Jesus in the narrative, John shows that it is their mind that was making the decision. In a similar way, when readers encounter Jesus in reading the narrative, John communicates to them that their mind needs to make a decision as well. Yet, at the same time, behind both the characters’ as well as the readers’ decision, Jesus is at work. There is a component during the process of apprehension that is out of the control of the author, the characters, and even readers. And this is from a person who is claimed to have been resurrected and be divine, being present in the narrative and out of the narrative as well.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact on the Readers D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

Having analysed 5:19–47; 9:1–41; 12:12–19, and 12:37–43 against the backdrop of the concept of apprehension in John 5–12, it is time to sum up our findings. 1. Synthesis Our narrative overview in section B gives us a snapshot of how the apprehension terms function within the sub-plot of GJohn in John 5–12. If John 1–4 provides the foundational essentials for a desired apprehension of Jesus, John 5–9, with the transition chapters 10–12, develops them in a negative way. Especially in John 5–9, we see mostly negative encounters of characters confronting Jesus as they claim to see, hear, know, and believe in him and as Jesus reveals himself through his works and words.

112

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

Arising from the futility of the healing miracle to evoke faith (5:1–18), Jesus’ speech to “the Jews” in 5:19–47 prefaces the three controversies (6:22– 71; 7:14–8:59; 10:22–42). We notice a strong universal appeal to faith and eternal life from the perspective of eschatological resurrection and judgment via John’s use of hearing and believing terms (5:19–30), in particular, the multiple senses of “hearing.” Apprehension of Jesus is then further explained in terms of the characters’ superficial faith and its exposure in 6:22–71 after the event of seeing further signs (6:1–21). Disclosing their motive of greediness (v.26), Jesus nevertheless teaches them and invites them to faith (vv.29, 35). As for “the Jews” who take signs as the criterion/prerequisite for faith (v.30) and do not believe (v.36), he directs their attention to “seeing” the Son and “believing” in him (v.40).80 As a result of Jesus’ difficult message, the unbelief of “the Jews” and even some of the disciples’ superficial faith are exposed. What it means to believe and know Jesus is now redefined. Following the references to superficial faith (6:22–71), the second controversy in 7:14–8:59 lays bare “the Jews’” counterfeit faith. Via terms pertaining to believing (7:37–39; 8:12), Jesus continues to proclaim his universal evangelistic message. Although “the Jews” express their faith in the same manner as others, they stumble over Jesus’ teaching in 8:31–59. With terms for seeing and hearing (8:26, 38, 40), Jesus points to their different origin from him (the devil vs. the Father). While Jesus’ divine claim as well as his omniscience regarding hidden human situations is constantly reflected (cf. v.37b), hearing Jesus’ heavenly message always means driving a wedge among the people, differentiating true believers from the superficial or false ones. With a reversal of blindness and eyesight in spiritual/physical terms, 9:1– 41 summarises “the Jews’” and the Pharisees’ unbelief in chapters 5–8 while maintaining that a desired apprehension of Jesus is still possible through the contrasted conversion of the blind beggar. The transition chapters 10–12 then introduce a deeper apprehension of Jesus while key issues in chapters 1–9 are also brought to a close through distinctive uses of terms related to seeing, hearing, knowing, testifying, remembering, and believing, for instance, in the good shepherd parable and the Lazarus episode. Within the current phase of apprehension (John 5–12), I selected four passages, 5:19–47; 9:1–41; 12:12–19, and 12:37–43, for further exegesis and discussion on John’s rhetorical strategies (section C). My analysis spotlights characteristic features of this phase of apprehension. In particular, we notice a universal appeal to faith and eternal life from the perspective of eschatological resurrection and judgment via John’s use of hearing and believing terms (5:19–30). The multiple senses of hearing, namely, hearing in the eschaton 80 Jesus’ evangelistic appeal is also seen in his declarative “I am” statements coupled with the pithy construction of ὁ+participle.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

113

and hearing Jesus’ word, as well as the double meaning of aural hearing and obeying, are particularly subtle and deserve notice. Jesus then backs up his message with verifiable and unverifiable witnesses in 5:31–40; some that they cannot see or hear (viz., the Father) but some that they can search and consider (viz., the Scriptures) and that can be validated without difficulty (viz., John the Baptist and Jesus’ works). Yet, despite these testimonies, Jesus, in his omniscience, points to the crux of “the Jews’” problem: unbelief. He shows the absurdity of their unbelief and discloses in them a lack of the Father’s word abiding (v.38), lack of God’s love (v.42), not seeking God’s glory (v.44), and not really believing Moses and his writings (vv.45–47). With Jesus’ challenge to believe resembling his earlier one to Nicodemus (v.47 cf. 3:12), he uncovers that the obstacle to a desired apprehension of Jesus lies in what is within a person. Thus, through the rhetorical portrayal of Jesus’ heavenly message, both from the perspective of the future, past, and present as well as the external and internal sides in relation to “the Jews”/readers, readers are given the deeper explanation for the crucial importance of believing/not believing Jesus not seen in John 1–4. In 9:1–41, the unbelieving rejection of Jesus is summarised through the concluding illustration thoughtfully placed. It illustrates that “the Jews’” and the Pharisees’ stern unbelief hinders them from the correct apprehension of Jesus in such a severe manner that even the beggar can perceive their blindspot. The factuality of the sign (cf. v.25b) gradually leads the beggar to faith in Jesus but it leads the Pharisees/“Jews” to stronger unbelief. The latter decision yields death in sin (cf. 8:24) but the former involves the light of life (cf. 8:12). Such a reversal of blindness and eyesight (9:39) thus represents the impact of Jesus’ ministry as it concludes chapters 5–8. Initiated by Jesus’ speech in 5:19–47 (hearing, witnessing, and believing) and concluded by this illustration (seeing, knowing, and believing), they illustrate both the intention and the impact John wishes to create through depicting Jesus’ public ministry. This can have a thought-provoking effect on the readers (probably intended by the author), challenging their own senses of apprehension, whether they have similarly seen, heard, known, and believe in Jesus, as well as acquiring Jesus’ testimony as the characters do, whether they do so superficially, falsely, or genuinely. Within the transitional material in John 10–12, 12:12–19 represents an example reflecting John’s rhetorical strategy to foreshadow the coming of a new phase of apprehension and at the same time bringing the current phase to a close. When we analyse the uses of the knowing, remembering, and testifying terms in context, they betray similarities and differences which echo strategically their previous uses in chapters 5–9. These include the disciples’ rare lack of understanding, their uniquely attested remembering, and the crowd’s positive reception of Jesus’ sign. I have shown that these similarities and differences function collectively to signal to the perceptive readers that some-

114

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

thing more profound is coming which prepares them for a new phase of apprehension different from what we see in John 1–9. In particular, the remembrance language signifies strategically again (cf. 2:13–22) another level of narration on top of the narrated storyline about the earthly Jesus which reassures the disciples’ authoritative testimony to the readers. Coupled with 2:13– 22, which I have discussed in Chapter 3, the author’s rhetorical strategy to influence the readers through guaranteeing the truthfulness of his account is clear. The last text that I chose for discussion, 12:37–43, brings a close to Jesus’ message in John 5–12 by providing a timely reflection on apprehension of Jesus. The author underscores Jesus’ power being at work behind the characters’/readers’ ostensible unbelieving choice. Through a subtle use of seeing, knowing, and believing terms as well as the Isaianic texts, John shows to the readers that a desired apprehension of Jesus is actually granted and taken away exclusively by Jesus (though it is at the same time the Father who draws people to him). There is a component during the process of apprehension that is out of the control of the author, the characters, and even readers. That component is the activity of the one whom the author claims to have been resurrected and is omniscient. Seen in light of this rhetorical strategy, just as 12:16 couples with 2:13–22 regarding the importance of remembering, believing, and knowing, 12:37–43 now couples with 2:11, 23–25 to stress the importance of divine providence behind people’s apprehension of Jesus. 2. Intended Impact on the Readers With the above synthesis in mind, I postulate John’s intended impact on his readers. As in the last chapter, the impact is evaluated by asking the following questions:81 –What effect did the author hope to have on his readers by depicting the characters’ apprehension of Jesus in John 5–12? –How is Jesus’ own apprehension of spiritual reality relevant to the readers’ perception about apprehension of Jesus? –What did the author tell his readers in attempting to help them understand the role of the signs and words of Jesus in their perception/apprehension of Jesus? –For the readers, how can a perception of Jesus without faith be possible/impossible?

81 The analysis here proceeds without taking Martyn’s two-level drama hypothesis for John 9 as the hermeneutic key; see further my Chapter 1, section A.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

115

a) Readers’ Understanding of the Characters’ Apprehension of Jesus and John’s Writing Purpose As I proposed in Chapter 3, with the interpretive framework of the Johannine monologues (1:1–5, 9–18; 3:16–21, 31–36) together with episodes of the initial encounters in John 1–4, readers are already summoned to join the same faith-encounters as the characters did. Through these, the dual impact of faith-engendering and -fostering is felt long before the purpose statement in 20:30–31. Thus, this suggests a more complex and multiple purpose of GJohn than scholars often allow. Such a writing purpose, as I argue, continues in John 5–12. In John 5–12, while the key impediments of a desired apprehension of Jesus are evidently presented to the readers, the dual impact of engendering faith and fostering faith can still be felt, as in 1–4. This is achieved in two ways, firstly, through dissuading and persuading readers to identify themselves variously with the characters in the narrative and, secondly, through the Johannine Jesus’ evangelistic proclamations. First of all, regarding the rhetorical strategy on characters’ apprehension of Jesus, through the repeating and escalating confrontations where apprehension terms are heavily used, I have shown in the previous sections that John invites the readers to stand by Jesus and to avoid repeating the steps of the unbelieving Pharisees/“Jews.” 82 Their sheer ignorance can be easily perceived by the readers: (1) “The Jews’” lack knowledge of God/Jesus. “The Jews” did not know the works of God (6:28 cf. 4:34); they confused the spiritual/symbolic meaning of Jesus’ words with the physical (6:34, 52, 60 [the false disciples]; 8:33, 39); they do not know Jesus’ Davidic ancestry and birthplace in Bethlehem (7:42); they neither know Jesus’ Father nor Jesus (8:19–20, 25); they do not know Jesus is greater than Abraham (8:53, 57). (2) They only possess partial or limited knowledge. They misunderstood Jesus’ origin and destination (6:41; 7:26–27, 35–36; 8:22); they thought Jesus had never been taught (7:15); the crowd did not know about the attempt to kill Jesus (7:20). (3) They even have false knowledge/judgment. They consider Jesus as demon possessed and a Samaritan (7:20; 8:48, 52); the crowd’s false knowledge is contradicted by the Jerusalemites (7:25); the Pharisees insist that no prophet arises from Galilee (7:52); “the Jews” consider themselves to be God’s children but are actually the devil’s (8:41, 44). As I have indicated in the exegetical analysis, these cases of ignorance culminate in John 9, where their inability to perceive is revealed as arising out of their stern unbelief. Thus, by portraying the not-knowing characteristic 82 Cf. the separate comments noted by Lee on John 6 and Wright on John 9. Lee, Symbolic Narratives, 159; Wright, Rhetoric and Theology, 188, 210.

116

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

of “the Jews”/Pharisees, readers are exhorted not to repeat their error. They are examples for the readers to repudiate because they are not perceptive of Jesus’ words and deeds. 83 They are negative examples for John’s faithengendering purpose. 84 Even in John 10–12, for the arguing unbelieving “Jews” in the final controversy following on from Jesus’ good shepherd parable (10:22–39), the alienation effect due to their stubborn unbelief remains the same as in chapters 5–9. On the contrary, the beggar born blind in John 9 remains the positive model for the readers to imitate. His progressive understanding of Jesus from the time of being healed, to being challenged by the Pharisees/“Jews,” to his face-to-face conversation with Jesus, reminds the readers how a desired apprehension of Jesus can still be achieved, as also with the positive examples in John 1–4.85 The possibility of a positive apprehension is also seen when more and more people choose to believe Jesus after the Lazarus sign in 12:11 (cf. v.17). Thus, the characters’ negative and positive experiences function to convince the readers to put their trust in Jesus. Regarding John’s faith-fostering purpose, given the rhetorical strategy analysed in sections B and C, these negative examples certainly can function to warn them about the possible hostility of non-Christian neighbours of the readers.86 But readers themselves would have the same or even more resonance with the believing “Jews” and the withdrawing disciples. The false believers with superficial faith (6:22–59) and counterfeit faith (8:31–59) stumble as Jesus reveals his heavenly message. Even some of Jesus’ disciples withdraw from following him as they cannot accept Jesus’ message (6:60–66). These also possibly speak to the potential experience of the readers them83

Cf. Jesus’ unbelieving brothers in 7:1–13. The harsh tone and stress on failure to see the significance of Jesus’ message do not necessarily hinder the author’s evangelistic intent, given GJohn’s indebtedness to the characteristic style of OT prophets, especially Isaiah. For the Johannine Jesus who sees himself as inheriting such prophetic tradition, see Hamid-Khani, Revelation-Concealment, 236–38. 85 Thus, it is this function of the characters as models to the readers that overrides the theological concern of temporality that some may be interested, namely, how characters prior to Jesus’ accomplishing salvation can attain a faith that can lead to eternal life. Coupled with my discussion in section C.1.b)(1) regarding the collapse of time in the narrative as a rhetorical strategy to create an impact to the readers, this is evidently not a concern to the author. 86 See, for instance, the analyses of Martyn, History and Theology; Meeks, “Man from Heaven”; Urban C. von Wahlde, “Literary Structure and Theological Argument in Three Discourses with the Jews in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 103, no. 4 (1984): 582–83; Lee, Symbolic Narratives, 183–84. But note Beutler’s comment that confessing Christ is a more crucial theme than reading the “history” of the Johannine community here. Johannes Beutler, “Faith and Confession: The Purpose of John,” in Word, Theology, and Community in John, ed. John Painter, R. Alan Culpepper, and Fernando F. Segovia (St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002), 22. Cf. Wright, Rhetoric and Theology, 210. 84

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

117

selves and/or their fellow church members. If tempted to withdraw, they are encouraged to revisit Jesus’ claims and his rebuttals to “the Jews” so that they can refrain from lapsing and can re-examine their own relationship with Jesus, whether their faith is genuine or superficial. Conversely, they have the twelve as their models. Peter’s confession, ῥήµατα ζωῆς αἰωνίου ἔχεις, καὶ ἡµεῖς πεπιστεύκαµεν καὶ ἐγνώκαµεν ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (6:68b–69), rings powerfully to the Christian readers. Unlike the believing characters in John 1–4 who have just believed in Jesus, readers of GJohn, being capable to be in line with the twelve (and to some degree with the beggar87), are exhorted to persevere in the midst of difficulties. Whereas the beggar and the twelve struggle with the hostile unbelieving “Jews” in John 5–9, the believing characters in John 10–12, such as the disciples, Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, are challenged to a deepened apprehension. A representative case is Martha, who is challenged for her inadequate faith and knowledge about Jesus (11:1–12:11). Echoing the intimate shepherdsheep relationship (10:1–21), this manifests Jesus’ love for his believers and strikes the readers as they become aware of such an emotionally involved Jesus. As for the disciples, I have shown that the deliberate portrayal of their ignorance, resembling the first apprehension phase, signals that a new cycle/phase is taking place. This creates a desire for readers to learn about this deeper apprehension. Such a desire would be even stronger for Christian readers. Even non-Christian readers, a likely target group of the author, would find such a loving relationship admirable, even though they would realise that this deepened apprehension requires their own belief as prerequisite, as signalled throughout GJohn. Secondly, apart from the characters’ experience in the narrative, Jesus’ evangelistic endeavours toward his first audience do have an impact on the readers regarding apprehension of Jesus. As indicated in the exegetical analysis and narrative overview, there are clear evangelistic proclamations even in the most hostile confrontations with the unbelieving “Jews”/Pharisees (for instance, Jesus’ speech in 5:19–47). Via John’s use of hearing and believing terms, we see a universal appeal to faith and promises of eternal life from the perspective of eschatological resurrection and judgment (5:24, 25, 28–29).88 87 The beggar can certainly speak for the past experience of Christians. But in light of our findings, namely John’s evangelistic appeals in chapters 5–9 and the beggar’s sharp contrast with the Pharisees/“Jews,” the beggar more likely represents a character to imitate for readers with the same coming-to-faith experience. 88 Furthermore, the repeated reference to Jesus as the bread of life, its comparison with the manna in the wilderness (6:49–51, 58), and the solemn “I am” statements accompanying pithy constructions at strategic locations (6:35, 47–48, 51; 8:12 with v.51 and 7:37–39), all highlight the power of Jesus’ evangelistic appeal (cf. Frey’s claim that ἐγώ εἰµι statements indicate Jesus’ timeless essence to the readers; Frey, Eschatologie II, 151–52.) There is also a strong resemblance to the similar invitation to the Samaritan

118

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

Such promises can be obtained by those of the audience who would “follow” Jesus (8:12), which recalls the readers’ memory of the disciples’ conversion back in 1:29–51 as we analysed in Chapter 3. These evangelistic endeavours of Jesus continue to be evident in the transition chapters 10–12 (10:9, 37–38; 11:42; 12:35–36, 44–50). Thus, these scattered but clear evangelistic appeals, even amidst fierce controversies, invite readers to participate in the believing characters’ experience throughout John 1–12. With this in mind, we can say that even the juridical metaphor, the eschatology theme, and the exemplification of verifiable and unverifiable testimonies in texts like 5:19–47 and 9:1–41 all function to achieve this overarching purpose, namely, to create an impact for the readers to ponder anew Jesus’ proclamation within John 5–12 and also 1–4.89 Together with Jesus’ ending words about a reversal of blindness and eyesight in 9:39 and his last evangelistic proclamation in 12:44–50, the cumulative pondering effect upon the readers’ minds is immensely strong in the current phase of apprehension. Jesus is the “Evangelist” par excellence. With the forcefulness of Jesus’ words, unbelief now becomes inexcusable for the readers. Thus, from the perspective of apprehension of Jesus, both the characters in the narrative and the Johannine Jesus’ evangelistic proclamations show John’s subtle and complex writing purpose. b) Readers’ Understanding of Jesus’ Own Apprehension In Chapter 3, we saw the role of 2:23–25 in 1:1–2:22 and its implication for the importance of Jesus’ omniscience within the overall plot of John 1–4. Jesus’ divine identity, coupled with the anticipated fact of Jesus’ resurrection highlighted in 2:22, force readers to think that the Jesus narrated in GJohn is still “living.” Thus, this Jesus may know the readers themselves and their faith just as he did in the narrative. This represents John’s important rhetorical strategy to create an impact on his readers. Now, in John 5–12, the same omniscient Jesus is portrayed. This theme continues to strike the readers’ perception of Jesus. Via the use of apprehension terms, Jesus’ all-knowing character concerning people’s inner dispositions and the events in the future is apparent. He sees and knows the paralytic’s past (5:6); he knows the lack of God’s love in “the Jews’” heart (5:42); he sees and knows what he would do prior to the feeding miracle (6:5–6); he perceives the crowd’s political and greedy intentions (6:15, 26); he knows the disciples’ murmuring (6:61) and his own future woman (cf. “living water” [4:10]; “thirst” and “drink” motif [4:13–14]). The light of the world motif in 8:12 also echoes the universalistic concern raised in the same motifs in the Johannine monologues (1:5, 9–11; 3:16, 19–21). 89 Not to mention the echoes with the Johannine monologues (1:1–5, 9–18; 3:16–21, 31–36).

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

119

ascension (6:62); he knows from the beginning the unbelief as well as the betrayal of his own disciples (6:64, 70–71); he knows where he is going in his death (7:33–34; 8:14, 21); he knows “the Jews’” true “ancestry” (8:37, 44); he sees in the beggar’s blindness the works of God to be manifested (9:1, 3).90 In the transition chapters 10–12 and in a more affectionate manner, Jesus knows his own sheep and dies for them (10:14–15, 27) just as he knows his Father. While he fully knows what happened to Lazarus and sees the sisters’ sorrow, he knows God always hears him and that he is going to raise Lazarus; yet he weeps for them (11:5–6, 13–15, 33–35, 42). More importantly, in John 10–12, such omniscience of Jesus is coupled with his omnipotence (12:37–43). As I have shown in the exegetical analysis section, when readers encounter Jesus in reading the narrative, John shows that this Jesus is at work behind both the characters’ as well as the readers’ decision to believe. This factor, from the perspective of a person’s apprehension process, is out of the control of the author, the characters, and even readers themselves. It is this Jesus who would blind and harden people’s eyes and hearts (12:40). This Jesus is claimed to have been resurrected and to have a divine status, being present in the narrative and out of the narrative. As a result of the above, the cumulative effect is prominent. This divine and resurrected Jesus, according to GJohn, knows everything. Things are in his control. This seems intended to have a disturbing effect on the readers’ minds as it demands a response from them: “What am I going to do with this Jesus?” Be the readers having little or no faith, such divine omniscience adds to John’s evangelistic appeal. They are faced with their faith-decision in their own life-settings. Be they Christians, such perception of Jesus deepens their faith in their own lives. The Jesus in the narrative, his life and teachings, because he is divine and alive, is relevant to their own lives. c) The Role of Signs and Words in the Perception/Apprehension of Jesus In John 1–4, Jesus criticised a false understanding that takes Jesus’ signs as an absolute requirement/pre-condition for faith (2:18; 4:48). What John warned against there now comes into its full expression in John 5–12. Through the crowd’s words in 6:30, they take signs to be the criterion for their faith and thereby disclose the real nature of their quasi-confession (6:14 cf. v.24). The same problem would adversely affect the readers’ apprehension of Jesus. John mitigates it by exhorting them to an alternative criterion for faith: seeing/perceiving Jesus’ true significance as being what his signs point to (6:22–71) as I surveyed in the narrative overview section.

90 Furthermore, as in chapters 1–4, Jesus’ own apprehension is also seen in his portrayal as the authoritative and competent witness of heavenly reality (via seeing and hearing terms, 5:19; 8:26, 38, 40); his divine origin and status is clear (8:23–24, 28, 56, 58).

120

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

But, though critical of taking signs as the basis for faith, John does not mean to reject signs. In chapters 5–12, as in 1–4, signs help again (the case of the beggar and Lazarus); but at times this is not so (the case of the paralytic and the unbelieving people in 12:37); and on another occasion, it leads to a superficial faith which is exposed to be false later on (“the Jews” fed by Jesus; John 6). The same happens with hearing Jesus’ words. It can lead to (or confirm) faith in Jesus (the beggar and the twelve); but at times, it does not help (the unbelieving Jews) or leads to a counterfeit faith which is exposed to be false later on (the “believing” Jews; John 8). A desired faith is not automatic upon either seeing signs or hearing words. Thus, if John 1–4 unfolds the theological understanding of seeing Jesus’ signs, hearing his words, and believing in him, John 5–12 unfolds the same understanding of seeing, hearing, but not believing in him. John 5–12 is a theology of unbelief, a profound reflection of the author. On the one hand, the motif of seeing signs and belief is nicely demonstrated in the not-yetbelieving beggar’s mouth (9:30–33): Jesus’ sign represents God’s power which implies that God has listened to him and that he is from God (cf. the Samaritan woman, the royal official, and the first disciples; John 1–4). Yet, on the other hand, in the direct vicinity of the beggar’s response, the motif of seeing signs (and hearing words 91 ) and not believing is captured by “the Jews’” response (also recapitulating their problem in chapters 5–8). With their presupposed unbelief, they ask for the details of the sign (9:18–19) but refuse to accept any reason for confessing Jesus to be Christ (v.22). Being spiritually blind, they bear the sin of their unbelief (vv.40–41). Seeing Jesus’ sign of raising Lazarus not only leads Martha and the disciples to ponder the deeper apprehension of Jesus, it also draws even more people to come to faith in him (11:45; 12:11); yet the chief priests and Pharisees remain unchanged (11:47–53; 12:10–11). Even though Jesus states a variety of both verifiable and unverifiable testimonies early in 5:31–39, for these “Jews” who have seen Jesus’ signs and heard his words, “seeing” and “hearing” remain ineffective. The reason why they hold to such unbelief is left for the readers’ reflection. But the answer to such biased prejudice has actually been scattered at various points: they do not have God’s love within (5:40, 42); they receive glory from one another and not from God (5:44); claiming to be Moses’ disciples, they do not really believe Moses’ writings (5:46–47, 7:19 cf. 9:28); they have no place for Jesus’ word in them (8:37b cf. 6:36); they are sons of the devil (8:43b–47). After all, 12:37–43 informs readers that it is Jesus who blinded people’s eyes and hardened their heart, which is paradoxically set in tension with people’s choice to believe throughout GJohn.

91

These “Jews,” unlike the beggar, have heard Jesus’ words in John 5–8.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

121

Seen from this perspective, apprehension of Jesus depends neither on seeing signs and hearing from Jesus alone, nor only on testimonies. It involves inner issues of Jesus’ audience, their reception of Jesus, as well as a divine factor, Jesus (12:37–41) (and the Paraclete [14:15–31; 15:26–16:15] which I will discuss in the next Chapter). From the readers’ perspective, other than the “divine factor” just mentioned, the key obstacle lies in what is within a person, which makes an initial unbelief develop into a full blown unbelief upon Jesus’ further revelation of himself. This is in sharp contrast to the characters in chapters 1–4, where a fragile initial faith assists further apprehension of Jesus so that Jesus’ glory is seen; and upon further reflection, faith is further deepened. Thus, John 5–12, being such an unfolding of the theology of unbelief, functions as a strong warning to the readers. This said, those who do not have initial faith upon seeing signs or hearing words are not destined to unbelief. Nicodemus is an example. In 3:1–15, Nicodemus was unbelieving and Jesus even questions how he can believe if he explains heavenly things to him. But, having seen Jesus’ signs and words, Nicodemus’ response in 7:50–51 shows that he might have listened and learned from Jesus after his initial refusal of Jesus’ words. Although conceivably he continues to be struggling with his faith, Jesus’ proclamation is still at work. After all, initial unbelief is not the last word. Thus for the readers, John’s theology of unbelief has an impact on their hearts. While the readers acknowledge that faith is itself a gift from above according to the author, their initial belief or initial unbelief is challenged when they read through the narrated signs and words of Jesus. d) The Role of Faith in One’s Perception/Apprehension of Jesus As I proposed in the previous sections, John 5–12 demonstrates evidently to the readers the key impediments of a desired apprehension of Jesus. The issue of faith is crucial obviously. In John 1–4, faith distinguishes insiders from outsiders. Though apprehension of Jesus is offered to everyone in the narrative, Jesus’ true identity could only be perceived through the lens of faith. Even to the readers, I contend, the true meaning of the disclosed identity of Jesus as the Saviour of the world still hinges upon their response to the author’s evangelistic endeavours. Now, chapters 5–12 represents the other side of this same coin. Unbelief distinguishes outsiders from insiders. Unbelievers claim to have seen, heard, and known. Yet such apprehension of Jesus often invites misunderstandings. The significance of Jesus’ true identity has to be grasped through faith. This applies to the readers even though they may know Jesus’ origin and destination, unlike “the Jews” within the narrative. Be they unbelieving as “the Jews,” such knowledge remains elusive to them. They do not truly comprehend the meaning of Jesus’ heavenly origin. They neither really know Jesus nor his Father (7:28b; 8:19). They still walk

122

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

in darkness (8:12) and would die in their sins (8:24). They will face the eschatological judgment (5:28–29) because of their spiritual blindness like the Pharisees (9:39, 41). Yet, believing readers, similar to the twelve and the worshipping beggar in the narrative, could truly come to know Jesus as God’s holy one (6:69). Only “he who believes has eternal life” (6:47). This is true even in the transition chapters 10–12. Without faith, readers merely hear of Jesus’ love for believers but cannot experience it. They are alienated from being God’s flock and the branches of the vine (given the images’ OT association). The sheep hear, know, and follow the shepherd but they do not nor are they able to (cf. 10:26; 12:39). Martha and Mary turn from sorrow to joy as they know Jesus more deeply; but Jesus’ tears are not relevant to readers without faith. Rather, Jesus’ words will be their judge on the last day (12:48). To the readers, therefore, the true meaning of the disclosed identity of Jesus as “the Bread of life” and “Light of the world” still hinges upon their response to the author’s testimony to Jesus, being backed up by his remembrance (12:12–19; 2:13–22).

E. Summary E. Summary

John 5–12 represents the subsequent encounters with Jesus that are in marked contrast to those in 1–4, where the reception given to Jesus is generally positive.92 With our narrative overview to John 5–12, I traced the concept of apprehension of Jesus by highlighting Jesus’ controversies prefaced with his speech to “the Jews.” The controversies expose both their superficial and counterfeit faith but the narratives are still embedded with Jesus’ universal evangelistic message nevertheless. These controversies are then summarised by a concluding illustration of the blind beggar (9:1–41), followed by a transition of chapters 10–12. With the selected passages, 5:19–47; 9:1–41; 12:12– 19, and 12:37–43, I provided deeper exegesis and discussion of John’s persuasive strategies adopted. I pointed out the universal appeal to faith and eternal life from the perspective of eschatological resurrection and judgment in Jesus’ speech to “the Jews”, especially via John’s use of the multiple senses of hearing (5:19–47). Also, readers are challenged in the blind beggar pericope (9:1–41) as to whether they have similarly seen/heard, known, and believe in Jesus as the characters do and whether they do so superficially, falsely, or genuinely as reflected in chapters 5–8. For the triumphal entry pericope (12:12–19) within the transition chapters 10–12, I have discussed the uses of the knowing, remembering, testifying terms in context which echo strategically their previous uses in chapters 5–9 as well as introducing the 92 Note most characteristically the positive and culminating uses of πιστεύω in pericopae there.

E. Summary

123

next phase of apprehension. In particular, the remembrance language strategically used deserves notice. As seen in 12:37–43, I have highlighted John’s rhetorical strategy that stresses the divine providence behind people’s apprehension of Jesus via the Isaianic texts and the subtle use of seeing, knowing, and believing terms. Attentive readers are thereby alerted that a desired apprehension of Jesus is actually granted and taken away exclusively by Jesus. With these analyses and rhetorical strategies noted, I further evaluated John’s intended impact for the readers. First, I proposed that the dual impact of faith-engendering and -fostering continues in John 5–12. This is done by John’s literary strategy to dissuade readers from identifying themselves with “the Jews”/Pharisees as well as persuading them to align with the beggar (9:13–38) and the twelve (6:67–69). Also, Jesus’ evangelistic proclamations amidst hostile confrontations challenge unbelieving readers to come to faith, resembling the similar universal invitations in chapters 1–4. These proclamations also reinforce the faith of believing readers. The culminated pondering effect upon the readers’ minds through Jesus’ reversal of blindness and the eyesight saying in 9:39 is also strong. Second, I explained that the theme of Jesus’ omniscience continues in chapters 5–12. It strikes the readers with regard to their perception of Jesus given the presupposed fact of Jesus’ resurrection. This divine Jesus having been resurrected knows everything. Furthermore, he is at work behind both the characters’ as well as the readers’ decision to believe. Thus, it is conceivable that Jesus knows even the lives of the readers, just as he knows the characters in the narratives. Expressed this way, John is trying to establish a relationship between Jesus’ own apprehension of the readers and the readers’ apprehension of Jesus; and that further reinforces John’s dual purpose stated above. Third, I stated that John urged an alternative way to “see”/perceive Jesus, instead of taking signs as the only criterion of faith. However, both seeing Jesus’ signs and hearing his words can still lead to/confirm a genuine faith in Jesus. But at the same time, seeing signs and hearing words can also lead to a superficial or counterfeit faith which is exposed to be false later on. A correct/desired apprehension of Jesus does not depend on seeing and hearing from Jesus alone, or even on the testimonies; the key hindrance to true perception of Jesus lies in what is within a person, not without. Lastly, the readers are confronted again with the importance of faith in apprehending Jesus in ways different from chapters 1–4. Unbelievers, in the narrative and in the real world, claim to have seen, heard, or known. Yet their apprehension of Jesus remains inadequate, sometimes even false. The significance of Jesus’ true identity has to be grasped through faith. Only faithful readers can truly come to apprehend what it means to know and believe in Jesus.

124

Chapter 4: Phase II Subsequent Encounters (John 5–12)

With these findings in mind, we will turn to John 13–17, the disclosure of what it means to apprehend Jesus in a relational sense.

Chapter 5

Phase Three: Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17) In the last Chapter, we have seen that John discloses how adamant unbelief is unreasonable through Jesus’ exposing the superficial and counterfeit faith in the controversies. Taking selected passages as examples, I highlighted (1) the use of multiple senses of “hearing” bringing out John’s universal appeal to faith and eternal life in the merging of horizons of the eschatological times and the readers’ time of reading GJohn (5:19–47); (2) the powerful use of seeing, knowing, and believing terms (9:1–41) in the reversal of “blindness” and “eyesight” for the Pharisees and the beggar which concludes John 5–8; (3) the remembrance language representing a rhetorical strategy to draw readers’ attention and to reassure the author’s authoritative testimony at strategic moments (12:12–19); and (4) the divine providence of Jesus stressed through John’s use of the Isaianic texts with regard to people’s apprehension of Jesus (12:37–43). While readers take the above information into the reading experience of GJohn, through John 10–12, they are prepared for another stage of apprehension, what I call “deepening apprehension” which highlights the more relational or intimate side of apprehending Jesus, targeted primarily at his own disciples (John 13–17).1 This still involves recognising (or failing to recognise) Jesus’ identity and his teaching, though in a deepened manner, both from the perspective of the characters and the readers.2 As I will show in this Chapter, using the same apprehension vocabulary as in John 1–12, the apprehension terms receive a deeper connotation in 13–17. As they collaborate 1 Though not from the perspective of apprehension of Jesus, the stressed love motif in John 13–17 is noted by Jörg Frey, “Love-Relations in the Fourth Gospel: Establishing a Semantic Network,” in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation, ed. Gilbert Van Belle, Michael Labahn, and P. Maritz, BETL 223 (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 171–98. Frey rightly notes that it is this love motif that unites John 1–12 and 13–21. 2 However, except 13:18–30, John 13–17 is not analysed in terms of recognition scenes in Larsen, Recognition-Scenes, 163–184. For the uniqueness of John 13–17 in comparison with other genres (e.g. Greek drama and Jewish testaments), see George L. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature, NovTSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). For an insightful study of the literary theme of discipleship in John 13–17 through the perspective of (implied) author—reader interactions, see Tolmie, Farewell.

126

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

with relational terms, a close and loving relationship with Jesus and his Father is denoted which draws readers’ attention to John’s profound theological thought. Through analysing four selected passages, 14:1–26; 15:26–16:15; 16:25–33; and 17:1–26, I will show that readers are engaged by the texts to notice the works of the Paraclete and the loving care of the living Jesus claimed by the author. By these two means, readers’ apprehension of Jesus is promoted. To investigate how such persuasive strategies are employed and how the concept is developed across John 13–17, I will follow the same procedures as in previous Chapters. Before embarking on the analyses, the shape of John 13–17 in light of its plot development should be briefly noted. Jesus’ farewell discourse, coupling with his final prayer, is often singled out as a unit by scholars. John 13–17 is signalled by the mention of Passover earlier in 11:55 and 12:1 as well as the arrival of Jesus’ “hour” in 13:1. The setting of the chapters surrounds Jesus’ last supper. The theme of his departure is recurrent throughout, until it is realised in his arrest and death in John 18–19. In John 13–17, Jesus’ key audience is evidently the disciples; John 13–17 also presents Jesus’ close teaching to them, in contrast to “the Jews’” opposition of his public ministry in John 5–12. Furthermore, these lengthy chapters, with the bulk of discourse predominantly by Jesus alone and being so different from John 1–12, create an effect of “slowing down” for the readers.3 Prior to the climax of the narrative in Jesus’ crucifixion, this is used to highlight to the readers that Jesus has something to teach his audience which deserves close attention.

A. Overview of the Use of Apprehension Vocabulary A. Use of Apprehension Vocabulary

Based on the identified semantic clusters, the distribution of apprehension vocabulary is illustrated as follows.

3 Francis J. Moloney, Love in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical, Theological, and Literary Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 99.

A. Use of Apprehension Vocabulary

127

Table 10: Distribution of the apprehension vocabulary (John 13–17) Introducing Events: Love and Betrayal (13:1–30)

Key terms οἶδα (13:1, 3, 7, 11, 17, 18), γινώσκω (13:7, 12, 28), πιστεύω (13:19), βλέπω (13:22), µαρτυρέω (13:21)

The Farewell Discourse (13:31–16:33) 13:31–38 Deparγινώσκω (13:35) ture, Love Command and Following Jesus 14:1–14 Deeper οἶδα (14:4, 5 [2x]), γινώσκω Faith and a Rede- (14:7 [3x], 9), πιστεύω (14:1 fined Apprehen[2x], 10, 11 [2x], 12), ὁράω sion of Jesus (14:7, 9 [2x]) 14:15–31 The γινώσκω (14:17 [2x], 20, 31), Paraclete and πιστεύω (14:29),θεωρέω Future Apprehen- (14:17, 19 [2x]), ἀκούω (14:24, sion of Jesus 28), ὑποµιµνῄσκω (14:26) Promised 15:1–25 Jesus the οἶδα (15:15, 21), γινώσκω True Vine, (15:18), ὁράω (15:24), ἀκούω Knowing Friend, (15:15), γνωρίζω (15:15), and the World’s µνηµονεύω (15:20) Hatred 15:26–16:15 γινώσκω (16:3), πιστεύω Work of the Par(16:9), µαρτυρέω (15:26, 27), aclete θεωρέω (16:10), ἀκούω (16:13), µνηµονεύω (16:4) 16:16–24 From οἶδα (16:18, 30 [2x]), γινώσκω Sorrow to Joy (16:19), ὁράω (16:16, 17, 19, 22), θεωρέω (16:16, 17, 19), µνηµονεύω (16:21) 16:25–33 Prayers οἶδα (16:30 [2x]), πιστεύω in a Loving Rela- (16:27, 30, 31), ὁράω (16:29) tionship vs. Disciples’ Incomprehension Jesus’ Farewell γινώσκω (17:3, 7, 8, 23, 25 Prayer (17:1–26) [3x]), πιστεύω (17:8, 20, 21), θεωρέω (17:24), γνωρίζω (17:26 [2x])

4

Extended list of related terms βάλλω εἰς τὴν καρδίαν (13:2), µαθητής (13:5, 22, 23), λαµβάνω (13:20 [4x]), ἀπορέω (13:22), πυνθάνοµαι (13:24), δοκέω (13:29) µαθητής (13:35), ζητέω (13:33), καινός4 (13:34), ἀρνέοµαι (13:38) δείκνυµι (14:8, 9)

τηρέω (14:15, 21, 23, 24), ἐµφανίζω (14:21, 22)

µαθητής (15:8), τηρέω (15:10, 20)

δοκέω (16:2), σκανδαλίζω (16:1), πληρόω τὴν καρδίαν (16:6), βαστάζω (16:12), ὁδηγέω (16:13) µαθητής (16:17), ζητέω (16:19), θέλω (16:19)

µαθητής (16:29), παρρησίᾳ (16:25), ἐν παρρησίᾳ (16:29)

ἐπαίρω τοὺς ὀφθαλµούς (17:1), φανερόω (17:6), τηρέω (17:6), λαµβάνω (17:8), υἱός (17:12)

LN28.33: “pertaining to not being well known previously but being significant.”

128

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

From the above chart, we can observe that apprehension terms appear quite evenly across John 13–17 even though the sections in the farewell discourse have varied lengths. Other than the key apprehension terms, related terms seem to have played a role for the concept. This provides us the basis for our narrative overview as well as the exegetical analysis where these terms will also be duly noted.

B. Narrative Overview of the Development of the Concept B. Development of Concept

In the previous chapter, I suggested that, in John 10–12, readers are prepared to the stage of “deepening apprehension” by being introduced the more relational or intimate side of apprehending Jesus in ways not found in the narratives of John 1–9. From the perspective of apprehension of Jesus, several elements prepare readers’ anticipation of the close apprehension by the disciples in 13:1–16:33. The good shepherd parable (10:1–21) presents an immensely personal touch through the hearing, knowing, and believing terms revealing the mutual apprehension between the shepherd/Jesus and the sheep/believers. The Lazarus episode (11:1–12:11) highlights the need of the believing characters (Martha, Mary, and the disciples) to go deeper to experience Jesus and what he says through the knowing and believing terms used. In view of the above, the outline below indicates that such anticipated close apprehension of Jesus starts with the onset of 13:1–30. Table 11: Outline of John 13–17 (10:1–12:50 Transition) –Introducing an intimate apprehension of the Good Shepherd (10:1–21) –The Last Controversy (10:22–42) –Experiencing the Lord of Resurrection and Life (11:1–12:11) –Closure of Jesus’ Public Ministry and Beginning of His Glorification (12:12–50) 13:1–30 Introducing Events 13:31–16:33 Jesus’ Farewell Discourse: –Announcing departure: exhortation to mutual love and following afterwards (13:31–38); –Deeper faith in the person of Jesus; redefinition of apprehension of Jesus; the Paraclete and future apprehension (14:1–31); –The true vine and friend (15:1–25); –Works of the Paraclete: bearing witness with the disciples; convicting the world; guiding the disciples into all truth (15:26–16:15); –Seeing Jesus again: from sorrow to joy (16:6, 16–24); –Teaching on prayer and further future apprehension vs. disciples’ incomprehension (16:25–33) 17:1–26 Jesus’ Concluding Prayer

B. Development of Concept

129

With various signals anticipating a deeper apprehension in John 10–12, there now comes Jesus’ in-depth elaboration through his farewell discourse. From 13:1–30, the introducing events, namely Jesus’ washing his disciples’ feet (13:1–20) and foretelling Judas’ betrayal (vv.21–30), are brought in by John stating that Jesus “knows” his hour of departure and loves “his own” to the end (v.1). In so doing, the entirety of the events in John 13, and even 13–17, could be identified as an act of love.5 Having promised Peter an understanding of what Jesus does (13:7),6 Jesus’ command of γινώσκετε7 in v.12 requests the disciples to follow his humble act of love upon “understanding” this (v.17). In these events, Jesus continues to display his omniscience, particularly in his foreknowledge of Judas being the betrayer (οἶδα vv.11, 18 cf. vv.1, 3). Characterised by love and recognised by the disciples’ mutual love and their following Jesus (13:31–35), in 14:1–14, apprehension of Jesus is now redefined as equivalent to apprehension of the Father. As I will show in the exegetical analysis, a deeper belief in the person of Jesus is now called for. Through the vine-branch metaphor (15:1–17), the mutual abiding between Jesus and the disciples is stressed and through this Jesus is fully made known to the disciples, who are referred to here as the branches of the true vine. Furthermore, this deeper apprehension hinges on the Paraclete. Knowing him relationally will bring to the disciples remembrance of Jesus’ words and guide them into all truth, which they cannot bear at that moment (16:12–15). Via the Paraclete, the Father and the Son will manifest themselves to the disciples; their abode in the believers is promised (14:15–31). Furthermore, this apprehension is invested with emotions. Contrasting with a loving and apprehending relationship with God, the world’s persecution arising from hatred is foretold (15:18–16:4). With Jesus’ reminder about seeing him again, the disciples’ hearts will turn from sorrow to joy (16:16–22). Towards the end of the discourse (16:25–33), however, John shows that, prior to the Spirit’s coming, the disciples are not yet ready for this deepened apprehension. It has to be experienced beyond the narrated time. In John 13–17, the evangelistic bearing continues as in the previous chapters. Jesus’ loving relationship with his Father is for the world to know (14:31). For “the world” that has seen Jesus’ works and heard his words but remained unknowing (15:18–25), there is the Paraclete’s convicting them for

5 Cf. Frey, “Love-Relations,” 196. Note further that John deliberately avoids using “disciples” but τοὺς ἰδίους τοὺς ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ (13:1) to foster readers’ identification. 6 Οὐκ οἶδας ἄρτι, γνώσῃ δὲ µετὰ ταῦτα. The µετὰ ταῦτα signifies a time-frame after Jesus’ glorification. Regarding the understanding of what Jesus does here (13:7a), it primarily refers to his feet-washing act but could also be extended to include Jesus’ teaching thereafter, especially when we see John 13–17 as a distinct unit. 7 Alternatively, γινώσκετε could be understood as a question requiring no answer.

130

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

their unbelief (16:8–11). He will bear witness to Jesus as the disciples testify to the world about Jesus (15:26–16:4). Jesus’ last prayer in John 17 concludes the farewell discourse and the entirety of John 1–16 as my exegetical analysis will show. Beyond mere acquisition of facts, eternal life is defined as “knowledge” of God and Jesus. This knowing is meant to be a knowing in faith. Stating that the disciples’ basic apprehension is achieved, Jesus intercedes for them so that they can persevere and be equipped to further engender apprehension of Jesus in others. The unity of future believers is also supplicated for the sake of Jesus’ faithengendering purpose and God’s love for the world. The prayer ends with restating the world’s not-knowing status, Jesus’ knowing relationship with the Father, and the believers’ yet-to-be deepened apprehension which is promised through further fostering in the Father’s love.

C. Exegetical Analysis in Context C. Exegetical Analysis

The repetitiveness of John 13–16 has given rise to different composition theories; yet the unity of the farewell discourse has gained support from more and more Johannine scholars. 8 Acknowledging this, from the following selected passages, 14:1–26; 15:26–16:15; 16:25–33; and 17:1–26, I will show how Jesus reveals a deeper seeing, knowing, and believing for his believers. This deepened apprehension will be made possible through the promised Paraclete, whom Jesus so emphatically foretells, with an aim to assure the disciples of his trustworthiness. A multifaceted portrayal of this new phase of apprehending Jesus entails: (1) Jesus’ call for a deeper faith bound with love and backed up by his works; (2) Redefining what it means by knowing and seeing Jesus; (3) The different role of works to solicit faith; (4) A promised intimate relationship between himself, the Father, and the believers with the Paraclete’s help; (5) The Paraclete’s works with regard to believers and non-believers assured through remembering Jesus’ words;

8 Donald A. Carson, The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus: An Exposition of John 14–17 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988); Tolmie, Farewell; L. Scott Kellum, The Unity of the Farewell Discourse: The Literary Integrity of John 13:31–16:33, JSNTSup 256 (London: T&T Clark, 2004); Parsenios, Departure; John Carlson Stube, A GraecoRoman Rhetorical Reading of the Farewell Discourse, LNTS 309 (London: T&T Clark, 2006). For a review of different approaches to deal with the compositional difficulties, see Segovia, Farewell, 24–47.

C. Exegetical Analysis

131

(6) The disciples’ future experience of prayers based on their loving relationship with Jesus and the Father through faith; and (7) Jesus’ prayer affecting readers in a personal way. Within this portrayal are John’s persuasive strategies delicately embedded. 1. Deeper Faith, a Redefined Apprehension of Jesus, and Promise of Paraclete and Future Apprehension (14:1–26) a) Deeper Faith, a Redefined Apprehension of Jesus (14:1–14) The farewell discourse is opened up by Jesus foretelling his departure (13:31– 33, 36–38)9 and his new commandment of love (vv.34–35). There is a strong sense that Jesus’ teaching to the disciples is differentiated from outsiders (v.31a, 35). With the privileged status of the disciples in mind, Jesus exhorts them to “believe” (14:1). Such a faith-fostering use of πιστεύω is not new to the disciples (cf. 11:15 and the incidents in John 1–2). But apparently these disciples had already professed their faith to the fullest in 6:69. To the readers, this is strange. Do they still need to reaffirm Jesus’ identity now? In this new phase of apprehension, I assert that their faith is no longer merely to do with who Jesus is. In view of what Jesus’ departure would bring to them, namely the place he prepares and his coming again for their sake, his re-invitation to faith should be seen from a more relational/personal perspective. His disciples need a deepened faith for the upcoming turbulence, whether in Jesus’ tribulation or theirs in the future. Having encouraged them to believe, Jesus presupposes that they “know” (14:4) the way he is going but in fact they do not; they neither “know” Jesus’ destination nor do they “know” the way (v.5). This does not mean that they have no idea of Jesus’ departure completely (cf. 13:21, 36–38). From Jesus’ controversies with the crowd/“Jews” (7:33–36; 8:21–29), they must have heard of Jesus’ departure. They are just not entirely sure of Jesus’ meaning. Thus, both Thomas’ complaint about not “knowing” the way and Philip’s request about “showing” the Father (14:8) reflect rather their ignorance on a deeper level of apprehending Jesus. Therefore, Jesus teaches them in another ἐγώ εἰµι declaration. In highlighting himself as being “the way, the truth, and the life,” Jesus stresses that he remains the only means of access to the Father

9

Although Jesus’ departure is also foretold to “the Jews” in John 5–9 (13:31–33, 36–38 cf. 7:33–36; 8:14, 21–22), yet only the disciples, not “the Jews,” are ever called “little children” (τεκνία), an affectionate term showing Jesus’ love for them. Whereas both “the Jews” and the disciples are ignorant about Jesus’ meaning of departure (13:36), the unbelieving “Jews” are “promised” death in sin (8:24); but Peter is here promised being able to “follow” him “afterwards” (ἀκολουθέω ὕστερον 13:36).

132

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

(v.6). In this way, “knowing” Jesus is equivalent to “knowing” the Father;10 “seeing” Jesus is “seeing” the Father (γινώσκω, ὁράω11 vv.7, 9). Thus, not only Jesus’ relation with the Father, but also apprehension of the Father through Jesus are made explicit (cf. 12:44–45; 13:20). With ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι (14:7), a redefinition of apprehension of Jesus is now plainly declared. Such an explicit statement on equating apprehension of the Father with apprehension of Jesus has not been as clear in GJohn previously. This marks a further development beyond John 1–12 as the embryonic idea of “seeing” God in 1:18 is now more fully unpacked. With this thoughtful redefinition of apprehension of Jesus, he challenges the disciples’ faith again in 14:10–14. Seeing and knowing lead to believing. Being strikingly similar to 10:37–38, a comparison between the two texts can be made as follows:

10

There are difficult readings in 14:7a which result in taking the conditional sentence as first class (“assumed true for argument’s sake”: perfect ἐγνώκατε with future γνώσεσθε) or second class (“contrary to fact”: pluperfect ἐγνώκειτε with pluperfect ἂν ἤδειτε/ ἐγνώκειτε ἄν). The former implies a promise of knowing the Father as the disciples have known Jesus. The latter implies that they neither knew Jesus nor the Father. Both make sense from the context, depending on whether knowing refers to initial or deeper knowledge. The latter is consistent with Jesus’ rebuke in v.9 while the former fits with v.7b. See the disagreement between Metzger and Aland in Metzger, Textual Commentary, 207. Also NET, John 14:7 footnote 15; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John XIII—XXI: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 29A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 621; Segovia, Farewell, 87. 11 Cf. the synonymous θεωρέω in 12:45. From a verbal aspect perspective, the perfect γινώσκετε and ἑωράκατε in (14:7, 9) function to denote situations “intimately close to experience the event dramatically.” Similar tense uses in the farewell discourse may have no temporal inference which would eliminate scholars’ often-stated difficulties, e.g., Jean Zumstein, “Jesus’ Resurrection in the Farewell Discourses,” in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John, ed. Craig R. Koester and Reimund Bieringer, WUNT 222 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 104–5. Cf. Frey’s view that the perfect (esp. in the farewell discourse) is due to a Horizontverschmelzung where the readers’ need in John’s time is addressed through Jesus’ words; Frey, Eschatologie II, 250–52.

C. Exegetical Analysis

133

Table 12: Jesus’ words in 10:37–38 and 14:10–11 Audience Audience’s difficulty Steppingstone suggested Immediate purpose

Ultimate objective

10:37–38 Unbelieving “Jews” Believe Jesus (faithengendering) (πιστεύετέ µοι 10:37–38a) Believe the works12 (τοῖς ἔργοις πιστεύετε 10:38a) Come to know the mutual indwelling (ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ γινώσκητε ὅτι ἐν ἐµοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρι 10:38b) Believe Jesus (faithengendering)

14:10–11 Believing disciples Believe Jesus (faith-fostering) (εἰς ἐµὲ πιστεύετε 14:1) Believe [Jesus] because of the works (διά τὰ ἔργα αὐτὰ πιστεύετε13 14:11b) Not explicitly stated

Believe Jesus because of the mutual indwelling (faith-fostering) (πιστεύετέ µοι ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐµοι 14:11a) in light of the redefined apprehension of Jesus

In both cases, Jesus’ works, with their factuality stressed, function as a stepping-stone in light of his audience’s initial difficulty (10:37–38a; 14:1). In 10:37–38, if “the Jews” consider the factuality of his works/signs and believe them first, they will further understand the mutual indwelling of Jesus and the Father, which would ultimately bring them to faith. This makes Jesus’ message relevant to non-believing readers. In 14:10–11, for the already believing disciples,14 the same stepping-stone provides them with the basis to deepen their faith begun earlier (John 1–12). With a believing reflection on his works, they can achieve a deepened appreciation of the person of Jesus in his mutual indwelling with the Father (14:11a). Consequently, a deepened seeing and knowing leads to a deepened believing; he who “believes” Jesus in this way will be able to imitate him in doing greater works (v.12). Therefore, the function of Jesus’ works in relation to faith is subtly different from 10:37–38. The works there help “the Jews” to come to faith; the same works here help believers to a more profound faith in the person of 12 Bultmann asserts that the “words” and “works” in 14:10–11 amount to the same thing; Bultmann, John, 609; Bultmann, Theology, 2:60. Although they are closely related, Jesus’ works and words are identifiable and separate entities as his signs are clearly miracles by themselves though loaded with his teaching. 13 Μοι is added after πιστεύετε in A B K Q Γ Δ Θ Ψ f1, 13 565. 700. 892. 1241. 1424. l844 Û it syh bo in order to make explicit the eclipsed object as present in 14:11a. 14 Jesus’ question in 14:10a expects a positive answer (οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι… ;), that they have had no problem in believing/accepting the fact of mutual indwelling.

134

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

Jesus. Using similar constructions of πιστεύω as in chapters 1–9, the concept of faith is thoughtfully different now. My close analysis of John’s use of apprehension terms evidences this important development. In sum, in view of Jesus’ departure, Jesus is calling for a deeper faith and redefining what it means to see and know him in relation to his Father. To the disciples, who are unable to see the Father but nevertheless eager to do so, Jesus gives assurance to them of knowing the Father through him. As I argued that, throughout GJohn, readers are invited to participate in the narrative and compare themselves with the characters, Jesus’ teaching to the disciples on this redefinition of apprehension of Jesus and a deeper faith in the person of Jesus is evidently relevant to the readers. They also are challenged to a deeper faith even though they are unable to see the Father; they, too, are exhorted to trust that their apprehension of Jesus is equivalent to apprehension of the Father. From the readers’ perspective, with an ongoing “slowing down” effect of Jesus’ lengthy discourse, these two points prepare the readers to pay attention to Jesus’ further message in the discourse, in particular, on the Paraclete who would in return assist readers to the deeper faith discussed above. b) Promise of Paraclete and Future Apprehension (14:15–26) After the challenge for a deeper faith, Jesus promises the coming of the Paraclete15 which is reserved only for his disciples as they keep Jesus’ commandments (14:15–16). The parallelism in 14:17b is noteworthy: ὁ κόσµος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει· ὑµεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρ᾽ ὑµῖν µένει καὶ ἐν ὑµῖν ἔσται. The world’s inability to “receive” the Paraclete is contrasted with the disciples’ “knowing” him. The world is not able to “see” and “know” him, but for the disciples, he dwells with them and even will be in them (cf. µεθ᾽ ὑµῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα v.16).16 Here, as knowledge of the Paraclete comes from his

15 For the long debate on the meaning of παράκλητος, including a forensic “advocate” or a non-forensic “mediator/broker” from a patron-client relationship, see Dodd, Interpretation, 414–15; George Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John, SNTSMS 12 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 80–148; Kenneth Grayston, “The Meaning of Paraklētos,” JSNT 13 (1981): 67–82; Tricia Gates Brown, Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in Social-Scientific Perspective, JSNTSup 253 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 170–86; Lochlan Shelfer, “The Legal Precision of the Term ‘Paraklētos,’” JSNT 32, no. 2 (2009): 131–50. 16 This has a double reference. To the disciples, it is an “internal prolepsis,” an anticipated event falling within GJohn (20:22). To the readers whom Jesus also refers to, it is an “external prolepsis.” See Luc Herman and Bart Vervaeck, Handbook of Narrative

135

C. Exegetical Analysis

dwelling with and in the believers, apprehension of the Paraclete is apparently set in a highly relational sense. Such a stark contrast between the disciples and the world is extended to the promise of “seeing” Jesus again (v.19). Seeing the resurrected Jesus, they will “know” the mutual indwelling in an extended sense (v.20): Father

in

Jesus

in

disciples

To those loving him and keeping his commandments (v.21), Jesus further promises being loved by the Father and his “manifesting” (ἐµφανίζω) himself to them. Mutual love becomes the prerequisite of this stage of apprehension (cf. v.15). In light of v.23, ἐµφανίζω refers, not merely to being able to see Jesus in his resurrection, but also to knowing him more deeply.17 Thus, the deeper apprehension of Jesus is now further explained in terms of the use of ἐµφανίζω as well as the recognition of the mutual relationship of the Son, the Father, and the disciples/believers. Both are set in the narrative future, not in the moment of narration, as they are targeted to the disciples (implicitly to the readers).18 This future apprehension follows the promise of the Paraclete to the same disciples, which is described in more personal terms in distinction to those non-believers (“the world”). To the readers who know well that these promises, having been set in the narrative future, have already been fulfilled, such promises are readily available, if they would choose to meet Jesus’ requirement of loving him and keeping his commandments (v.15, 21). While the issue of loving Jesus by the characters/the readers will be more fully discussed in 21:15–19, the present text already carries an impact for the readers so that they could similarly enter into the deeper relationship with Jesus in loving him. Judas asked about how such apprehension could be given only to believers but not non-believers (14:22). Similar to Jesus’ reaction to “the Jews’” questions (6:43–51, 53–59), he does not seem to address Judas’ concern beyond expounding what he has said. Repeating the importance of loving him and keeping his commandments, Jesus’ promise of “making a home” with the disciples is noteworthy (14:23). Whereas Jesus’ departure points to his taking the believers “home” to his Father’s house (vv.1–3), Jesus’ being seen again (resurrection) points to the coming of Jesus and the Father, and their making a “home” with the believers (vv.18–23; µονή is only used in these two places). The promise of an abode in heaven in the last day is now coupled with

Analysis (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005), 65. Estes calls it a “historical anachrony.” Estes, Temporal Mechanics, 182n.116. 17 LN24.19 cf. LN28.36. 18 See footnote 16.

136

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

the promise of the Father’s and Jesus’ abode in the believers. 19 All these hinge on keeping Jesus’ words as one’s loving response to Jesus. Jesus’ resurrection brings forth further apprehension, namely the personal manifestation and “abode” of both Jesus and his Father. Thus, v.23 resonates strongly with vv.18–21 in stressing how active Jesus and the Father are in building such a deeper relationship with the believers. Coupled with the foretold words above is the repeated mention of the provision of the Paraclete, who will teach the disciples “all things” and bring to their remembrance (ὑποµιµνῄσκω) “all” of Jesus’ words (v.26). These promises are expressly foretold in order to give them peace and keep them from being troubled (v.27 cf. v.1). They elaborate what Jesus has introduced in vv.16–17. Both are set in the narrative future as I mentioned above (cf. v.29; 13:19), not in the moment of narration. Jesus expects the disciples’ faith will be deepened after his death and resurrection. This is crucial for the concept of Johannine remembrance. When we reread 2:22 and 12:16, we now understand that the authoritative remembrances/testimonies there are Paracletedirected as John has experienced the deepened apprehension promised and so reflects in his narrative. In sum, by promising the coming of the Paraclete, Jesus foretells the believers’ exclusive apprehension of the Paraclete. Apprehension of him is apprehension of Jesus. Central to these portrayals is Jesus’ urging his believers to love him by keeping his commandments. They are thereby promised Jesus’ and the Father’s indwelling. From the readers’ perspective, having identified with the disciples through faith, they are now able to encounter Jesus (and the Father) “realistically” as the disciples did later in the narrative since Jesus has died and is resurrected. Here, the author’s rhetorical intention to help readers/believers to grow in faith beyond Jesus’ earthly ministry is also evident. The idea of a living Jesus confronting the readers, already developed in John 1–12, now receives its fullest treatment through the promise of the Paraclete and the redefinition of apprehending Jesus. It is the Paraclete who brings to the author’s remembrance the life of Jesus who is both in the narrative past and out of the narrative, encountering readers in their real world. Knowing him is knowing the Father. For the believing readers taking GJohn as their basis, they will experience this divine Jesus together with the Father as making home with them. The Son, the Father, and the Paraclete are then all involved in this deeper apprehension which is part of John’s profound theological thought not as clearly revealed in chapters 1–12 as now. 19 The generic ἐάν τις construction (14:23) shows that Jesus was not addressing the disciples alone but all those who love him. Segovia further highlights John’s use of household imagery here with regard to “little children,” “orphans, and Jesus’ and the Father’s “abiding place,” which further reinforces my idea of an intimate apprehension. Segovia, Farewell, 102.

C. Exegetical Analysis

137

2. Further Work of the Paraclete (15:26–16:15) After expounding on himself as the true vine and the knowing friend as well as explaining the world’s hatred (15:1–25), both of which continue the theme of a more personal/relational apprehension, Jesus further elaborates the Paraclete’s works in 15:26–16:15. This is done in three important aspects, namely, testifying (leading to the disciples’ testifying and remembering), convicting, and guiding. First, the Paraclete will “bear witness” to Jesus (ἐκεῖνος µαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐµου 15:26). This results in the mandate that the disciples are to “witness”20 also. The basis of their testimony is their accompaniment with Jesus throughout his ministry (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς µετ᾽ ἐµοῦ ἐστε v.27). They are the irreplaceable eyewitnesses to the facts and teachings of Jesus as they testify to how the unbelieving world hated Jesus despite his words and works (vv.22– 25).21 Foretelling the forthcoming persecutions (16:2), Jesus intends to keep them from falling into unbelief (σκανδαλίζω v.1). By exhorting them to “remember” (µνηµονεύω v.4a) his words (we know from 14:26 that this is helped by the Paraclete), the disciples are to acknowledge Jesus’ omniscience regarding their persecutions and the genuine fulfilment of his prophecy. The disciples’ remembrance, again, is concerned with and based on the claimed veracity of what Jesus said.22 Through this, the remembrance of Jesus’ words helps to sustain faith as a result. Further, by Jesus reminding them of his word of prophecy, he strengthens the believer’s testifying mission (15:27). Thus, the Johannine remembrance is not only linked to the disciples’ faith and understanding as in 2:13–22 and 12:12–19, but now it is also connected to the disciples’ testifying mission. Readers, as they read this discourse, naturally are to understand it to be the “remembered” testimony as a result of observing Jesus’ command here. Based on 14:26 and 15:26–27, this “remembrance” of Jesus’ words, being associated with Jesus’ own faith-fostering intention, is also the result of the testifying work of the Paraclete. Therefore, the testimony of the Paraclete, the remembrance of Jesus’ words, Jesus’ own faithfostering purpose, as well as the testifying mission of the disciples in relation to GJohn are all conceptually connected. 20 While the disciples’ testimony and the Paraclete’s are inseparable, µαρτυρεῖτε (15:27) functions as futuristic present, or better as imperative of command. 21 Factual reporting cannot be excluded here. Contra Lincoln, Truth, 383–84. Segovia thus notes that the Paraclete’s testimony here extends what is in 13:31–14:31 in that the Paraclete’s “task with regard to the truth” is explicitly defined in terms of “action toward outsiders.” Segovia, Farewell, 200n.50. 22 Cf. my discussion on 2:13–22 and 12:12–19. Whereas the remembrance language in 2:13–22 and 12:12–19 strategically frames Jesus’ public ministry, the same language here (14:26; 16:4) lies at the centre of Jesus’ farewell discourse (John 13–17) and functions as one of the principal elements of the close apprehension of Jesus for the disciples only.

138

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

Second, the Paraclete “convicts”23 (16:8) the world. Unbelief and not seeing Jesus are involved here. The world is proven guilty because of their sin of “unbelief” (οὐ πιστεύουσιν… v.9) and because of Jesus’ righteousness in his ascension (“seeing” him no more; v.10). Thus, the Paraclete is the agent to convey the apprehension of Jesus where seeing Jesus is no longer possible. Where unbelief remains, there is opportunity for such conviction. Thus, the Paraclete’s conviction is still directed towards faith in Jesus, summoning people to repentance. While the faith-engendering aspect is present, its link to the work of the Paraclete is noteworthy here. Third, the Paraclete “guides”24 (v.13a) the disciples into all truth, including the many things Jesus wants to say (v.12) and words which the Paraclete “hears” and will “speak” (vv.13b-15). This is reminiscent of 8:26, where Jesus similarly has many things to say (both ἀκούω and λαλέω are used; cf. 8:38, 40; 3:11). There “the Jews” do not “understand” (8:27–28) but here Jesus promises future “understanding.” Though the disciples cannot “bear” Jesus’ words now (16:12), the Paraclete’s future “declaring” is promised (vv.13–15), acting in the place of the earthly Jesus. Here, we see that, on the one hand, the Paraclete’s teaching is bound by Jesus’ very words and works. On the other hand, readers are aware that such teaching role of the Paraclete is at work when they attempt to understand Jesus’ teaching here. Thus, the Paraclete’s works further elaborated here (15:26–16:15) all point to the apprehension of Jesus in the post-resurrection era, in relation to both faith-engendering and faith-fostering aspects and backed up by Johannine remembrance. The Paraclete testifies with the disciples and through him the disciples are to remember Jesus’ prophecy of their persecution.25 He convicts unbelievers of their unbelief and guides believers into all the truth about Jesus. All this is foretold by the omniscient and living Jesus to the privileged believers. As I indicated in the previous section, readers, being guided by the author all along GJohn, readily recognise that they are the recipients of Jesus’ message through identifying with the disciples. Their apprehension of Jesus, especially when they attempt to understand John 13–17, is now interpreted as the result of the elaborated work of the Paraclete (bearing witness, convicting, 23 Lincoln rightly comments that ἐλέγχω here carries the sense of “exposing the true situation in regard to each issue in such a way as to confront the world with and prove its guilt” whereas Zumstein notes the dual sense of exposure and condemnation. Lincoln, John, 419; Jean Zumstein, L’évangile selon saint Jean (13–21), CNT 4b (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2007), 134. Yet it is also possible to include the meaning “to reprove and correct.” Cf. BDAG, “ἐλέγχω, 3;” Segovia, Farewell, 229–233. This is unfortunately missing in Louw and Nida (cf. LN33.417). 24 Ὁδηγέω carries a sense of teaching and instructing. See BDAG, “ὁδηγέω, 2;” LN27.27. 25 This resonates with the role of the Paraclete as I discussed in the previous section on 14:15–26.

C. Exegetical Analysis

139

and guiding). And this is backed up by what Jesus said back in the narrative past. Readers, whether believing or unbelieving, are able to experience the Paraclete’s work (for believing readers, even the Paraclete himself). These interactions between what happened inside the narrative (Jesus–the promised Paraclete–disciples) and what is claimed to be outside it (the resurrected and omniscient Jesus–the available Paraclete–readers) via John’s remembered account are exquisitely subtle. 3. Prayers in a Loving Relationship vs. Disciples’ Incomprehension (16:25–33) After a short section on Jesus’ prophecy that the disciples will turn from sorrow to joy in seeing him again (16:16–22), a transformed relationship with Jesus and the Father is shown as it is seen in Jesus’ promise of a renewed prayer life (vv.23–24). With this and towards the end of the discourse, Jesus points to a future “hour” (v.25) when he will make himself known plainly.26 Jesus emphasises the disciples’ future prayer in his name (v.26) due to the “love” between the Father, Jesus, and the disciples as well as the disciples’ “belief” in his origin (vv.27–28). Together with the statement in 13:1 where Jesus reveals his love for them; they are now said to love Jesus and the Father loves them (16:27). Thus, the disciples’ faith generates a loving relationship that promises further apprehension shown in prayer, echoing 14:15–31 and 15:26–16:15. In light of 14:21, 26; 16:12–15, such an apprehension from a post-resurrection perspective should be understood as being conveyed through Jesus’ manifestation via the Paraclete. This loving apprehension of Jesus (and of God) finds its fullest expression here in John 13–16 and helps readers to a fuller Christian life, experiencing God more deeply. The disciples’ response is anticlimactic. They think of Jesus’ plain speaking as already taking place instead of in the future.27 They profess their current knowledge of Jesus’ omniscience (οἴδαµεν ὅτι οἶδας πάντα) 28 and “belief” in Jesus’ origin (16:30).29 They even think that they have no need to

26

Παρρησίᾳ contrasts ἐν παροιµίαις. Segovia rightly notes the disciples’ confusion on Jesus’ “hour.” Segovia, Farewell, 269–70. 28 The basis of their knowledge of Jesus’ omniscience is uncertain. Segovia thinks that it refers to Jesus’ awareness of their questions in 16:19. Ibid., 270. Yet that seems a bit too far away from v.30. In light of the disciples’ confusion on Jesus’ “hour” (v.29) and on “asking” (vv.23, 26), it may refer generally to Jesus’ all-encompassing knowledge on what lies ahead. Such detailed prophecy in Jesus’ farewell discourse is now met with the disciples’ response of faith, like what characters in John 1–4 did. 29 I take ἐν τούτῳ to refer to the first part of 16:30 such that the disciples’ belief is based on their knowledge, which is congruent with the characters’ apprehension process in GJohn. 27

140

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

ask Jesus further.30 These confessions superficially fulfil Jesus’ prior exhortations to faith (14:1, 11); yet such a response misses the depth of faith to which Jesus refers. Their confessions, being correct, are out of step with what Jesus now teaches in John 13–17. Although their acknowledgment of Jesus’ omniscience echoes the narrator’s comment in 2:25, it comes rather late. Belief in Jesus’ origin is an issue back in John 5–9, not 13–17. Even when we compare Peter’s confession in 6:68–69, what is confessed here is surely modest. Thus, this is apparently a deliberate strategy of the author to ironically highlight to the readers the disciples’ incomprehension of what Jesus taught in chapters 13–16. Such an out-of-step development of the disciples (their knowing and believing) is often missed by scholars.31 Without help from the Paraclete, although their faith expressed is correct, they cannot adequately comprehend Jesus’ message here (16:12). Evidently, they are not yet ready for the deepened apprehension promised. Hence, Jesus’ ἄρτι πιστεύετε 32 show his mild rebuke towards them (v.31). Apprehension of Jesus is introduced in a deepened manner, foretold and yet to be experienced as these ending verses indicate. This strikes the readers who know that the characters in the narrative time have only limited knowledge. And yet, as an observer and at the same time invited to participate in the story, readers face the same sarcastic question of Jesus: ἄρτι πιστεύετε. They are indeed engaged by John.33 While they can freely experience the work of the Paraclete, they are thereby challenged through such rhetorical impact which John thoughtfully creates. The thoughtful message of Jesus in chapters 13–16 is waiting to be believed and digested in a deepened manner. The disciples in the narrative failed at that moment. Nevertheless, readers, while reading this text, are in a more privileged position as they know well Jesus’ very last words ending John 13– 16, “but take courage; I have conquered the world!” (16:33). Essentially due to this perspective, the pre-resurrection Jesus can appear as already a victorious conqueror, since he is the divine and living one with which readers are impressed through reading GJohn.

30 Brown notes that this is a Jewish “mark of the divine.” Brown, John-II, 725–26. But having no need to ask Jesus further may not be a good thing. In light of the use of ἐρωτάω in GJohn (esp. 16:5, 19, 23, 26), to ask Jesus means that apprehension is taking place. For the importance of use of questions to solicit divine revelation, see Michaels, John, 852. 31 For instance, Tolmie, Farewell, 220–21; Zumstein, Jean 13–21, 154; Schnelle, Johannes, 277. Segovia only mentions that the disciples could not “grasp the partial revelation dispensed.” Segovia, Farewell, 271. 32 Most EVV take this as a question; but see Michaels, John, 853. Yet taking it either as a statement or question would not affect Jesus’ sarcasm here. In any case, because of this, the disciples’ confession has been “completely deflated.” Segovia, Farewell, 273. 33 Cf. Estes, Questions, 168.

C. Exegetical Analysis

141

4. Jesus’ Concluding Prayer (17:1–26) After chapters 10–12, a transition introducing the more relational aspects of apprehension, and chapters 13–16, the detailed display of such apprehension, we have in chapter 17 Jesus’ farewell prayer. Ostensibly, it is addressed to Jesus’ Father (ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν 17:1); but readers will soon discern that this lengthy prayer actually addresses them (cf. 11:41–42). I will argue that John 17 concludes the farewell discourse as well as the entirety of John 1–1634 and is more so from the perspective of the apprehension theme. Aimed at speaking to the readers, the prayer encapsulates the basic apprehension of Jesus achieved, the disciples’ future faithengendering mission, Jesus’ evangelistic concern for the world, the ultimate goal of apprehending Jesus, as well as the promised ongoing apprehension of Jesus beyond the narrative story.35 From the perspective of the apprehension of Jesus, John 17, in the form of a prayer, has the effect of crystallising Jesus’ message to the readers in a personal way.36 Among the different structures proposed, 37 most scholars agree that the prayer can be divided into three sections, Jesus praying for himself (17:1–5), for the disciples (vv.6–19), and for the later believers (vv.20–26). a) Praying for Himself (17:1–5) Jesus’ petitions for mutual glorification in 17:1, 4–5 echo the beginning of the farewell discourse (13:31). 17:3 is Jesus’ definition of eternal life, a key theme which I have shown to be connected with the concept of apprehending Jesus in various places in GJohn. Here, eternal life is defined as “knowledge” of God and Jesus. Given John’s progressive elaboration of the knowing concept throughout chapters 1–16, this knowledge is now evidently beyond mere acquisition of facts; it is meant to be a knowledge in faith, even a personal/relational knowledge in light of chapters 13–16. By having Jesus refer to himself in the third person, his didactic tone is set for the readers at the beginning of his prayer. Thus, contrary to scholars who claim that 17:3 inter34

Scholars agree that it forms the conclusion to John 13–16. E.g. Dodd, Interpretation, 417; David Alan Black, “On the Style and Significance of John 17,” CTR 3 (1988): 154; Thyen, JohEv, 681–82. For various connections between John 17 and John 1–12, see Marianus Pale Hera, Christology and Discipleship in John 17, WUNT 2/342 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). In a classic treatment, Käsemann sees it as the climax to GJohn, claiming that in the prayer the logos returns to eternity, Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17. 35 On John 17, Moloney sees its dominant theme as “the mission to make God known.” Moloney, Love, 132. 36 Note the many “external prolepses” (see further footnote 16) used in John 17. 37 See the summary by Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, NAC 25B (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 186–89.

142

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

rupts Jesus’ prayer, it actually forms a part of Jesus’ prayer, embedded with his concern for his hearers, and for John’s readers as well.38 b) Praying for the Disciples (17:6–19) Before Jesus’ petition for the disciples in 17:9–19, Jesus underscores that he has “manifested” (v.6) God’s name to those who keep his word. From vv.7–8, this has the following results: (1) they “know” everything of Jesus is from the Father; (2) they “receive” Jesus’ words; (3) they “truly know” Jesus comes from the Father; and (4) they “believe” the Father sent Jesus. Along our line of analysis, these represent how a basic apprehension of Jesus is achieved (John 1–9 cf. 16:30). Along with these, Jesus requests the Father to keep them (17:12, 15) and sanctify them in truth so that they can be sent into the world (vv.17–19). Thus, the disciples, with their basic apprehension of Jesus, are prayed for so that they are able to persevere and be equipped with the Father’s word to engender apprehension of Jesus in others. This aptly echoes the work of the Paraclete in the farewell discourse set in the narrative future. Thus, the future need of the disciples is known by the Jesus who cares for them. c) Praying for Later Believers (17:20–26) That the disciples’ mission produces new generations of believers is also foreknown to Jesus (περὶ τῶν πιστευόντων διὰ τοῦ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐµε 17:20); he even prays for their unity through the mutual indwelling between himself and the believers (vv.21, 23). Such oneness furthers the faithengendering purpose for the world which is expressed through urging “believing” and “knowing,” namely, πιστεύῃ39 ὅτι σύ µε ἀπέστειλας (v.21) and γινώσκῃ… ὅτι… ἠγάπησας αὐτοὺς καθὼς ἐµὲ ἠγάπησας (v.23). The Johannine Jesus is eager to make sure that the world would know God’s love for them and would accept him as being sent by the Father (cf. 3:16). Jesus’ evangelistic endeavor via his uses of πιστεύω and γινώσκω is evident here, summarizing what he has done in chapters 1–12. 40 Here, what Jesus cares about is not merely the future Christian community but also the unbelieving world from where the community members originally came. This fits in the 38

Contra Schnackenburg, John-III, 3:172–73; Jürgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 2 vols., ÖTK 4 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1979), 2:513–14. 39 î60 ‫א‬2 A C3 D K L and others have πιστεύσῃ instead of πιστεύῃ here (î66 ‫ *א‬B C* W). Nevertheless, the difference in aorist and present cannot be used to support the idea of either faith-engendering or -fostering. See my discussion in Chapter 1, section A.6.a). Contra Michaels, John, 875n.67. 40 This said, to the future Christian community, the knowledge that the exalted Christ prays for them would provide them reassurance and it plays a role in their identity formation as suggested by Lincoln, John, 440.

C. Exegetical Analysis

143

faith-engendering purpose of GJohn as I asserted in the previous Chapters of this study. Jesus further prays for these believers that they may be with him (17:24), echoing 12:26; 14:3. Scholars consider that this refers to his Parousia which implies that the glory to be “seen” (17:24) is the glory that Jesus had before the world existed (v.5).41 Thus, this eschatological aspect, on the one hand, develops the same theme in 5:19–30 and, on the other hand, echoes the promised deeper apprehension in 14:1–3, 21, 23. The eternal communion with Jesus, which he asks for here, remains the ultimate goal of apprehending Jesus; this passes beyond the here-and-now sphere of a prayer as well as the sphere of the readers, into the sphere “beyond the foundation of the world.” Via the use of knowing terms (17:25–26), the end of Jesus’ prayer summarises the message of apprehension in chapters 13–17, and even throughout chapters 1–17. Not “knowing” the Father is a summary of the state of the unbelieving world; yet for Jesus, his personal intimate relationship is expressed through the emphatic ἐγὼ δέ σε ἔγνων (v.25). As for his believers, their different portrayal as οὗτοι ἔγνωσαν ὅτι σύ µε ἀπέστειλας suggests that their apprehension is rudimentary and yet to be deepened (cf. 16:30). This is why Jesus promises to continue to “make known” (γνωρίσω vs. ἐγνώρισα 17:26) the Father’s name, sounding the future apprehension pronounced in chapters 13–16. Jesus’ ultimate purpose for his followers is twofold (17:26): to achieve (1) an intimate loving relationship between the Father and the believers, comparable to that between the Father and the Son and (2) an indwelling of Jesus in the believers. Vv.25–26, being in inclusio with the knowing concept in v.3, summarise well what John intends to achieve ultimately for the readers. Thus, Jesus’ prayer represents a beautiful ending towards the close of this apprehension phase. Furthermore, from the groups of people Jesus prayed for, i.e., himself, the disciples, and the later believers, the readers will be aware that Jesus’ focus and attention are gradually shifted to themselves. With Jesus’ promise of further making known the Father’s name as the end of the prayer, but yet that being left unexplained (v.26), a rhetorical impact is felt in which Jesus’ promise is stressed in readers’ minds. In crystallising Jesus’ message as I discussed above, for the readers, apprehension of Jesus is now conveyed in a more personal way, progressively from chapters 1–4, to 5–12, to 13–16, and now 17, in the form of a prayer. There is an “intensified emotional force” through the reformulation of GJohn’s key themes presented this way.42 But the readers are not merely given this fuller insight of Jesus’ intimate relationship with

41 Carson, John, 569–70; Schnelle, Johannes, 284; Michaels, John, 878. Contra Bultmann, John, 519–21. 42 As rightly claimed in Lincoln, John, 440.

144

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

the Father;43 they are persuaded and challenged towards giving a response to Jesus’ message encapsulated here. The intimate relationship is here for the readers to participate in. With this resounding to them, the narrative continues with the account of the arrest of Jesus in the next chapter, following the larger plot of GJohn.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact on the Readers D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

1. Synthesis If John 5–12 (especially 5–9) develops primarily in negative ways the foundational essentials for apprehension of Jesus introduced in chapters 1–4, John 13–17 recover the depths of such apprehension and focus on knowing Jesus in a more personal way, even beyond the time-frame of his earthly life. From my analysis, a synthesis of the key arguments can now be made. As surveyed in my narrative overview (section B), 13:31–16:33 represents the core of a deepened apprehension of Jesus in intimate terms. This apprehension is characterised by love, recognised by the love between Jesus’ disciples which is based on Jesus’ love and their following him (13:31–38). In 14:1–31, a deeper belief in the person of Jesus is now called for. Via the Paraclete, the Father and the Son will manifest themselves. Such close apprehensions of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit and their relationship with the believers are intricately portrayed, developed more fully than in John 1–12. At the same time, such apprehension is not totally introverted. The loving relationship between Jesus and his Father has an evangelistic bearing so that the world may know (14:31). As for “the world” that has seen Jesus’ works and heard his words but has remained unknowing (15:18–25), the Paraclete will convict the world for their unbelief in the absence of Jesus (16:8–11). He will bear witness to Jesus as the disciples testify to the world about Jesus (15:26–16:4). As seeing, knowing, and believing Jesus are now put in intimate terms, this apprehension is also invested with emotions, another characteristic of a more personal apprehension, ranging from the foretold hatred of the world to the disciples’ joy in seeing Jesus again. With Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples are foretold that they can then address prayers to the Father directly (16:23–24). However, towards the end of the discourse, John purposely shows that the disciples are not yet ready for this deepened apprehension at time of the narrative. And, finally, Jesus’ last prayer in John 17 concludes the farewell

43

Contra Lincoln.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

145

discourse and the entirety of John 1–16 from the perspective of apprehending Jesus in a personal way. Within this phase of apprehension (John 13–17), I selected four passages, 14:1–26; 15:26–16:15; 16:25–33; and 17:1–26, for further exegesis and discussion on John’s rhetorical strategies (section C). In 14:1–26, we note Jesus’ re-invitation to “believe” in a deepened sense (v.1). Via seeing and knowing terms, we see a re-definition of apprehension of Jesus; “knowing” Jesus is equivalent to “knowing” the Father; “seeing” Jesus is “seeing” the Father (vv.7, 9). It also involves a deepened faith in Jesus in his mutual indwelling with the Father, which Jesus encourages the disciples to embark into, based on the initial stepping-stone of their belief in Jesus’ works (vv.10–14). Whereas Jesus’ departure points to his taking the believers “home” to his Father’s house (vv.1–3), Jesus’ being seen again (resurrection) points to the coming of Jesus and the Father, and their making a “home” with the believers (vv.18–23). The promise of an abode in heaven in the last day is now coupled with the promise of the Father’s and Jesus’ abode in the believers. This redefined and deeper apprehension also hinges on the Paraclete. With his promised coming, the disciples, in contrast with the world, will be able to know him relationally, and he in turn will bring to their remembrance Jesus’ words (vv.15–31). Apprehension of the Paraclete is apprehension of Jesus. Here we see the author’s rhetorical intention to help readers/believers to grow in faith beyond Jesus’ earthly ministry. Since Jesus has died and is resurrected, a claimed fact which John strategically shows the readers since 2:22 with rhetorical implications, they are now able to encounter him (and the Father) “realistically” as the disciples did. It is the Paraclete who brings to the readers such remembrance of Jesus who is both in the narrative past and out of the narrative, encountering readers in their real world. With the Paraclete, they will experience this divine Jesus together with the Father as making a home with them. The Son, the Father, and the Paraclete are then all involved in this deeper apprehension. In 15:26–16:15, the further elaborated work of the Paraclete continues to point to the apprehension of Jesus in the post-resurrection era. The Paraclete testifies with the disciples and through him the disciples are to remember Jesus’ prophecy of their persecution. He convicts unbelievers of their unbelief and guides believers into all the truth about Jesus. All this Jesus has foretold so that, when it happens, their faith may be deepened and their Paracleteguided reflection could take place. Readers, whether believing or unbelieving, are able to experience the Paraclete’s work. Even their apprehension of Jesus, when they attempt to understand GJohn, is also interpreted as involving the work of the Paraclete (bearing witness, convicting, and guiding). Thus, we see John’s rhetorical strategy in facilitating readers’ interactions with what happened inside the narrative (Jesus–the promised Paraclete–disciples) and

146

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

outside it (the living Jesus–the available Paraclete–readers) via John’s remembered account. In 16:25–33, the last section of John 13–16, we see Jesus’ prophecy that the disciples’ faith would generate a loving relationship that promises further apprehension shown in prayer, echoing 13:1; 14:15–31; 15:26–16:15. Yet, with the out-of-pace profession of their basic knowledge of Jesus’ omniscience and “belief” in his origin (their knowing and believing being similar to the characters in John 1–4), the response of the disciples regarding Jesus’ promised deepened apprehension is anticlimactic. Although their faith expressed is correct, they cannot adequately comprehend Jesus’ deepened message in chapters 13–16. Their failure strikes the readers as they are similarly challenged regarding their faith in Jesus, especially when they can freely experience the work of the Paraclete unlike the disciples at that narrated moment. In 17:1–26, I assert that the prayer of the Johannine Jesus is aimed at speaking to the readers. Beyond mere acquisition of facts, eternal life is defined as “knowledge” of God and Jesus, which is meant to be a knowing in faith, even a more personal/relational knowing. Stating that the disciples’ basic apprehension is achieved, Jesus intercedes for them so that they can persevere and be equipped to further engender apprehension of Jesus in others. The unity of future believers is also supplicated for the sake of Jesus’ faith-engendering purpose and God’s love for the world. Jesus also wants his believers to be with him and see his glory that he had before the world existed. The prayer ends with restating the world’s not-knowing status, Jesus’ knowing relationship with the Father, and the believers’ yet-to-be deepened apprehension which is promised through further fostering in the Father’s love. With John’s rhetorical strategy used, readers are left with Jesus’ promise of further making known the Father’s name as they finish reading/hearing Jesus’ prayer. Through the form of prayer, apprehension of Jesus is now conveyed in a more personal way, with an intended impact on the readers still. 2. Intended Impact on the Readers From the above synthesis, we see how John, while not forsaking his faithengendering purpose, also seeks to promote a deeper apprehension of Jesus in his believers through use of apprehension vocabulary. With this key aim achieved in this Chapter, I will again turn to discuss more of John’s intended impact for his readers: –What effect did the author hope to have on his readers by depicting the characters’ apprehension of Jesus in John 13–17? –How is Jesus’ own apprehension of spiritual reality relevant to the readers’ perception about apprehension of Jesus?

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

147

–What did the author tell his readers in attempting to help them understand the role of the signs and words of Jesus in their apprehension of Jesus? –For the readers, how can apprehension of Jesus without faith be possible/impossible? a) Readers’ Understanding of the Characters’ Apprehension of Jesus and John’s Writing Purpose In John 13–17, we see a shift of emphasis of the characters, from unbelieving ones to the disciples. Through the narrative and Jesus’ discourse, the characters’ apprehension of Jesus is impressed on readers’ minds. First, as already seen in John 10–12, believing characters such as the disciples, Martha, Mary, and Lazarus are challenged to a deepened apprehension. Their portrayals seem intended to create a desire for readers to learn about this deeper apprehension. In chapters 13–17 where the disciples are mainly the focus, their ignorance concerning Jesus (e.g. Peter, Judas, Philip, and Thomas) continues to bring to the readers an effect of stirring a desire to learn. Issues like what these characters hear of Jesus’ message and how they respond, Jesus’ teaching on the Paraclete, and the Johannine remembrance, are set to create an impact on the readers.44 As the anticlimactic plot towards the end of John 13–16 shows, the readers know well that the disciples were not able to achieve a deeper apprehension at the narrated moment without the Paraclete. However, standing from a post-resurrection perspective, the readers face a very different situation. In taking the narrative realistically, the readers know that the Paraclete has been made available to everyone who believes, including themselves.45 We have seen this in our previous discussion. Based on both John’s “remembrance” language (2:17–22; 12:16) and the Paraclete’s assured help regarding such remembrance (14:26; 16:4), the text of the GJohn, the present record of Jesus, can be understood as the disciples’ interpreted version as remembered/attested. The perceptive readers, especially Christian ones, are thereby encouraged to take this as the text for their own deeper apprehension of Jesus, especially when they know that they also have the Paraclete. Unlike the disciples (and the author), the readers are not eyewitnesses of the events narrated. However, assisted by the same Paraclete, they too are able to be guided into “all the truth” (16:13) via the Paraclete-inspired GJohn. Therefore, the unprecedented disclosure of Jesus himself promised in chapters 13–17 now becomes a possible reality in textual form, that is, in the text of GJohn. Committed to what Jesus teaches, the readers can “know” and “see” Jesus and the Father (14:7–9); they can have the 44

To use Tolmie’s word, readers are guided to “accept a comprehensive ideological perspective on discipleship.” Tolmie, Farewell, 227. 45 Thus, readers go beyond merely recognising the irony of the disciples’ failed “confident claim” in understanding Jesus (16:30). Contra Ibid., 220.

148

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

Son and Father abiding in them (14:23). Such an effect on the believing readers’ minds is profound. 46 All these benefits of “direct apprehension” and intimate relationship are not accessible to non-Christian readers. As a result, an intended effect that makes the Christian readers feel privileged and the non-Christian ones jealous is created, both aiming at soliciting faith in Jesus, the sole writing purpose of John. Apart from how readers would perceive the characters’ apprehension of Jesus, Jesus’ evangelistic sayings do continue to play a role in shaping readers’ apprehension of Jesus, similar to that in John 1–12. Jesus’ evangelistic endeavours toward his audience are never discarded in John 13–17. Whether through the “I am” declarations accompanying pithy constructions (14:6; 15:1–2, 5 cf. 10:9, 11, 14; 11:25), or more indirect overtones (14:31; 17:3, 21b), readers are regularly called to come to faith.47 Furthermore, in John 13– 17, the showing of Jesus’ love to the unknowing world time and again reminds readers of the non-sectarian nature of the concept of apprehension of Jesus. Jesus’ love and mission to the world simply cannot be kept in a closed circle. Thus, these two points, Jesus’ evangelistic sayings and love to the world, evidently are supposed to have resonance with non-believing readers. Although non-Christian readers do not appear to be John’s chief target here, Jesus’ words still form an appeal to them. In view of the above, John’s dual writing purpose, faith-engendering and fostering, with its variations of emphases throughout different stages of apprehension of Jesus along the plot of GJohn, is apparent as this monograph argues. b) Readers’ Understanding of Jesus’ Own Apprehension In Chapter 3, I highlighted that Jesus’ omniscience and the proleptic and anticipated fact of Jesus’ resurrection both work closely together to generate a profound impact for the readers’ apprehension of Jesus, forcing them to think that the Jesus narrated is both divine and alive in their world. In the transition chapters John 10–12, such omniscience is coupled with his omnipotence (12:37–43). In John 13–17, it is conveyed in a more personal/relational

46

Thus, I concur with Tolmie’s findings, based on his literary approach, that “the interaction between the implied author and implied reader in John 13:1–17:26 is not only aimed at guiding the implied reader deeper into faith into Jesus Christ, but also at guiding the implied reader into understanding what discipleship really entails in order to persuade him/her to act accordingly.” Ibid., 191. 47 Furthermore, the missionary aspect of John 17 is also noted in Schnelle, Johannes, 259–60; Zumstein, Jean 13–21, 185; Moloney, Love, 132. Note also Moloney’s comments that “all the love commands directed to the disciples in the Gospel and to the readers/hearers of the Gospel are missionary.” Ibid., 206.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

149

manner, expressed both explicitly and implicitly and is syntagmatically connected to “relational” vocabularies. The farewell discourse and the events preceding it are well planned by Jesus because he knows his hour has come and he loves his own even to the end (13:1). He knows Judas’ betrayal and Peter’s denials.48 Being the true vine, all he has heard from the Father he has made known to his “branches” because they are his “friends” (13:15). He knows his disciples’ inner thoughts and what will happen to them in his absence; yet he promises that their sorrow will be turned to joy and he declares that he has overcome the world (16:19–22, 32–33). In his last prayer, though he concludes that he has manifested the Father’s name to his disciples, he knowingly prays also for the future believers. He further promises to make known the Father’s name in the future (17:6, 20, 26). All these reveal that Jesus’ own apprehension, depicted in a profoundly personal/intimate way, is for the sake of his believers’ interest. Such a caring attitude of Jesus is likely intended to strike the readers in a deeper way than before as they are aware that this Jesus has been glorified and is still alive. This strategy of creating an impression of a living and caring Jesus is backed up in two ways. First, at the end of Jesus’ public ministry, the assumed fact of Jesus’ resurrection, hand in hand with the remembrance language, appears again (12:16) as in the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (2:22). The strategic insertion not only frames Jesus’ entire public ministry as I have pointed out in Chapter 4 but it also introduces the current phase of apprehension. John’s remembrance invokes an authoritative and interpretive understanding of Jesus’ life which takes his resurrection for granted by transposing the insights from the later resurrection event back to this present narrated time. Thus, the entire life of Jesus, though past, is relevant to the readers as Jesus is still alive (cf. 16:4). Second, as we have noted in the farewell discourse, the stress on the fact that Jesus will manifest himself to the disciples is explained by his promise that he and his Father will “come” to any believer and “make a home” with him (14:21, 23). This assertion before his glorification is stunning yet purposeful. In a special sense, Jesus is neither “seen” in his resurrection within the narrative, nor in his future Parousia, but in the “present”-ness upon reading GJohn (without thereby negating these other events). Perceptive readers thereby expect the “presence” of a living Jesus beside them while they read/hear his very words as remembered by the author.49 This impression is further reinforced by the portrayal of Jesus’ omniscience in relational terms 48

According to Tolmie, Jesus is used by the implied author to “focalise the future,” in order to illustrate that Jesus is the Son of God. But this alone fails to see the importance of Jesus’ omniscience in affecting characters’ apprehension of Jesus. Tolmie, Farewell, 202. 49 This constant rhetorical impact is unfortunately missed in Mussner, Sehweise, 44.

150

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

throughout John 10–17 and it will be anchored in readers’ minds and will guide their further reading. Such an impact on the readers, through this unique presentation of the divinely apprehended Jesus who is relevant to them, is more intensely underscored in chapters 13–17 than in 1–9. Thus, it is this portrayal of Jesus that makes John 13–17 almost overshadow Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is also this rhetorical design of John that explains why the pre-resurrection Jesus appears as if he has already been glorified.50 c) The Role of Words in the Perception/Apprehension of Jesus In John 5–12, we noted that seeing signs at times helped to lead characters to faith and at times not; the same applies to hearing Jesus’ words. In John 13– 17, the same pattern continues, though no sign is seen now. Jesus’ words have their role but also limited functions in the process of apprehending Jesus. In John 5–12, the failure of Jesus’ signs and words to solicit faith involves inner issues of perception within the audience. In chapters 13–17, the key is neither the person nor his inner disposition per se, but has to do with an external agent, the Paraclete. Only with his work will the true meaning of Jesus’ signs and words, even in narrated form, be able to be retrieved. Furthermore, in John 5–12, while not rejecting the value of signs, readers’ attention is redirected from taking signs as the criterion for faith to an alternative criterion: seeing/perceiving Jesus as being what signs point to (6:22–71). Now, through the emphases of chapters 13–17, it is clear that this seeing Jesus means seeing God. This redefined apprehension is brought by the Paraclete in the post-resurrection era. Thus, signs and words without losing their functions in pointing towards Jesus, are now subsumed under the category of the Paraclete. In addition, the Paraclete’s role, with the remembrance language used (14:25–26; 15:20; 16:4, 21), is to encourage readers’ application of Jesus’ words and deeds (signs) to their own life situation. This is coherent with the proximity with the teaching on prayers and on the disciples’ future persecutions to be faced (15:18–16:28). Thus, although the Paraclete’s role is indispensable for John’s composition of Jesus’ message in GJohn as scholars claim,51 this runs only secondary to the Paraclete’s primary role in GJohn in affecting readers’ apprehension of Jesus. From the rhetorical perspective of 50 Seeing this intention of John to depict a living Jesus revealing himself to the reader, scholars’ criticism, that the farewell discourse erroneously depicts Jesus as if already suffered and glorified in a pre-resurrection setting, could be solved; for instance Harold W. Attridge, “Temple, Tabernacle, Time, and Space in John and Hebrews,” Early Christianity 1, no. 2 (2010): 266. John finds himself in a fully legitimate position to put the farewell discourse not as purely and merely speaking to the disciples before Jesus’ glorification, but also speaking to his readers by a divine Jesus who is alive. 51 See Chapter 1, section B.5.

E. Summary

151

John, the Paraclete is the chief agent to engage readers into John’s story of Jesus, to serve his writing purpose through Jesus’ signs and words. d) The Role of Faith in One’s Perception/Apprehension of Jesus In John 1–4, I have argued that belief distinguishes insiders from outsiders whereas, in 5–9, unbelief distinguishes outsiders from insiders. In chapters 10–12 and 13–17 as shown in my analyses, this belief/unbelief is given a theological explanation: Jesus’ omnipotence and the Paraclete. Faith is crucial, but behind it is the Paraclete who engenders and fosters the deepening apprehension (14:26; 16:8–15); it is Jesus who blinded people’s eyes and hardened their heart (12:37–43). Jesus’ power and the Paraclete are the hidden factors behind readers’ ostensible believing/unbelieving choice. From the perspective of the deepened apprehension in John 13–17, without faith, readers merely hear of Jesus’ love for believers but cannot experience it. They are alienated from being God’s flock and the branches of the vine. Jesus’ humble feet washing, his omniscience displayed, his caring love and exhortation for the sake of his disciples, and even his final personal prayer, are all inapplicable to them. Reinforced with these intimate aspects of apprehending Jesus which I have shown in this Chapter, the indelible memory of Jesus and the rhetorical impression left that he is always present with the readers is intended by the author to strike readers’ hearts in its unique way. All these themes demonstrate the necessity of faith, both in the sense of coming-to-it and growing-in-it. To those who lack faith, their acquaintance of the more relational apprehension could bring an inevitable question to their mind: Why does it matter to Jesus to love them (his followers/the readers) even to the point of death? This faith impact will be more intensely felt in John 18–21. The message has already left, and will yet leave, an indelible impression upon readers’ minds.

E. Summary E. Summary

My aim in this Chapter is to show that John 13–17 represents a deepening apprehension of Jesus for the readers. I have shown in my narrative overview that even though the same apprehension vocabulary is used as in chapters 5–9, concepts of seeing, hearing, knowing, witnessing, remembering, and believing in John 13–17 apparently receive a deeper connotation as they collaborate syntagmatically with terms denoting a close and loving relationship with Jesus. From the selected passages for deeper exegesis, I discussed John’s persuasive strategy to convince readers that, with the promised Paraclete, they are now able to encounter Jesus (and the Father) “realistically” as the disciples did (a re-definition of apprehension of Jesus; 14:1–26). By facilitat-

152

Chapter 5: Phase III Deepening Apprehension (John 13–17)

ing readers’ interactions with what happened inside the narrative and outside it, John shows how an apprehension of Jesus is possible in the postresurrection era (15:26–16:15) which is contrasted with the disciples’ out-ofpace profession of their basic knowledge of Jesus in the narrative (16:25–33). Finally, in the form of a final prayer, John 17 has the effect of crystallising Jesus’ message to the readers in a personal way, summarising to them the basic apprehension of Jesus narrated and an ongoing apprehension promised beyond the narrative story. With the results of these analyses, I further evaluated John’s intended impact on the readers. First, the portrayal of believing characters in John 13–17 manifests the dimension of Jesus’ love towards his followers, which also shows how rudimentary their faith is in knowing Jesus personally. In John 13–17 which concerns the disciples only, there is still an impact on both Christian and non-Christian readers. The relational stress on faith and the Paraclete drives readers to the awareness that such a remembered record of Jesus could be the text used for their own deeper apprehension. These benefits of “direct apprehension” and intimate relationship, together with Jesus’ continued evangelistic sayings and love to the world are intended to appeal profoundly to both Christian and non-Christian readers. Second, Jesus’ own apprehension continues to play a role in shaping readers’ apprehension in John 13–17. Jesus’ omniscience, caring as well as the proleptic mention of his resurrection force the readers to think that the Jesus narrated is both divine and alive. This is accomplished in two ways. The connected use of remembrance language and the highlighted fact of Jesus’ resurrection combine to signal to the readers that the remembered Jesus is not past but “present.” This is now further supported by Jesus’ promise of manifesting himself, and that he and his Father will “come” to and “make a home” with the believers. These promises are intended to reinforce for readers the “presence” of a living Jesus. Coupled with the portrayal of Jesus’ omniscience in personal/relational terms, such an impression will be anchored in readers’ minds and guide their further reading. This also explains why the pre-resurrection Jesus in John 13–17 appears as if he has already been glorified. Third, on the role of Jesus’ signs and works, John 13–17 continue to reveal that Jesus’ words at times help to lead characters to (a deeper) faith but at times not (though no sign is seen here). Now, building upon it, the key to a desired apprehension of Jesus is no longer outward signs or words, not even a person’s inner dispositions, but the Paraclete. It is he who makes the narrated signs and words effective in readers’ minds. Furthermore, the stressed exhortation on seeing/perceiving Jesus as being what signs are pointing to in chapters 5–9 is now further explained as the work of the Paraclete, who will help readers to experience the abode of Jesus and the Father with them. It is this

E. Summary

153

Paraclete who encourages readers’ application of Jesus’ words and deeds (signs) to their own life situation. Lastly, we saw in John 1–9 that, without faith, the true significance of Jesus cannot be grasped. John 13–17 disclose further development. The Paraclete, together with Jesus’ omnipotence (John 10–12), also play a role behind a person’s decision to believe. Without faith, he/she cannot enter into the relational core of knowing Jesus. To those lacking faith, the awareness of such an intimate relationship leads to the question: Why does it matter to Jesus to love them (me) even to the point of death? Reinforced with the intimate aspects of apprehending Jesus which I have shown, the indelible memory of Jesus and the rhetorical impression left that he is always present with the readers is intended to strike readers’ hearts in its unique way. All these demonstrate the necessity of faith, both in the sense of coming-to-it and growing-in-it. This intended impact on the readers will be advanced in the next phase of apprehending Jesus. With these findings in mind, I will turn to John 18–21, the climactic disclosure of apprehending Jesus on the cross and in his resurrection.

Chapter 6

Phase Four: Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21) Jesus’ death and resurrection, already highlighted at different apprehension stages (stated in the initial stage, centred on in the subsequent encounters, and a central theme in the deepening stage), would not be a surprise to readers when they start reading John 18. On a superficial reading, readers may wonder why John spends four chapters1 describing how this happens. Bultmann, for instance, claims that the Johannine resurrection “cannot be an event of special significance.”2 But from another perspective, we will notice that John 18–21 represents an essential part of the narrative about apprehending Jesus that the characters have to go through and that readers need to ponder. From the point of view of the plot of GJohn, John 18–21, immediately following Jesus’ prayer (John 17), represents the climax. 3 Dodd rightly comments that “we find in the story of the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ a σηµεῖον on the grand scale.”4 Back in 2:18–22, we already noticed an implicit sign of raising the temple “in three days” which points to these chapters.5 The previous signs in GJohn, according to Dodd, are signs of this climactic victorious event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Thus, “the cross is a sign, but a sign which is also the thing signified.”6 Accordingly, Dodd’s words are clear enough to respond to comments which see Jesus’ death and resurrection as merely “a token of something other than itself.”7 1

Almost one fifth of GJohn. Bultmann, Theology, 2:56. 3 E.g., Jean Zumstein, “L’interprétation johannique de la mort du Christ,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett et al., 3 vols., BETL 100 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2119–38. 4 Dodd, Interpretation, 438. 5 See Chapter 3, section B.3.c. 6 Dodd, Interpretation, 439. For a similar view as Dodd’s, see Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary, 336; Nicol, Sēmeia, 115; Barrett, John, 65; Carson, John, 661; Hans-Christian Kammler, “Die ‘Zeichen’ des Auferstandenen, Überlegungen zur Exegese von Joh 20,30–31,” in Johannesstudien: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des vierten Evangeliums, WUNT 88 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996), 191–211; Sungjin Bae, “Jesus’ Resurrection as the Climactic Semeion in the Fourth Gospel” (PhD dissertation, Louisville, KY: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008); Michaels, John, 1021. 7 Barrett, John, 78. For scholars who similarly reject Jesus’ death and resurrection as a σηµειον, Brown, John-II, 1059; Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Seventh Johannine Sign: A Study in John’s Christology,” BBR 5 (1995): 87–103. 2

A. Use of Apprehension Vocabulary

155

In this Chapter, I will show how a climactic apprehension of Jesus, via the vivid account of Jesus’ death and resurrection, is presented to both the characters in the narrative and the readers. Furthermore, through this last apprehension phase, I will argue that the interaction between the narrator/author and the readers is heightened. This will be shown through analysing three selected passages, 19:28–42; 20:1–31; and 21:15–25.

A. Overview of the Use of Apprehension Vocabulary A. Use of Apprehension Vocabulary

Based on the semantic clusters identified in Chapter 2, the distribution of apprehension vocabulary is illustrated as follows. Table 13: Distribution of the apprehension vocabulary (John 18–21) Jesus’ arrest and trials (18:1–19:16a)

Jesus’ crucifixion and the BD’s witness (19:16b-42) Resurrection: the seeingand-believe mode revisited (20:1–29) The two conclusions and the events inbetween (20:30–21:25)

Key terms οἶδα (18:2, 4, 21; 19:10), ὁράω (18:21, 26; 19:4, 6, 14), ἀκούω (18:21, 37; 19:8, 13), µαρτυρέω (18:23, 37), γινώσκω (19:4) ὁράω (19:26 [2x], 27, 33, 35, 37), οἶδα (19:28, 35), µαρτυρέω (19:35), µαρτυρία (19:35) βλέπω (20:1, 5), οἶδα (20:2, 9, 13, 14), θεωρέω (20:6, 12, 14), ὁράω (20:8, 18, 20, 25 [2x], 27, 29 [2x]), πιστεύω (20:8, 25, 29 [2x]) πιστεύω (20:31 [2x]), οἶδα (21:4, 12, 15, 16, 17, 24), ἀκούω (21:7), βλέπω (21:9, 20), γινώσκω (21:17), ὁράω (21:21), µαρτυρέω (21:24), µαρτυρία (21:24)

Extended list of related terms µαθητής (18:1 [2x], 2, 15 [2x], 16, 17, 19, 25), ζητέω (18:4, 7, 8), συµβουλεύω (18:14), γνωστός (18:15, 16), ἐν κρυπτῷ (18:20), παρρηςίᾳ (18:20), ἀρνέοµαι (18:25, 27), εὑρίσκω8 (18:38, 19:4, 6), βούλοµαι (18:39), ζητέω (19:12) µαθητής (19:26, 27 [2x], 38), τελέω9 (19:28, 30), πιστεύω (19:35), κρύπτω (19:38) μαθητής (20:2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26), παρακύπτω (20:5, 11), ἀκολουθέω (20:6), ζητέω (20:15), δοκέω (20:15), δείκνυμι (20:20), πιστός (20:27), ἄπιστος (20:27) µαθητής (20:30; 21:1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 20, 23, 24), φανερόω (21:1 [2x], 14), ἐξετάζω (21:12), ἀκολουθέω (21:19, 20, 22), οἴοµαι (21:25)

8 LN27.1: “to learn something previously not known, frequently involving an element of surprise.” 9 LN36.20: “to obey as a means of fulfilling the purpose of a rule or standard.”

156

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

From the above figure, we note that apprehension terms appear relatively evenly across the pericopae, only with a slightly higher concentration towards 20:1–21:25. Among the key terms, it is the seeing terms that are used more prominently and frequently.

B. Narrative Overview of the Development of the Concept B. Development of Concept

John 18–21 contains clear themes from the point of view of plot development. The narrative pace is noticeably different from John 13–17. From a wider perspective, these chapters (18–21) succinctly show the ending of Jesus’ life in a step-by-step manner. In 18:1–19:16a, Jesus is arrested and put to trials; in 19:16b–42 he is crucified and died; in 20:1–21:25 he is raised from the death. An outline is illustrated as following: Table 14: Outline of John 18–21 18:1–19:16a Jesus’ Arrest and Trials –Betrayed and arrested (18:1–11); –Before the High Priest and Peter’s denials (18:12–27) –Before Pilate (18:28–19:16a) 19:16b-42 Jesus’ Crucifixion and the BD’s Witness –Jesus’ last seeing (19:16b-27) –Jesus’ last knowing (19:28–30) –Seeing, testifying, and knowing in the aftermaths (19:31–37) –Jesus’ burial (19:38–42) 20:1–29 Jesus’ Resurrection: The Seeing-and-believe Mode Revisited –Two instances of seeing compared: First trips to the tomb (20:1–10) –Mary sees Jesus (20:11–18) –The Disciples and Thomas see Jesus (20:19–29) 20:30–21:25 The Two Conclusions and the Events In-between –The First-part conclusion (20:30–31) –Appearance to seven disciples (21:1–23) –The Introducing Fishing Event (21:1–14) –Jesus, Peter, and the Narrator: Pastoral Charge (21:15–23) –The Second-part conclusion (21:24–25)

In Jesus’ arrest and trials (18:1–19:16a), the narrative highlights his omniscience and the fulfilment of his own words. While Judas “knows” (18:2) the place where Jesus was to meet his disciples, Jesus “knows all” (v.4) that would happen. 10 At this planned moment, Jesus’ omniscience is explicitly

10 The rare οἶδα/γινώσκω πάντα since the anticlimactic remark in 2:24 is noteworthy (cf. 16:30; 21:17)

B. Development of Concept

157

highlighted.11 Regarding Jesus’ fulfilment of his own words, Jesus’ request to let his disciples go (18:9) is described as fulfilling his own words (6:39; 10:28; 17:12).12 More surprising is the use of πληρόω to refer to this fulfillment, which is primarily used in GJohn for fulfilling scriptures (e.g. 12:38; 13:18). Whether Jesus’ words here refer to 6:39; 10:28; or 17:12, John undoubtedly takes it for granted that Jesus’ words are no different from the scriptures (18:9, 32). This represents a corollary of the claim that apprehension of Jesus is apprehension of the Father. In the trial before the high priest and the “Jews” who had heard of Jesus’ teaching, John reverts to an elementary sense of hearing and knowing (v.21 cf. vv.15, 23, 26). To Pilate, representative of the Roman Empire, Jesus restates his purpose of coming into the world in terms of the kingship motif.13 He is born for the purpose of taking up his kingship (εἰς τοῦτο v.37b) so as to “testify to the truth” (v.37b cf. 1:49). Throughout GJohn, these emphatic statements of Jesus’ mission now receive in this hearing the clearest treatment. 14 The criterion of hearing Jesus’ voice as a sign of belonging to the truth is also underlined (18:36, 37b), bringing to culmination the preceding hearing motif in 5:19–30 and 10:1–21.15 Readers are exhorted to recognise 11 The subtle use of οἶδα, together with the hinted Isaianic ἐγώ εἰµι declarations in 18:5, 6, 8, shows that Jesus, not the prosecuting Pharisees/chief priests, will ultimately overcome (cf. 1:5). The soldiers’ and officers’ sudden drawing back and falling (18:6) ironically foretell such ultimate victory. The ἐγώ εἰµι declarations, according to Catrin Williams, represent the Isaianic pronouncement of God emphasising “his unique power to predict events” as reflected in the fulfilment of Jesus’ prior prophecy. Catrin H. Williams, I Am He: The Interpretation of “Anî Hû” in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, WUNT 2/113 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 294. 12 Strangely, Jesus’ betrayal and arrest apparently fulfill 6:64; 13:11, 21–30 but his betrayal here is not described as a fulfillment. From this contrast, the Johannine Jesus’ seriousness in protecting his own is seen. 13 With a re-punctuation of 18:37b (…βασιλεύς εἰµι ἐγὼ...), Heath argues that it represents Jesus’ last ἐγὼ εἰµι saying and sees substantial exegetical significance in it. Nevertheless, her argument is flawed. Even with the new punctuation, it is still only a report of Pilate’s words (σὺ λέγεις ὅτι βασιλεύς εἰµι ἐγὼ), not Jesus’ own claim. Furthermore, all Jesus’ ἐγὼ εἰµι sayings in GJohn appear in the sequence ἐγὼ εἰµι, none is in εἰµι ἐγὼ. Jane Heath, “‘You Say That I Am a King’ (John 18.37),” JSNT 34, no. 3 (2012): 232–53. 14 Through the interplay of these representatives from the two kingdoms, the concepts of testimony and truth are now put into the spotlight. 15 In 5:19–30, we already noted “a collapse of time” regarding “hearing” Jesus’ voice, namely, the (physical/spiritual) dead will hear (aural-hearing/obeying) Jesus’ judging voice both in his time and in the future (5:25, 28, 37). In 10:1–21, the flock’s “hearing” (auralhearing/obeying) the shepherd’s “voice” (10:3, 16, 27) reflects an intimate and mutually apprehending relationship. “Hearing” Jesus’ “voice” functions as a desired response from those who have positively apprehended Jesus (πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ ταῆς ἀληθείας 18:37). Hearing/obeying speaks of a spiritual reality that Jesus insists on proclaiming. Even in this

158

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

and obey Jesus’ voice, the king of truth of a spiritual realm. Facing “the King of the Jews,” the judging Pilate is portrayed as uncomprehending and powerless, even though Pilate shows more knowledge than “the Jews” regarding Jesus’ innocence.16 In the crucifixion scene (19:16b–42), upon Jesus’ death, the impact of this “sign” is immediately conveyed. As I will show in the exegetical analysis, with an interconnected use of seeing, testifying and knowing terms, the narrator’s/BD’s observed facts and their theological significance (vv.31–37) conclude the crucifixion scene. For the first time, the narrator/BD is explicitly interacting with the readers (v.35c). With Jesus’ death, the disciples’ evangelistic mission (15:26–27) begins. Later in the narrative, we have in the last scene Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus showing up for Jesus’ burial, reflecting their decisive believing stance upon apprehending Jesus’ death. In Jesus’ resurrection account (20:1–29), we see that true seeing and knowing happen only when one encounters the risen Jesus with the aid of the promised Paraclete (20:22). Seeing the Lord, the disciples begin to know Jesus from a more personal aspect (Mary Magdalene, Thomas, and Peter). Among them, Thomas experiences the deepened apprehension of Jesus in proclaiming his divine identity. At the same time, readers are further engaged as Jesus commends believing without seeing which reflects Jesus’ concern for future believers. In the concluding part of GJohn (20:30–21:25), we see a two-part conclusion with events laid in-between the parts. In 21:1–23, the tranquil scene continues to show Jesus’ omniscience and care.17 As I will show in the exegetical analysis, a renewed and deepened apprehension of Jesus takes place as Peter makes a climactic vow of loving Jesus and a confession of his omniscience. Jesus’ repeated call to follow him reflects a new dimension of meaning for the believing motif. Bracketing this concluding message are the two part conclusions. The first-part (20:30–31) shows how John interacts with his readers through the believing motif while the second-part (21:24–25) shows how John emphasises the authenticated composition of GJohn through the knowing and testifying motifs.

moment leading to death, hearing his voice remains Jesus’ concern. The familiar ἀκούει µου τῆς φωνῆς (18:37) thus speaks powerfully to the readers 16 Pilate attempts to demonstrate his power to determine Jesus’ destiny (οὐκ οἶδας…; 19:10). Yet, by Jesus’ clarifying that Pilate’s power is actually given from above (v.11a) and by stating that who has “the greater sin” (v.11b) is ironically not something Pilate can judge/decide, Jesus proves him to be “powerless.” 17 In 21:1–14, Jesus’ knowledge of the fish location and his meal preparation remind readers of the same omniscience (v.6) and care of Jesus (v.12a, 13 cf. chapters 13–16) as before his death.

C. Exegetical Analysis

159

C. Exegetical Analysis in Context C. Exegetical Analysis

Three sections, 19:28–42; 20:1–31; and 21:15–25, are chosen for deeper exegetical analysis as well as discussion on the author’s persuasive and rhetorical strategies. Through tracing John’s use of apprehension terms in the vivid account of crucifixion and resurrection, I will show how apprehension of Jesus is also reaching its climax. Through the grand display of this “sign,” readers are all the more invited to engage with what the author presents in light of his dual faith-fostering and faith-engendering purpose. 1. Jesus’ Death, the BD’s Witness, and Its Impact (19:28–42) In the Johannine crucifixion account, the chief priests’ claim that they have no king but Caesar is impressive. This is at odds with their widespread belief that Yahweh alone is king (e.g., 1Sam 8:7) and their earlier denial of having been enslaved (John 8:33). Such kingship motif reaches its (ironic) apex when Pilate writes Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς ταῶν Ἰουδαίων in three languages of the Empire (19:19–20). In the following paragraphs, I will show John’s rhetorical strategy in portraying this kingly Jesus as also the omniscient Jesus, typical of the previous encounters. Then, by inviting the readers to “see” and “believe,” John persuasively brings forth his climactic scriptural reflections and engagement with readers. Jesus’ death event, like the previous encounters, carries an impact on the perception of Jesus. This is shown in the believing responses from characters either previously unknown to readers (Joseph of Arimathea) or nearly forgotten (Nicodemus). a) Jesus’ Last Knowing before Death (19:28–30) In 19:28, while hanging on the cross, the “king” Jesus “knows” that “all” is finished. Τελέω here signifies Jesus’ obedience in fulfilling God’s will.18 By saying “I thirst” to fulfil the scripture, he “knows” that his entire mission is finished (vv.28, 30) as foretold in John 1–17.19 Echoing 13:3 and 18:4 where Jesus’ knowledge always reflects his omniscience, such use of οἶδα in the very last moment of Jesus’ life is no coincidence. All the way from the first pericope till here, Jesus’ omniscience is the backbone of the story. Through this use of knowing terms, Jesus shows himself to be one who manages own his life and knows well the end of his career on earth (cf. 10:18). Jesus’ omniscience signalled here confirms again that Jesus is in charge of each step in the narrative, even up to the point of his death. With this portrayal, readers 18

Cf. LN36.20. Beasley-Murray notes that both the temporal and theological senses of τελέω are intended here as the crowning conclusion of Jesus’ work on earth. Beasley-Murray, John, 353. 19

160

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

are faced with a picture of Jesus who is now fulfilling what he has prophesised before on his departure, both in chapters 13–17 as well as 5–12. b) Seeing, Testifying, and Knowing in the Aftermaths (19:31–37) Having highlighted Jesus’ omniscience even to the point of his death, through analysing John’s persuasive strategies in 19:31–37 relating the aftermath of Jesus’ death, I will discuss (1) John’s use of the apprehension terms concerning 19:35 (its placement and interaction with readers), (2) the significance in quoting OT to portray a both human and divine paschal Jesus, and (3) the believing motif’s interconnectedness with seeing, knowing, and witnessing motifs. Firstly, after Jesus’ death, he is described in two instances with seeing terms. In 19:33, the soldiers “see” that he has already died, which is why his legs were not broken. In v.35, an “eye”-witness 20 “testifies” (ὁ ἑωρακώς µεµαρτύρηκεν) 21 concerning the piercing of Jesus’ side. Both events are mentioned as fulfilling the scriptures (vv.36–37).22 The author backs up the authenticity of the happenings, not only by recording the events themselves as fulfilling OT prophecies, but also by inserting the narrator’s comment in 19:35. The comment, ἀληθινή αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ µαρτυρία, καὶ ἐκεῖνος23 οἶδεν ὅτι ἀληθῆ24 λέγει (v.35b), with its double use of truth language, func20 This eyewitness is best identified as the BD (Brown; Schnelle; Léon-Dufour; Zumstein) though Michaels prefers it to be anonymous; other alternatives: the soldier or one of the thieves (Minear). Brown, John-II, 936; Paul S. Minear, “Diversity and Unity: A Johannine Case-study,” in Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie: Festschrift für Eduard Schweizer, ed. Ulrich Luz and Hans Weder (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 162–75; Schnelle, AntidoceticChristology, 209; Léon-Dufour, Jean, 4:165; Zumstein, Jean 13–21, 259; Michaels, John, 973–74. 21 For discussion on the perfect tenses used here, see Tam, “John 19:35,” 129–33. 22 Exod 12:10; 12:46; Num 9:12; Ps 33:21 (LXX); Zech 12:10. For the water and blood effused bringing the Spirit, life, and the paschal motif to its culmination, see Larry Paul Jones, The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John, JSNTSup 145 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 214–17; Wai-Yee Ng, Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation, Studies in Biblical Literature 15 (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 93; Tam, “John 19:35,” 138–42. 23 There are debates on the referent of ἐκεῖνος. But Mardaga has convincingly shown that ἐκεῖνος most naturally resumes αὐτοῦ which points back to ὁ ἑωρακὼς, i.e. the BD. See Hellen Mardaga, “The Use and Meaning of Ἐκεῖνος in Jn 19,35,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 20 (2007): 67–80. 24 For the false Greek-vs-Hebraic dichotomy on the ἀλήθεια vocabulary, see Tam, “John 19:35,” 64–119; Elizabeth W. Mburu, Qumran and the Origins of Johannine Language and Symbolism, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 8 (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 36–96. Cf. the similar veracity claim in Ign. Trall. 9 (ἀληθῶς vs. καταψεύδοµαι [10]) and Ign. Smyrn. 1–2.

C. Exegetical Analysis

161

tions to denote the extraordinary truthfulness and veracity of the subject matter.25 This is all the more striking when we see that 19:35b is intentionally placed right after the eyewitness part (v.35a), but before John goes on to the theological explanation part (vv.36–37), a feature often unnoticed by Johannine scholars. From the perspective of apprehension of Jesus, this represents the veracity of Jesus’ words and works being vouched for; and this is in accord to what we have noticed throughout GJohn (2:13–22; 12:12–19; 13:19; 14:26; 16:4; 18:9, 32), especially from John’s use of remembrance terms. Readers have seen the characters’ testimonies about Jesus (chapters 1–4, 9, and 11–12), Jesus’ own testimony (chapters 5–9 and 18), his promise of the Paraclete’s testimony, and his command for the disciples to testify (15:26–27). Now, upon Jesus’ death, there is the final realisation of what is pointed to repeatedly. The eyewitnessing BD, in the voice of the narrator, comes out to testify about Jesus, reminiscent of the first disciples’ testimonies.26 Yet, this is not merely another occasion of a disciple’s testimony, because throughout 1:1–19:34, it is Jesus or the characters in the narrative who bear witness (or show their knowledge to other characters). Now, for the first time, the narrator, “a veiled self-reference” to the author,27 is making a claim explicitly to the readers that he sees, bears witness, and knows. This eyewitness claim is directed to the readers through the purpose clause ἵνα καὶ ὑµεῖς πιστεύ[σ]ητε 28 (19:35c). Through connecting the intended readers and the 25 One can even argue that by using such asseveration language, John actually attempts to differentiate his work from that of Greco-Roman historians who make up details sometimes. John purports to describe the real world. Of course, the narrative’s claimed circumstantial accuracy should not be confused with actual circumstantial accuracy. Lincoln’s doubt on the actual circumstantial accuracy should not be taken to mean that the author could not have expressed such intention (via 19:35 and 21:24), or readers should not understand the author in such a way. Lincoln, “Truth Claims,” 197. Seen in this way, Lincoln’s idea that GJohn contains fictive elements, based on its genre as ancient biography in which fictive elements often exist, is not as convincing as it appears. As ancient biographies and historiographies overlap flexibly, even Lincoln admits that it is disputed that for some historiographies, there could be a clear “borderline between fiction and reality,” let alone my suggested understanding of John’s veracity claim here. Lincoln, Truth, 371–78. Cf. the critique of Smith, “Review of Truth on Trial,” 225. Thus, David Beck argues rightly that the veracity claims (19:35; 21:24) are essential to the “narrative success” in fulfilling John’s purpose. David R. Beck, “‘Whom Jesus Loved’: Anonymity and Identity: Belief and Witness in the Fourth Gospel,” in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John, ed. Christopher W. Skinner, LNTS 461 (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 238. 26 While the concept of witness is apparent there (see Chapter 3, Table 3), John deliberately reserves the use of witnessing terms by the disciples until now (cf. Jesus’ command in 15:27). See my observation in Chapter 2, section B.4. 27 Lindars, John, 589. 28 As in 20:30–31, both the aorist subjunctive πιστεύσητε and present πιστεύητε have important textual support though NA28 lists more later supporting manuscripts for

162

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

eyewitness by “you too” (καὶ29 ὑµεῖς), the narrator has paused the flow of the narrative and intervenes from the past state of affairs of the literary world into the “present” world of the readers.30 With this special arrangement, John’s faith-engendering/fostering appeal is made most explicit now. The readers are persuaded to place their faith in John’s integral account of reported fact and interpreted significance of Jesus’ death.31 πιστεύσητε than NA27. The papyri are silent here. Fee puts î66vid as supporting πιστεύσητε but this is unjustified since, for the ΠΙΣΤ[ΕΥ{Σ}ΗΤΑ]Ι, there is no ascertained way to determine what characters lie between “ΠΙΣΤ” and the ending “Ι” on two widely separated scraps. Gordon D. Fee, “On the Text and Meaning of John 20,30–31,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett et al., 3 vols., BETL 100 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 3:2194–95. Brown, representing the majority of scholars, prefers the present πιστεύητε and thereby argues for “a continuation and deepening of faith.” Brown, John-II, 937; Schnackenburg, John-III, 3:463n.88; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 219; H.N. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 622; Morris, John, 726n.104. But Carson and others have convincingly pointed out that the tense itself could not be used to prove the faith-fostering/engendering purpose based on John’s usage. Most notably, it does not make sense in 6:29 and 17:21 to see the present subjunctive of πιστεύω as faith-fostering and the aorist as faithengendering in 11:15 and 14:29. Carson, “Purpose”; Carson, John, 662; Carson, “Purpose II,” 705–8; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 582; Skinner, Thomas, 74–75. Alternatively, if the verbal aspect theory is correct, I suggest that some scribes may have attempted to modify the present πιστεύητε, denoting an internal reference point within the action in proximity, into an aorist in order to soften the obtrusiveness of the second person πιστεύητε to the narrative plot. 29 Omission of καὶ in some late manuscripts is incomparable to its overwhelming presence in earlier ones. 30 Rigorously speaking, this is the world of the “implied readers” as denoted by the text. See my Chapter 1, section A. Lincoln rightly asserts that the BD functions as a literary device to connect what is within the story line with what is without. Lincoln, “Beloved Disciple,” 19; Lincoln, John, 481. But note that the term “literary device” does not disprove/prove the event’s historicity. 31 Thus, this “seeing and testifying” is linked to “believing and confessing;” nevertheless they are not “equivalent” as Lincoln claims. Similarly, Casey rejects an eyewitness tradition here and treats “seeing” as “perceiving” through Scripture. Maurice Casey, Is John’s Gospel True? (London: Routledge, 1996), 190; Lincoln, “Beloved Disciple,” 25–26; Lincoln, John, 481. However, the asseveration of 19:35, as I argue, covers both factual observation and theological significance. Thus, Samuel Byrskog aptly considers that “seeing [here] takes on a significance that transcends the specific event to which it primarily refers, without thereby loosing [sic] its character of real sensual perception.” Dodd also comments that “to brush aside this cumulative asseveration is temerarious in any critic.” See Dodd, Historical Tradition, 134n.1; Beutler, Martyria, 46– 47; Eugen Ruckstuhl and Peter Dschulnigg, Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage im Johannesevangelium: die johanneischen Sprachmerkmale auf dem Hintergrund des Neuen Testaments und des zeitgenössischen hellenistischen Schrifttums, NTOA 17 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 52–54; Samuel Byrskog, Story as History-History as

C. Exegetical Analysis

163

Secondly, the use of OT here also deserves notice, especially for thoughtful readers. Highlighting the scriptural fulfilment (Exod 12:46; Num 9:12; Psa 33:21 [LXX]), John shows that Jesus is the paschal lamb and the righteous sufferer such that his bones, as required for the Passover lamb, are unbroken.32 In 19:37, the figurative piercing of Yahweh in Zech 12:10 is now taken as fulfilled literally in Jesus’ being pierced in his side. While the catchword connections are piercing (νύσσω 19:34; ἐκκεντέω 33 v.37) and seeing (ὁράω34 v.35, 37), the identity of the one pierced and looked upon is crucial. Congruent to what I have argued in reference to 12:41, John sees in the person of Jesus Yahweh of the OT. This is again the case here. In Zechariah, the one being “pierced” and who will be “looked upon” (‫ )נבט‬in the end-of-times is Yahweh.35 But John takes this future seeing and piercing as fulfilled literally in Jesus himself at the time of his death.36 The eschatological seeing now happens and the one being looked upon is now Jesus (cf. the

Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History, WUNT 123 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 237; Tam, “John 19:35,” 142–59. 32 For further details on these two quotations, Maarten J.J. Menken, “The Old Testament Quotation in John 19,36: Sources, Redaction, Background,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett et al., 3 vols., BETL 100 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2101–18; Menken, OT-Quotations, 148–59; 168–78. 33 The κατορχέοµαι in LXX is deliberately not followed. 34 In emphasising the importance of piercing, Bultmann and others neglect the role of ὁράω. John purposely uses ὁράω in the quotation instead of ἐπιβλέπω (LXX). Bultmann, John, 677n.3; Barrett, John, 559; Lincoln, John, 482. The importance of ὁράω is briefly noted in Brodie, John, 554; Zumstein, Jean 13–21, 261; Schnelle, Johannes, 319. But see Léon-Dufour, Jean, 4:174–75. 35 See e.g., Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC 32 (Dallas: Word, 1984), 279; Thomas Edward McComiskey, “Zechariah,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), 3:1214; Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 505. Menken rightly notes that LXX changed the piercing idea to avoid the problem of anthropomorphism. Maarten J.J. Menken, “The Textual Form and the Meaning of the Quotation from Zechariah 12:10 in John 19:37,” CBQ 55, no. 3 (1993): 494–511. Regarding John’s change of MT’s first person pronominal suffix of ‫ אלי‬following ‫ נבט‬to third person εἰς ὃν, Bynum argues that it reflects John’s intention to “hold Jesus’ humanity and divinity in creative tension, without drifting into a form of docetism or resolving the issue into a facile identity of Jesus with God that would minimise his humanity and his suffering.” Wm. Randolph Bynum, The Fourth Gospel and the Scriptures: Illuminating the Form and Meaning of Scriptural Citation in John 19:37, NovTSup 144 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 177. But ὃν might have been simply accommodated to suit the third person αὐτοῦ in 19:36, without altering MT’s understanding. The first person reference has clear attestation in MT, LXX, Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate. 36 For the sense of realized eschatology here, see Menken, OT-Quotations, 184.

164

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

idea of showing and seeing the Father in 14:6–7, 9–10). 37 Thus, after the portrayal of Jesus as king in 18:33–19:22, Jesus is now at once the paschal lamb, the righteous sufferer, and the pierced Yahweh. This theological significance, with the reported observation (19:34), is the “truth” that John “knows” and “testifies.” This makes the interruption of v.35, separating vv.36–37 from vv.32–34, understandable and necessary for the readers.38 The narrator’s/BD’s observed facts and theological significance are the indispensable revelatory element ending the crucifixion scene (vv.31–37) on which John wishes his readers to ponder. Thirdly, the believing motif here (19:35) launches John’s key concern in this apprehension phase (John 18–21). This works together with the seeing motif in 19:35–37. In 19:16b–42, Jesus’ death scene is a picture that the readers are to see through the BD’s eyes. As the scene unfolds, the BD is both the event’s eyewitness and the one who narrates it. Facing his truth claim and whether to accept his testimony (v.35b), readers are encouraged to identify with him and “see” what he saw, such that they can also come to faith/be strengthened in faith. In this final scene where Jesus’ lifting-up is finally realised,39 seeing has a close relationship with believing and that is the sense of ὄψονται εἰς ὃν (adapting Zech 12:10). The eyewitness’ “seeing” (ὁράω) is linked to Zechariah’s “looking upon” (ὁράω εἰς). Hence, “seeing” Jesus’ sign (crucifixion) can lead one to faith and the whole process is summarised by the depiction “looking upon” Jesus (19:37 cf. 3:14; Num 21:8). The BD “saw” the actual scriptural fulfilment and persuades readers to “believe.” Such belief is also what “looking upon” Yahweh implies in the context of Zech 12:10–13:1. The house of David and Jerusalem’s inhabitants in their repentance are now embodied in the testifying disciple and his readers. In “seeing” as the BD did, the readers join with him not only in participating in the crucifixion scene but also “believe” as he does.40 Be the readers Christians or non-Christians, they can equally feel the persuasion.41 Consequently, 37

This also echoes the OT theme that Yahweh remains the true king of Israel, the Johannine passion narrative’s key theme also. But one should note that the Johannine Jesus, in claiming his divine identity, is never confused with the Father. Cf. my discussion on 12:37–43 (esp. p.125n.76). 38 Brown and Bultmann have extensive discussion on the nature of editorial additions here but these do not explain the function of 19:35 in GJohn’s final form. Brown, John-II, 945–46; Bultmann, John, 678. In rejecting the addition theory, 19:35; 20:30–31; 21:24–25 are taken as three graded conclusions in Brodie, John, 553. 39 Foretold in 3:14; 8:28; 12:32–34. 40 Given my argument based on ὁράω (19:35, 37) and its relation to the believing motif here, the “look on” in v.37 does not to refer to seeing the risen Jesus in John 20. Contra Menken, OT-Quotations, 182–83. 41 If the context (Zech 12:10–13:1) behind the quotation (John 19:37) shows that “looking upon” Yahweh brings repentance to “the Jews,” to the readers, whether they are

C. Exegetical Analysis

165

the concept of seeing and believing is now subtly connected through the interaction between the eyewitness/narrator in the narrative, readers out of the narrative, and the scripture in the past. This believing motif also works together with the knowing and witnessing motifs in John 19:35. The extraordinary veracity expressed through ἀληθινή αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ µαρτυρία, καὶ ἐκεῖνος οἶδεν ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγει as we argued in the first point of this sub-section represents the BD’s confidence and conviction through his use of οἶδα. This confidence about the testimony’s truthfulness encompasses both the factual (vv.32–34) and theological truth (vv.36–37), just as Jesus’ signs testified to in chapters 1–12 encompass both factuality and theological meaning. Furthermore, the knowing and testifying motifs used by Jesus in chapters 1–17 are now handed over to the BD as Jesus died. For the first time, the BD now speaks of what he “knows” and “testifies” of what he has seen, just as Jesus did in 3:11.42 In view of the overall plot and the intended author-reader interaction, this is a significant turning point in terms of the concept of apprehension. With Jesus’ death, the disciples’ evangelistic mission appointed by Jesus (15:26–27) begins, not within the storyline, but in the framework of the narrator/author towards his readers. Further to our argument above, we can say that perception of Jesus, elaborated through the use of seeing, knowing, testifying, and believing motifs is brought to a new phase signalled by 19:35. By way of narratives in chapters 1–18, these motifs speak indirectly to the readers through Jesus’ interaction with the characters in the narrated events. By way of the Johannine monologues (1:1–5, 9–18; 3:16–21, 31–36) and the various “I am” statements accompanying the pithy constructions (ἐάν τις/τις/ὁ plus the participle form of πιστεύω/believing terms), these motifs speak more directly to the readers via the voice of the narrator outside the storyline and via Jesus’ universalistic proclamations targeted to a general audience. Now, by way of an interruption in Jesus’ death account, the same motifs speak most directly to the readers, in a quasi-face-to-face manner. The phenomenon mentioned above betrays John’s unique concern to bring forth a desired apprehension of Jesus, a concern which reveals itself gradually and cumulates tactically in 19:35. In sum, while a climactic apprehension of Jesus is shown vividly in the context of crucifixion, readers are persuaded through the use of the characteristic set of apprehension terms which has been familiar to them. The interruption of 19:35 not only backs up the authenticity of the happenings to the readJews or not, the faith-engendering appeal is then even stronger (though believing readers can also be strengthened in acknowledging such scriptural fulfilment). 42 …ὃ οἴδαµεν λαλοῦµεν καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαµεν µαρτυροῦµεν, καὶ τὴν µαρτυρίαν ἡµῶν οὐ λαµβάνετε. The resonance of concepts pertaining to telling, knowing, seeing, witnessing, and believing/receiving is striking when one compares 19:35 with 3:11. Thus, the BD cannot be a “bystander,” claims Brant, Dialogue-Drama, 196.

166

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

ers (eyewitness), but also buttresses the theological significance of Jesus’ death: Jesus is at once the paschal lamb, righteous sufferer, and pierced Yahweh, on top of being “the King of the Jews.” For the thoughtful readers, the eschatological “seeing” promised in Zechariah has now happened and the divine Yahweh being “looked upon” is now Jesus. 19:35 also strikes the readers by addressing them directly for the first time through ἵνα καὶ ὑµεῖς πιστεύ[σ]ητε. They are thereby encouraged to identify with the BD, to participate in the event, and to respond to the narrator’s testimony and invitation to believe/“look upon” Jesus (seeing and believe). Via this odd but strategic placement and the narrator’s unusual intrusion into the “world” of readers, the BD’s eyewitness testimony and conviction (knowing) are communicated to the readers in a climactic way unseen previously in GJohn.43 c) Jesus’ Burial (19:38–42) Jesus’ burial is characterised by the appearance of two surprising characters, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. Though possibly hinted at 12:42, the secret disciple Joseph comes from nowhere in GJohn. The narrator only tells us that he follows Jesus secretly for fear of “the Jews” (19:38). Never after this pericope will we see him again. At this moment, he comes forth to take Jesus’ body for an appropriate burial (an important concern in an honour-andshame culture). With him comes Nicodemus (3:1–15; 7:45–52), neither of whom are Jesus’ kinsmen. Yet, Jesus’ death gives them courage to disassociate themselves from “the Jews” and the Sanhedrin. In so doing, they no longer remain neutral with regard to their apprehension of Jesus. Joseph had never expressed his faith before; Nicodemus’ unbelief was criticised by Jesus (3:12). But seeing Jesus being “lifted up” on the cross, fulfilling what Nicodemus heard in 3:14 and what Jesus foretold in chapters 5–17, they now openly bear a disciple’s responsibility to a teacher.44 In contrast to the runaway disciples, not only their courage is seen, but also their astounding respect, in their provision of a staggering 30kg of spice (19:39).45 All these details show that, although no apprehension terms are used here, Joseph’s and Nicodemus’ action reflects their decisive stance upon apprehending Jesus through his death.46 Their stance and courage, as thoughtfully placed this way, strike the 43

Thus, calling 19:35 merely “parenthetical” does not do justice to its full significance here. Contra Byrskog, Story-History, 236–37. 44 A contrast of Nicodemus’ first visit by night and now in full daylight is rightly noted in Beutler, “Faith-Confession,” 24. 45 For the connection of the amount of spice to the kingship theme, see Beasley-Murray, John, 359. 46 Bassler’s view that Nicodemus’ attitude remains ambiguous based on his “inability to see beyond the grave” is tenuous given our stress that characters’ apprehension of Jesus is bound by the plot in which Jesus’ resurrection is yet to be shown. Nicodemus’ change

C. Exegetical Analysis

167

readers. The author has struck a balance in foregrounding the grand display of Jesus’ “sign”/death and his intention to interact with the readers, while at the same time affirming the impact of Jesus’ death to the characters in the narrative. 2. Resurrection: The Seeing-and-believe Mode Revisited (20:1–29) The resurrection account, consisting of pericopae surrounding seeing the resurrected Jesus, reflects the second part of the climactic apprehension after his death. This is outlined as follows: 20:1–10 Mary’s and the disciples’ trips to the tomb –seeing and not knowing; seeing and believing, not understanding the scripture 20:11–18 Mary sees the resurrected Jesus –seeing and not knowing, seeing the Lord 20:19–29 The disciples and Thomas see the resurrected Jesus –seeing the Lord and being sent; seeing and believing the risen Jesus A table showing the use of apprehension terms in the above outline is shown below:

clearly speaks for his faith progression (pace Bennema). See Dschulnigg, Jesus begegnen, 120–21; Nicolas Farelly, “An Unexpected Ally: Nicodemus’s Role Within the Plot of the Fourth Gospel,” TJ 34, no. 1 (2013): 31–43; Craig R. Koester, “Theological Complexity and the Characterization of Nicodemus,” in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John, ed. Christopher W. Skinner, LNTS 461 (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 179–80. Contra Jouette M. Bassler, “Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 108, no. 4 (1989): 642–43; Bennema, Encountering, 82–83; Culpepper, “Nicodemus,” 258–59.

168

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

Table 15: Mary’s and the disciples’ encounter with Jesus (20:1–29) Mary Magdalene (20:1–2) τῇ δὲ µιᾷ τῶν σαββάτω ν (20:1)

Peter and the BD (20:3–10)

Mary Magdalene (20:11–18)

Disciples (20:19– 25a)

Thomas (20:24–29)

/

/

µεθ᾽ ἡµέρας ὀκτὼ (v.26)

Seeing/ hearing

Saw the open tomb (βλέπει v.1)

Weeping and stooped to look into the tomb (παρέκυψε v.11); Saw angels (θεωρεῖ v.12); Saw Jesus (θεωρεῖ 14); Announced that “I have seen the Lord” (ἑώρακα τὸν κύριον v.18)

Knowing

Did not know where Jesus was laid (οὐκ οἴδαµεν v.2)

[BD] Stooped to look, saw the linen cloths (παρακύψ ας βλέπει v.5); [Peter] Saw the linen cloths (θεωρεῖ v.6); [BD] Saw and believed (εἶδεν καὶ ἐπίστευσε ν v.8) Did not know the scripture (οὐδέπω γὰρ ᾔδεισαν v.9)

ὀψίας τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ τῇ µιᾷ σαββάτων (v.19) Glad when they saw the Lord (ἰδόντες τὸν κύριον v.20); Told Thomas that “we have seen the Lord” (ἑωράκαμε ν τὸν κύριον v.25a)

Believing

/

Temporal marker

[BD] Saw and believed (εἶδεν καὶ ἐπίστευσε ν v.8)

Did not know where Jesus was laid (οὐκ οἶδα v.13); Did not know that it is Jesus (οὐκ ᾔδει v.14) /

Replied that he will never believe unless seeing and placing his finger into Jesus’ nail marks and his side (ἐὰν µὴ ἴδω... v.25b); Jesus invited Thomas to do the same (ἴδε... v.27); Jesus commented that he believed because of seeing (ἑώρακάς µε... 29a); blessed are those not seeing but believe (οἱ µὴ ἰδόντες... v.29b)

/

/

/

Will never believe unless seeing Jesus’ marks (… οὐ µὴ πιστεύσω v.25b); Jesus exhorted not to be unbelieving but believe (µὴ γίνου ἄπιστος

169

C. Exegetical Analysis

Witnessing/con fessing messianic titles

Ran to tell Peter and BD about her lack of knowledg e (v.2)

[went back to home]

Went and announced to the disciples that she has seen the Lord (v.18)

Told Thomas that they have seen the Lord (v.25a)

ἀλλὰ πιστός v.27); Jesus commented that he believed because of seeing (…πεπίστευκας); blessed are those not seeing but believe (…πιστεύσαντες v.29b) Exclaimed “my Lord and my God!” (v.28); Cf. the conclusion in vv.30–31 for “Christ” and “the Son of God”

In the following paragraphs, I will first make my exegetical observations; the analyses are left to the final concluding section. I will show that these pericopae reflect a continuation of elements/patterns from the previous apprehension phases. Yet, Jesus’ resurrection, fulfilling his earlier promise, brings in new apprehension for the characters within the narratives, and subsequently the readers, the new generation who encounter Jesus in a different way. a) Two Instances of Seeing Compared: First Trips to the Tomb (20:1–10) When Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb the next day and “sees” the empty tomb (βλέπω 20:1), she acts like the first disciples or the Samaritan woman in John 1–4: She ran and told the disciples. This is reminiscent of the testifying concept in 1:29–51 and 4:19, 28 where witnessing terms are also not used.47 Yet, without an encounter with Jesus, her knowledge is nothing. To readers who have been informed of Jesus’ resurrection back in 2:22, her report sounds senseless: she assumes Jesus’ body was taken away and does not “know” where they have laid him (20:2). In contrast, the BD’s response is more positive. Along with Peter, he also goes to the tomb. He “sees” (βλέπω v.5) with Peter (θεωρέω v.6) Jesus’ linen cloths; 48 he goes in, “sees” and “believes” (v.8). 49 The attribution of πιστεύω to the BD alone makes sense when readers are aware that he remains the privileged eyewitness to the event. His faith, being more advanced 47

Cf. Ruschmann, Maria, 232–35; Ignace de la Potterie, “Genèse de la foi pascale d’après Jn. 20,” NTS 30, no. 1 (1984): 33. 48 For the unnecessary reading that takes Peter as competitive with the BD, see Kevin Quast, Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis, JSNTSup 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 101–26; Blaine, Peter, 105–26. 49 For how seeing contributes to faith here, see further de la Potterie, “Jn. 20.”

170

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

than Mary’s in vv.1–10, is however limited as he may only have a vague (and partial) understanding of 14:28–29 that Jesus has gone to the Father and will come again to them. This explains why even he goes home without testifying about Jesus. This mist of a vague faith originates in not “understanding” the scripture,50 as the author deliberately states in 20:9.51 For readers who have listened to Jesus’ message in the farewell discourse, it is not difficult to understand that knowing the truth is to be granted by the Paraclete, whose time has not yet come.52 Thus, although we observe the BD’s “seeing and believing,” in contrast to Mary’s “seeing and not knowing,” the belief is imperfect (still not knowing fully); a breakthrough is awaited.53 This portrayal of a lack of understanding of scripture, even of the BD, is purposeful. It tells the readers of their privileged status, both in view of the account of GJohn and the availability of the Paraclete. To the readers, it is essentially such lack of understanding that differentiates what is in the narrative and what is out of it.

50

Τὴν γραφὴν should be a general reference to the OT; cf. 1Cor 15:4; Luke 24:25–27. Moloney and others claim ἡ γραφή that refers to GJohn itself. Yet there appears insufficient evidence to prove that John is consciously writing scripture, only that Jesus’ words are on a par with it. Andreas Obermann, Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium: Eine Untersuchung zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der Schriftzitate, WUNT 2/83 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996); Francis J. Moloney, “The Gospel of John as Scripture,” CBQ 67, no. 3 (2005): 454–68. 51 Note that οὐδέπω γὰρ ᾔδεισαν... indicates a lack of understanding for both disciples. Based on this, some are suspicious about the BD’s faith (Augustine; cf. the copyist of Codex Bezae who added οὐκ to ἐπίστευσεν [20:8]). Some treat v.9 as a gloss (Bultmann). Some, despite the awkwardness of v.9, consider his faith an example of believing without seeing (cf. v.29) (Borchert, Lincoln, Zumstein). Some consider v.9 as related to Mary and Peter only (Schnackenburg). Others consider such faith relates only to believing Jesus’ return to the Father, which is only part of 14:28–29 (Michaels). Taking v.8 and v.9 together, it is best to take them as emphasizing the disparity between one’s faith and one’s incomprehension about the Scripture (Beasley-Murray). This makes the most sense in view of my discussion here. Bultmann, John, 685; Barrett, John, 468; Schnackenburg, John-III, 3:313; Beasley-Murray, John, 373; Borchert, John-II, 296; Lincoln, John, 490–91; Zumstein, Jean 13–21, 273; Michaels, John, 993. 52 Cf. 15:26; 16:13; 17:17. This echoes 2:22 where the idea of “believing” scripture is also set in a post-resurrection era. 53 Our analysis of the reason why BD lacks understanding solves the problem of the superficially “unstable” characterization noticed by Colleen M. Conway, “Speaking Through Ambiguity: Minor Characters in the Fourth Gospel,” BibInt 10, no. 3 (2002): 324–41. Tuckett’s view that John criticises a believing based on seeing here is also unnecessary. Christopher Tuckett, “Seeing and Believing in John 20,” in Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. Boer, ed. Jan Krans et al., NovTSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 180.

C. Exegetical Analysis

171

b) Mary Sees the Risen Jesus (20:11–18) With Mary’s return to the tomb, she also “stoops to look” (v.11) into it as did the BD (v.5). This time she “sees” (v.12) angels and expresses the same lack of knowledge as before (v.13). Then she “sees” Jesus but again “not knowing” that it is he (v.14). Only after Jesus personally calls her name (v.16) does she recognise him. This scene echoes strongly with the language used in 10:3 (τά πρόβατα ταῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούει καὶ ταὰ ἴδια πρόβατα φωνεῖ κατ᾽ ὄνοµα). Hearing the resurrected Jesus’ voice, Mary turns from “not knowing” to knowing; sorrow is turned to joy, fulfilling what Jesus prophesied in 16:16–22 the previous phase of apprehension. Her testimony is seen in her going to the disciples again (20:18 cf. v.2), reporting what Jesus has commanded 54 about his anticipated ascension (v.17). 55 But this time she claims that she has “seen the Lord” (v.18), a term readers have not encountered since John 16. Encountering Jesus carries an impact to the characters, as it did in previous phases, whether it is the pre-resurrection Jesus or the risen Jesus. c) The Disciples and Thomas See Jesus (20:19–29) If Mary’s experience involves grief, the disciples’ experience involves fear, fear of the unbelieving “Jews” (20:19 cf. 19:38). Jesus’ sudden appearance brings them peace and joy as they “see” “the Lord” (20:20), fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy again (16:16–22). Jesus breathes out the Holy Spirit and commissions them as God’s agents to forgive or retain sins (20:23). The disciples, like Mary (v.25a cf. v.18), testify the news of “seeing the Lord.” But in contrast to them, Thomas still has not seen the resurrected Jesus. He remains the subject of the narrative in vv.25–29. As v.25 notoriously

54 Note that Jesus’ commissioning of Mary µή µου ἅπτου… πορεύου δὲ… echoes his sending the disciples in 20:21. The emphasis is on the latter. This does not imply criticising a relationship with Jesus based on tangible evidence; contra Tuckett, “John 20,” 182. Rather, Mary is the pioneering Easter witness; Gail R. O’Day, “The Gospel of John: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck, vol. 9, 12 vols. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1994), :302. 55 Lincoln here notes that Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension are “all stages in the one event of glorification and together constitute the one hour of glory.” Andrew T. Lincoln, “‘I Am the Resurrection and the Life’: The Resurrection Message of the Fourth Gospel,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 131. Yet it seems that the ascension account is deliberately omitted despite ἀναβαίνω being used. We have no evidence that in the subsequent appearances it must be the ascended Jesus. Rather, as will be shown in my analysis, the risen Jesus, through these pericopae, is preparing his disciples for his ascension, a time after which he will no longer be seen and apprehended in the way he used to be.

172

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

shows, Thomas makes “seeing” and touching (v.25)56 the criteria to believe in Jesus’ resurrection (ἐὰν µὴ... οὐ µὴ πιστεύσω), a pattern which Jesus discouraged in 2:23–25; 4:48; 6:25–40. In 2:23–25, those who see signs and believe may not have a genuine faith. In 4:48, the Galileans and the royal official are rebuked for taking signs as “the” criterion for faith.57 In 6:30-40, Jesus proposes an alternative criterion for faith: seeing him, the bread of life, instead of seeing signs. But here in chapter 20, the resurrected Jesus, being the “sign” and life in himself, the “life”-giver (cf. 20:22), deliberately answers Thomas’ request by showing himself eight days later. With Jesus’ omniscience concerning Thomas’ request, Jesus does not refuse to prove the veracity of his resurrection. Thus, while seeing “sign(s)” should not be the criterion for faith, Thomas is simply asking Jesus to fulfil what he has promised in 16:16–24. Jesus’ appearance results in a drastic change for Thomas. This change, in terms of Thomas’ apprehension of Jesus, remains a matter of a more central concern than his seemingly unreasonable request.58 Interpreted this way, we then see that 20:26–29 carefully comes with a faith-fostering purpose as the previous sign narratives do. By inviting Thomas not to become “faithless” but “believing” (v.27)59 but to see and touch him, Jesus restores this fragile character. As a result, Thomas’ ὁ κύριός µου καὶ ὁ θεός µου (v.28) reflects a perceptive and believing apprehension for John’s readers. Facing the bodily risen Jesus evokes a deepened faith, a faith that acknowledges Jesus’ true divine identity. This is aptly “the supreme 56 It is unlikely that Thomas’ request here should be read as sarcastic. Contra Bonney, Caused-to-Believe, 160. Given seeing Jesus again is a clear prophecy of Jesus which Thomas clearly heard, it makes more sense to see it as a realistic request, demanding firsthand proof. 57 Note especially the very similar wording ἐὰν µὴ σηµεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἴδητε, οὐ µὴ πιστεύσητε. 58 Note that seeing Jesus’ wounded hands and side is what other disciples have experienced (20:20 cf. v.25). Thomas is just requesting the same experience. Lincoln and Carson rightly claim that the traditional “doubting Thomas” designation is misleading. Lincoln, John, 502–3; Donald A. Carson, “Is Faith in Christ Without Evidence Superior Faith? A Re-Examination of John 20:29,” in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner, ed. I. Howard Marshall, Volker Rabens, and Cornelis Bennema (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 110–11. Contra Bultmann, John, 695–96; Bonney, Caused-to-Believe, 159–60; Larsen, Recognition-Scenes, 209. 59 Thomas’ “unbelief” rests on the news of Jesus’ resurrection. He insists on verifying this. Thus, he may only have faltered in his journey of faith without turning into total unbelief (Wenz, Barrett, and Thompson; contra Brown, Moloney, and Skinner) such that Jesus exhorts him not to “become” unbelieving (µὴ γίνου ἄπιστος. Barrett rightly sees γίνου as “to show oneself…”). Helmut Wenz, “Sehen und Glauben bei Johannes,” ThZ 17, no. 1 (1961): 17–25; Barrett, John, 476; Brown, John-II, 1026; Thompson, Humanity, 75; Francis J. Moloney, Glory Not Dishonor: Reading John 13–21 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998), 176; Skinner, Thomas, 70.

C. Exegetical Analysis

173

Christological pronouncement of the Fourth Gospel.”60 Because in John 1:1– 5, the monologue proclaims that Jesus was with God and was God; in 12:41 and 19:37, from the narrator’s perspective, the scriptures testify about Jesus’ earthly activities that God is seen in him. Now, with the clearest evidence that he not only overcomes death but accomplishes what he knowingly prophesied, the fragile and uncomprehending disciple (cf. 11:16; 14:5) finally understands that Jesus is God.61 Moreover, Jesus is his God. The double personal µου (20:28 [2x]) reinforces this dramatic relational confession as uttered by a character in the narrative for the first time. 62 Together with Mary Magdalene’s earlier experience, we can see that the more relational sense of apprehending Jesus promised in chapters 10–17 is now being realised. This relational aspect will also be followed up in 21:15–23. 63 Seeing Jesus leads Thomas to be πιστός as he apprehends the glorified Jesus now. Such divine identity of Jesus, having been disclosed through scriptural interpretations and in the Johannine monologue, is for the first time recognised by a character within the narrative. What has been apprehended by the narrator/author is finally grasped by the disciple back in the narrated time. But this climactic apprehension does not stop at merely recording Thomas’ deepened faith. After restating his belief upon seeing Jesus (20:29),64 Jesus 60 Brown, John-II, 1047. Moloney raises a caution that scholars may have over-read John for criticizing emperor worship. “The confession is not against something, but a final affirmation of the Christology.” Moloney, John 13–21, 177n.76. If Moloney’s caution is apt, the same applies to many possible over-readings of GJohn as referring to issues in a Johannine community. 61 To use Larsen’s words, “in Thomas’ vision, the signifier and the signified have merged.” Larsen, Recognition-Scenes, 210. 62 This more personal/relational conception of Jesus is the key concern of 20:24–29, rather than criticizing the way Thomas comes to faith. See Bonney, Caused-to-Believe, 172. Contra Farelly, Disciples, 127. 63 It is essentially these two encounters (with Thomas and Peter) that together play significant roles in this phase of apprehension which I will follow up in the section on 21:15–23. If, for the Thomas pericope here, “a focus on Jesus gains ascendancy over a focus on Thomas” as suggested by Bonney, the same is true for the Peter pericope (21:15– 23). 20:19–29 is not the only climax of John’s Christological narrative (contra Bonney). Bonney, Caused-to-Believe, 2. 64 It is controversial whether ὅτι ἑώρακάς µε πεπίστευκας (20:29b) should be treated as a question (NA28, NRSV, ESV, NASB, Bernard, Borchert) or a statement (KJV, NIV, REB, Schlatter, Brown, Barrett, Schnackenburg, Carson, Judge, Michaels). Taking it as a question could lead to an understanding of rebuke of some kind, which appears less likely given the general tone of John 20 and the fact that almost all characters here, like Thomas, believed on account of seeing Jesus. Bernard, John, 684; Brown, John-II, 1027; Schlatter, Johannes, 362; Barrett, John, 573; Schnackenburg, John-III, 3:334; Carson, John, 659; P. J. Judge, “A Note on Jn 20:29,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett et al., vol. 3, BETL 100 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2184–85; Borchert, John-II, 317; Michaels, John, 1019.

174

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

reminds him that those who have not “seen and yet believe” (v.29c) are blessed. Based on the tone used,65 readers can easily discover that they are also the ones being addressed. Superficially, it looks like a critique of all kinds of believing through seeing, encouraging a faith that does not require seeing.66 But Jesus’ words actually describe the situation of the future believers who no longer see Jesus, a situation with which readers will immediately find solidarity. Jesus merely distinguishes the future believers (readers) from the first believers (Thomas, the BD, and even Mary Magdalene) and addresses the future believers by saying that they are blessed even though they are not able to see the then ascended Jesus (and his signs) as the first believers did. 67 The fact that Jesus blessed the future believers does not necessarily imply that the faith of the first disciples is inferior. Rather, the distinction drawn signifies forcefully John’s rhetorical strategy to engage his readers. Thus, this confirms our previous analysis that John, though not rejecting the value of signs, is urging a faith that is based on “seeing” the narrated signs in the text and “hearing” the narrated words of Jesus.68 This shift of emphasis to the readers in v.29, a distinctive feature of this phase of apprehension (cf. 19:35), is no coincidence and will be seen more clearly in 20:30–31. d) Concluding Remarks As I contend, John 18–21 is a special “sign” for GJohn’s readers. After its accomplishment, we first see from 20:1–10 and vv.11–18 a basic pattern of “seeing” pointers to Jesus’ accomplished resurrection and yet not “knowing,” until one “sees” the resurrected Jesus face to face. Even the BD’s faith, though in line with the experience of believing characters in John 1–17, is not the superb faith in its fullest sense without help from the Spirit of truth (16:13 cf. 17:17). Thus, the critique in 20:9 is not odd from the perspective of appre65

Pithy/aphoristic constructions of ὁ+participle. E.g., Tuckett, “John 20,” 175; Moloney, Love, 175n.32. But contra Hahn, “SehenGlauben”; Schnelle, Antidocetic-Christology, 170. 67 Similarly, Dorothy A. Lee, “Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalene and Thomas in John 20,” JSNT 58 (1995): 47–48. 68 Carson rightly highlights that the tension here lies in the grounds of faith between the first generation of believers and subsequent ones. I add that John does not merely show this contrast but also persuades readers of the importance of “seeing” the narrated signs. Carson, “John 20:29,” 113–14. See also Bennema, Encountering, 167. For a similar stance as mine but focusing only on BD’s seeing-and-believing, Brendan Byrne, “The Faith of the Beloved Disciple and the Community in John 20,” JSNT 23 (1985): 83–97. Thus, that “korrigiert er [the Evangelist] die überlieferte Glaubensvorstellung” is highly unlikely; Haenchen, JohEv, 574. Furthermore, this seeing is not a seeing in spite of the absence of Jesus. The Johannine Jesus is consistently portrayed as resurrected and being able to be “present” with the readers as I argue in this monograph. Contra Larsen, RecognitionScenes, 216. 66

C. Exegetical Analysis

175

hension of Jesus. True seeing and knowing happen when one encounters the risen Jesus with the promised Paraclete’s help (20:22). This is consistent with what Jesus taught in John 13–17. The development of the narrative is now getting closer and closer to the “world” of the readers where Jesus is risen and the Paraclete is readily available. This represents John’s persuasive strategy in this apprehension phase in narrating Jesus’ resurrection. Second, previous patterns of apprehending Jesus are repeated in these chapters. For Mary Magdalene and Thomas, the process of knowing Jesus involves a personal and intimate aspect, echoing the deepening apprehension in John 13–17. Both Mary and the ten disciples testify upon encountering Jesus though the µαρτυρέω language is not used (20:11–23), echoing the pattern in chapters 1–4. These statements underscore the point that encountering (the resurrected) Jesus changes the characters’ lives, as in pre-Easter episodes (e.g., the Samaritan woman, the royal official, and the blind beggar). Furthermore, a resurrected Jesus proves John’s (previous) testimony true; the earthly Jesus in GJohn’s storyline is now demonstrated to be the living (and omniscient) Jesus. He whom John presents in the narrated story is now risen and is beyond the boundaries of the story. Third, encountering the resurrected Jesus marks the realisation of a deepened apprehension of Jesus. As the encounters culminate in the Thomas pericope, Jesus’ omniscience is reflected with clear faith-fostering/renewing purpose. Thomas’ climactic proclamation that Jesus is his Lord and God, being thoughtfully portrayed by John, reflects the apex of the result of this apprehension. Nonetheless, a further aspect is still waiting from his fellow disciple, Peter, in John 21. Finally, an awareness of John’s intention to interact with the readers would help to solve some of the supposed contradictions or tensions in the episode and more widely in GJohn. Superficially, references to the importance of seeing in John 20 seem to be contradictory to Jesus’ “beatitude” of believingwithout-seeing in 20:29, the episode’s high point. But as I argue, the seeingand-not-seeing contrast corresponds to the contrast between “disciples” in the narrative and the future “disciples” in the readers’ world, which prepares for 20:30–31. Apparently addressing the readers, John urges that those who are no longer able to see the risen Jesus can still believe. In their doing so, John says, they are more blessed. Thus, the text subtly invites the readers to interact with the narrative. And the readers are to respond to this invitation to believe in Jesus without physically seeing him. This mode of seeing and believing in 20:29 represents another strategy to facilitate interactions between the text/narrative and the readers along the development of the plot. Such an overt engagement with the readers is also what makes John 18–21 climactic and unique.

176

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

Therefore, contrary to many scholars, statements such as “the Easter stories add nothing new”69 to GJohn cannot be true. Jesus’ resurrection account plays a significant role in GJohn, especially when one looks at it from the perspective of apprehension of Jesus. 3. The Two Conclusions and the Pastoral Charge (20:30–31; 21:15–23, 24–25) John 20:30–31 is almost universally considered as the conclusion to GJohn and many treat John 21 as a later addendum/epilogue. With the more recent developments in literary approaches,70 many now consider John 21 as part of the literary whole of GJohn. 71 In light of this, I propose that 20:30–21:25 could be seen as a unit framed by two conclusions. An outline for the purpose of our analysis is set as follows:

69 Bultmann, John, 634–35. Similarly, Dodd, Interpretation, 441–42; Fortna, Predecessor, 187. 70 Paul S. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” JBL 102, no. 1 (1983): 85–98; Willem S. Vorster, “The Growth and Making of John 21,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett et al., vol. 3, BETL 100 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 193–205; Welck, Erzählte Zeichen, 279–344; R. Alan Culpepper, “Designs for the Church in the Imagery of John 21:1–14,” in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, ed. Jörg Frey, Jan Gabriël Van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 200 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 369–402; Michaels, John, 1024. For further bibliography, see Moloney, John 13–21, 182–84. 71 And some even suggest that John 21 is the conclusion to GJohn. Fernando F. Segovia, “The Final Farewell of Jesus: A Reading of John 20:30–21:25,” Semeia 53 (1991): 167–90; John Breck, “John 21: Appendix, Epilogue or Conclusion?,” SVTQ 36, no. 1 (1992): 27–49; Léon-Dufour, Jean, 4:254; Frey, Eschatologie I, 446–51; Thyen, JohEv, 200; Bauckham, Testimony, 271–74; Gilbert Van Belle, “L’unité littéraire et les deux finales du quatrième évangile,” in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes. Festschrift für Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Andreas Dettwiler, ATANT 97 (Zürich: Theologischer, 2009), 297– 316. Brodie takes 19:35, 20:30–31, and 21:24–25 as a three-part conclusion. I argued that 19:35 prefaces the latter two such that the three together provide a framework for GJohn to be read as “a gospel of truthful witness.” Brodie, John, 572–73; Tam, “John 19:35,” 165– 79. Bauckham prefers to call 20:30–31 and 21:24–25 “two stage conclusion” and 21:1–23 “a narrative epilogue.” Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 364–68.

C. Exegetical Analysis

177

A. 20:30–31 The first-part conclusion –many signs Jesus did and not written, writing signs and believing B. 21:1–23 Jesus’ third appearance to the disciples 1. 21:1–14 The fishing event –from not knowing Jesus to knowing the Lord (BD, Peter, and the disciples) 2. 21:15–19 Jesus, Peter, and the narrator –love, knowing Jesus’ omniscience, pastoral charge, and following; comparison with BD A’. 21:24–25 The second-part conclusion –witnessing and writing these things; knowing the true testimony; many other things Jesus did and not written a) The First-part Conclusion (20:30–31) John 20:30–31 has been singled out as “the” conclusion by traditional Johannine scholars. In situating it within the present context, I will show that 20:30–31 shows a meaningful use of the believing motif in interacting with readers, which is connected to John 18–21 and the entire GJohn. Both faithfostering and faith-engendering purposes are equally likely to be intended. First of all, µέν οὖν καὶ connects 20:30 to the preceding Thomas pericope in that the emphasis on seeing “signs” is continued. Πολλά… ἄλλα σηµεῖα (20:30) suggests that Jesus’ resurrection and appearances represent one of the signs that he did “in the presence of the disciples,” just like the other signs in John 2–11. They are written for “those who have not seen and yet believe” (20:29).72 Thus, the writing purpose in 20:30–31 addresses the “seeing and believing” concern in the previous pericope by moving from the characters’ apprehension of the risen Jesus to the readers’ own apprehension while stressing the validity/veracity of the signs.73 It also simultaneously addresses the same concern in the entire GJohn where signs permeate.74 Our notion of seeing the narrated/written signs and hearing the narrated/written words apparently applies now. Thus, 20:30–31, as seen in its context, promptly signals its role as a conclusion as the writing purpose is now stated clearly via γράφω.75

72

Thompson, Humanity, 61. Note the use of ἐνώπιον (20:30) to denote the importance of being in the “presence” of the disciples. Ἐνώπιον is used only here throughout GJohn. 74 Contra Roose’s suggestion that σηµεῖα refers only to the two signs in John 9 and 11. My argument on µὲν οὖν καὶ (20:30) speaks against such a reading. Hanna Roose, “Joh 20,30f.: Ein (un)passender Schluss? Joh 9 und 11 als primäre Verweisstellen der Schlussnotiz des Johannesevangeliums,” Bib 84, no. 3 (2003): 326–43. 75 ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραµµένα... ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται. For John’s kanonische Autorität claimed here, see further Klaus Scholtissek, “‘Geschrieben in diesem Buch’ (Joh 20,30)— Beobachtungen zum kanonischen Anspruch des Johannesevangeliums,” in Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium: Festgabe für Johannes Beutler SJ zum 70. 73

178

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

The selected signs are specifically written for the sake of the readers’ faith/apprehension of Jesus, a strategy we have seen time and again in analysing GJohn. Secondly, the author clearly states that the selection of signs has a reason: ἵνα πιστεύ[σ]ητε76 ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν ταῷ ὀνόµατι αὐτοῦ (20:30b–31). This recapitulates the essence of the believing motif, the key theme that goes to the heart of John’s concern. Via the two second-person subjunctives πιστεύ[σ]ητε and ἔχητε, John directly engages with the readers, a significant strategy already used in 19:35. The narrative of the past events is paused and the readers’ “present” world being intruded again. This is to encourage readers to emulate the characters’ faith experience so that they can also acknowledge Jesus as the “Christ” and “the Son of God”77 and subsequently have eternal life. Though to confess the true identity of Jesus/Christ is appropriate for believing readers, it can also represent the desired result of one’s newly coming-to-faith, especially in light of the previous characteristic believing response upon encountering Jesus (1:41; 4:25, 29; 7:41; 9:22; 11:27). In contrast, to have life through believing is relatively more targeted towards non-believing readers, especially when seen in the light of the previous faithengendering uses of ἔχω ζωὴν in 3:15–16, 36; 5:24, 40; 6:40, 47, 54; 8:12; 10:10. Towards the end of GJohn, this faith-engendering purpose echoes strongly with the Johannine monologues 3:15–16, 36 (cf. 1:4) in its beginGeburtstag, ed. Michael Labahn, Klaus Scholtissek, and Angelika Strotmann (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), 207–26. 76 Both πιστεύητε and πιστεύσητε have notable support here. Examining the papyrus, the damaged nature of î66 does not allow us to choose πιστεύητε and not πιστεύσητε (contra videtur in NA28). In î66, only “Η” and the last “Ι” is visible (contra Fee), [ΠΙΣΤΕΥ{Σ}]Η[ΤΑ]Ι, such that the upper stroke identified on the left of “Η” could well be “Σ” or “Υ,” thus rendering πιστεύητε merely a guess. Fee, “John 20,30–31,” 3:2195. For the improper understanding of the faith-fostering/engendering purpose based on tense, see footnote 28. Unfortunately, exegetes are still bound by this outmoded error, for instance, Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, JSNTSup 69 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 359; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 219; Beasley-Murray, John, 368; Lincoln, Truth, 177; Craig R. Koester, “Jesus’ Resurrection, the Signs, and the Dynamics of Faith in the Gospel of John,” in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John, ed. Craig R. Koester and Reimund Bieringer, WUNT 222 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 73n.50. 77 Carson, based on Lane C. McGaughy’s observation on ειναι, takes 20:31 to mean Christ, the Son of God is Jesus, i.e., John aims at persuading readers to believe who the Messiah is (pace Fee). Nevertheless, it should be noted that both ways of treating Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ could be understood as either faith-fostering or faithengendering (contra Carson). Lane C. McGaughy, Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Einai as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek, SBLDS 6 (Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972); Carson, “Purpose”; Fee, “John 20,30–31”; Carson, “Purpose II.”

C. Exegetical Analysis

179

ning.78 Yet, the faith-fostering intention cannot be ruled out. For the believing readers, having life through believing is a constant reminder of their “eternal security” in Jesus (cf. 1John 5:13). In sum, 20:30–31 functions as a conclusion to GJohn in a way that, on the one hand, it addresses the readers in light of the “seeing and believing” concern in the previous context, while, on the other hand, from a wider perspective, it directs readers’ attention to seeing the narrated/written signs (with the associated narrated/written words of Jesus) in the entire GJohn. Through this strategy, John’s dual faith-fostering and -engendering purpose is stated, in order to affect readers’ apprehension of Jesus. b) Jesus, Peter, and the Narrator: Pastoral Charge (21:15–23) Having seen the role of the first-part conclusion (20:30–31) from the perspective of apprehension of Jesus, we jump to 21:15–23, Jesus’ pastoral charge for Peter. Jesus’ appearance to the disciples in John 21 after the first-part conclusion appears redundant to many Johannine scholars. Yet, by shifting the scene to Galilee (21:1), the place where they first met Jesus,79 and by the disciples’ returning to their everyday job as fishermen (v.3), John signals that the earthly encounters with Jesus are almost over; everything is going back to normal; the resurrected Jesus will not be with them in the way he used to be; he will be going to the Father (ascension) as he foretold. Seen in this way John 21, the ending chapter where 21:15–23 belongs, is essentially the beginning of a “new chapter,” both for the characters as well as for the readers. From the following analysis of 21:15–23, I will show that, through Jesus’ reinstatement of Peter, another dimension of the deeper apprehension foretold in chapters 13–17 is started. It is significant to see that, through new turns in the knowing, loving, and believing motifs, another high point is created towards the end of GJohn as Peter acknowledges Jesus’ omniscience and as Jesus commissions Peter. In 21:15–23, the setting of the scene continues from vv.1–13, even though it is interrupted by the narrator’s comment (v.14). The conversation between Jesus and Peter can be summarised as follows:

78 Dodd’s words are worth reflecting on: John “is thinking, in the first place, not so much of Christians who need a deeper theology, as of non-Christians who are concerned about eternal life and the way to it…” Dodd, Interpretation, 9. Similarly C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1967), 103–4; Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 103. Of course, a dichotomy is not necessary here. 79 Cf. 1:43–51; note the repeated mention of Peter and Nathanael.

180

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

Table 16: Dialogue between Jesus and Peter (21:15–23) First round (21:15) Second round (21:16) Third round (21:17– 19)

Fourth round (21:20– 23)

Nature and content Question Σίµων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς µε πλέον τούτων; (v.15a) Peter: Answer ναί κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. (v.15b) Jesus: Commissioning βόσκε ταὰ ἀρνία µου. (v.15c) Jesus: Question Σίµων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς µε; (v.16a) Peter: Answer ναί κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. (v.16b) Jesus: Commissioning ποίµαινε ταὰ πρόβατά µου. (v.16c) Jesus: Question Σίµων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς µε; (v.17a) Narrator’s comment on Peter’s grief (v.17b) Peter: Answer κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε. (v.17c) Jesus: Commissioning βόσκε ταὰ πρόβατά µου. (v.17d) Prophecy Peter’s future foretold (18) Narrator’s clarification on Jesus’s prophecy (v.19a) Jesus: Command ἀκολούθει µοι. (v.19b) Narrator’s introducing the BD who is seen following (v.20) Peter: Question Seeing the BD, he asks of his future (v.21) Jesus: Answer Repeating his command to follow (v.22) Narrator’s comment and clarification on Jesus’s prophecy (v.23) Characters Jesus:

Scholars are well aware that Peter’s famous rehabilitation is marked by Jesus’ threefold test of love which echoes his previous threefold denial. But as the above table shows, these avowals are all prefaced by Peter’s acknowledgment of Jesus’ knowledge (οἶδα 21:15b, 16b, 17c) as much as Peter’s assurances that he loves Jesus. In light of my analysis of the previous uses of οἶδα/γινώσκω, these οἶδας statements can hardly be incidental expressions. Furthermore, Jesus’ questions to Peter about his love are also unusual. Back in the Johannine monologues, God’s love for the world is shown clearly (3:16). In chapters 13–17, Jesus teaches his disciples to love him (14:15, 21, 23–24, 28 cf. 8:42). Yet Jesus never challenges/asks anyone if they really love him.80 Although Peter’s grief is evoked after the third time the question is posed, his final answer is all the more forceful, fully stating that Jesus knows “all” (21:17c). Facing the risen Lord, Peter is well aware that his avowals of love are under Jesus’ omniscience in terms of the future happenings as well as his ability to keep his promise (cf. 2:23–25). With πάντα σὺ οἶδας, Peter apparently has a deepened apprehension of Jesus.81 This culminating statement, together with his reaffirmed love towards Jesus, 80

Even though he assumed it in 16:27. Note that the previous ναὶ κύριε in 21:15, 16 already reflect Peter’s emphatic affirmation of loving Jesus. Cf. the only other use by Martha in 11:27 where she affirm Jesus’ identity. 81

C. Exegetical Analysis

181

remains the basis of Jesus’ pastoral charge which in each of the three rounds he gives to Peter and each time it is given only after Peter’s reaffirmation. Note that this charge to feed Jesus’ sheep is essentially a working out of loving Jesus (cf. 13:34–35). In light of the wider contexts of GJohn, this pastoral charge evidently relates to bearing witness to Jesus through which people’s faith could be both engendered and fostered (cf. 10:16). With this, Jesus makes a prophecy about Peter’s future, demonstrating again his omniscience. Thus, in making a climactic vow of loving Jesus and a confession of Jesus’ omniscience, another pinnacle in GJohn is marked, bringing a climax to the knowing and loving motifs while not dropping the witnessing motif.82 Secondly, other than the significance of the knowing motif, “to follow,” representing the believing motif, is also noteworthy. With Jesus’ prophecy to Peter, he also commands Peter to follow him (21:19 cf. 13:36). Even with a digression on seeing the BD, the command ἀκολούθει µοι is repeated (21:22). Such a command is forcefully reminiscent of the disciples’ initial encounters where they were also invited to “follow” (1:37, 38, 40, 43).83 Yet now, to follow Jesus cannot mean the same to Peter as it did back in Jesus’ pre-resurrection ministry. Further, it is not difficult to recall Jesus’ earlier statements regarding the promised future apprehension in his farewell discourse (esp. the “appearance” in 14:20–21, 23). Bearing these two things in mind, we see that Peter is to follow the glorified Jesus in a new manner. With the climactic apprehension of Jesus in chapters 18–20, the promised apprehension highlighted in chapters 13–17 is now ready to take place as Jesus’ disciple is asked to follow him. This is a new dimension of the believing motif drawing on ἀκολουθέω which apparently has resonance with the readers. Thirdly, towards the end of the pericope, we see a gradual transition of focus from Peter to the BD as seen from the narrator’s preparation for that. Back in his comment in 21:17b, the narrator speaks of Peter’s grief as if he is an insider. In v.19a, this insider clarifies the meaning of Jesus’ words for Peter’s death.84 In v.20, the narrator introduces the BD and reminds readers that he was present in Jesus’ farewell discourse. In v.23, he clarifies the incorrect saying on the BD’s longevity, which presupposes that misunderstanding of the event has had an impact for some.85 In vv.24–25, which will be 82

Thus, Beck’s judgment that Peter’s “obtuseness is not eliminated” remains unpersuasive. Claiming that Peter does not fulfil his entrusted potential through witnessing, Beck fails to see the function of his confession discussed here, especially towards the readers. Beck, Discipleship, 141–42. 83 Note further the repeated use of Σίµων Ἰωάννου (1:42) in 21:15, 16, 17. 84 Cf. Tovey’s term, “‘on the spot,’ eyewitness report.” Tovey, Narrative Art, 140; Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 398–99. 85 John’s veracity concern here refutes Thyen’s insistence that BD is a fictional character, claims Zumstein. Thyen, JohEv, 793–96; Zumstein, Jean 13–21, 315.

182

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

discussed in the next section, this narrating insider is finally identified as the BD and the (implied) author. Through these, we see the author’s well-crafted strategy to progressively link up the conversation between Jesus and Peter with the claim that the BD is both the insider of the story and the author. This strategy is reminiscent of what we have seen in 19:35 and 20:30–31. Preparing for the second-part conclusion (21:24–25), the author evidently paves the way such that the BD, as one character in the narrative, is moving towards becoming the narrator, subsequently the claimed “author” of GJohn. Under this strategy and from the readers’ perspective, it is conceivable that apprehension of Jesus takes place not only in the narrative world (Peter–Jesus–the BD) but also in the world of the author and readers (the narrator/the author– readers). And these two worlds are linked via the BD’s testimony. In sum, from the above analysis, we see that, in 21:15–23, the knowing, loving, and believing motifs are given further significance in light of the context and development of the narrative which has a bearing on readers’ apprehension of Jesus. These include, (1) Peter’s climactic apprehension of Jesus in acknowledging Jesus’ omniscience as well as his loving Jesus as another high point towards the end of GJohn which challenges the readers; (2) a new mode of following Jesus (the believing motif) demanded Peter which echoes the previous stage of apprehension and remains very relevant to the readers; (3) the strategy of shifting the scene from the characters in the narrative towards the narrator, which prepares the way for the second-part conclusion as well as facilitates readers’ own apprehension of Jesus and participation in the narrative. c) The Second-part Conclusion (21:24–25) The narrator’s clarification (21:23) is followed closely by 21:24–25, the second-part conclusion. In the following paragraphs, I will show how 21:24–25, being an integral part of 20:30–21:25, utilises concepts of witnessing and knowing to bring about the end to the current apprehension phase and to GJohn as well. First, the identification of the witnessing disciple (ὁ µαθητής ὁ µαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων 21:24) deserves notice. As οὗτός obviously refers to the BD in vv.20–23, this disciple is now identified as both the witness to and writer of “these things” (περὶ τούτων/ταῦτα v.24). Throughout GJohn, it is important to note that there is only one disciple who “testifies” using the µαρτυρέω language and here his identity is revealed for the first time (cf. 19:35). Though “these things” refers primarily to the conversation we have just seen, in view of 21:24–25 being the very end of GJohn, it can also simultaneously refer to the whole GJohn, similarly to the same ταῦτα in 20:31. Furthermore, it is appropriate for a conclusion to have characterised the entire gospel as a product of testimony by a testifying disciple.

C. Exegetical Analysis

183

Second, the author’s role deserves discussion. If the first-part conclusion focuses on GJohn’s writing purpose and the readers, the second one here, via the same use of γράφω, focuses on its authenticated composition and the author.86 These four elements in 20:30–31 and 21:24–25 are closely connected and function to bracket 21:1–23. As the use of knowing and witnessing terms in οἴδαµεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ µαρτυρία ἐστίν echoes 19:35, it represents the same solemn asseveration of John’s truthfulness claim.87 But with the “we” used, which is arguably best understood as an “editorial selfreference,” the same attestation started with ἐκεῖνος οἶδεν in 19:35 is now shifted to οἴδαµεν.88 Together with the same first-person οἶµαι in 21:24,89 these first-person verbs represent the author’s interruption, representing his signature in the second-part conclusion. They function strategically to underline that he ascertains himself as being responsible for the entire GJohn and declares his authority as an insider to the things written. Therefore, his authorial knowledge about Jesus is highlighted as he claims to know the “many” other things and “every one of them” that Jesus did (v.25); he carefully se-

86

Γράψας is unlikely to mean “caused to be written” as convincingly argued in F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, “The Use of Γράφειν,” JTS O.S.31, no. 3 (1930): 271–75; Vanhoozer, “I-Witness Testimony,” 369–71; Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 358–63. For Brown’s false reading of γράψας as past referring (hence deceased BD) even followed by Zumstein and others, Stagg’s warning on the abused aorist is apparently ignored. Brown, John-II, 1123; Frank Stagg, “The Abused Aorist,” JBL 91, no. 2 (1972): 222–31; Zumstein, Jean 13–21, 315n.33; Farelly, Disciples, 147. 87 Bauckham considers it to be an “idiomatic, solemn, authoritative testimony.” Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 379–80. 88 Based on ancient evidence on the interchangeability of “we” and “I” in contexts, John Chapman, Howard Jackson, Carson, Köstenberger, and Bauckham convincingly argue that the first person plural οἴδαµεν could be used as editorial self-reference, stressing authority. Barrett, Morris, and Schnackenburg consider the “we” as the “imprimatur of the apostolic church.” For others, it is the product of a Johannine community, with the BD (like Hoskyns and Keener) or without the BD (like Brown, Ridderbos, Lincoln). For Dodd, it is an indefinite reference. John Chapman, “‘We Know That His Testimony Is True,’” JTS O.S.31, no. 4 (1930): 379–87; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, 559–60; C.H. Dodd, “Note on John 21,24,” JTS N.S.4, no. 2 (1953): 212–13; Brown, John-II, 1124–25; Carson, John, 684; Howard M. Jackson, “Ancient Self-Referential Conventions and Their Implications for the Authorship and Integrity of the Gospel of John,” JTS 50, no. 1 (1999): 1–34; Keener, John, 1240–41; Lincoln, John, 523; Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 369–83. Whichever the interpretation, from a literary point of view, οἴδαµεν still stands for the “implied author.” The plural used may be due to John’s avoidance of “singularity” of witness in view of 5:31–47. 89 Köstenberger asserts that οἶµαι reflects authorial modesty in ancient literature. Andreas J. Köstenberger, “‘I Suppose’ (Οἶµαι): The Conclusion of John’s Gospel in Its Literary and Historical Context,” in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B.W. Winter on His 65th Birthday, ed. Peter J. Williams et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 72–88.

184

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

lects out of them appropriate materials to compose the present GJohn.90 We thus see the author’s strategy being tellingly displayed in stressing the notion of “authorship” at the very end of GJohn.91 From this perspective, our analysis of the role of the conclusion gives us a better understanding of the collaborative function of the knowing and testifying terms. The significance of the reference to the author here works with the corresponding references to the readers in 19:35 and 20:30–31. This is done to such a degree that, upon the climactic display of Jesus’ death and resurrection, a climactic apprehension of Jesus could be perceived holistically by the readers. d) Concluding Remarks Drawing on our findings, 21:15–23 is not comprised of unrelated/puzzling elements.92 From that perspective, 21:1–23 is sandwiched by the closely related two-part conclusions, 20:30–31 and 21:24–25. Taken as a whole, 20:30–21:25 contains John’s thoughtful persuasive strategies which contribute in significant ways to one’s apprehension of Jesus.93 First, the writing purpose in 20:30–31 shows a meaningful use of the believing motif in interacting with readers and its connection to John 18–20 as well as the entire GJohn. After two very critical moments of the supreme “sign,” namely Jesus’ death and resurrection, and via the second person subjunctives πιστεύ[σ]ητε (19:35, 20:30–31), the author directly engages with the readers with his dual faith-fostering and faith-engendering purpose.

90

While John’s claim that the world could not contain the books about things Jesus did is an exaggeration, it is also an “authorial brag,” highlighting the greatness of his subject matter and his own confident and complete knowledge about Jesus. For the historiographic topos involved, see Keener, John, 1241–42. In light of my suggestion of authorial brag, it supplements Gaventa’s idea of “the archive of excess.” John’s authorial competence stressed here couples with the impression that “John’s story will never close” in order to facilitate readers’ positive reception of GJohn. Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “The Archive of Excess: John 21 and the Problem of Narrative Closure,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and C. C. Black (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1996), 249. 91 Bauckham thinks that the reason for putting the authorship of BD to the end is that BD is not well-known to his readers and may find himself not qualified enough to write a Gospel. This view is unnecessary given my analysis of the author’s strategy here. Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 407–8. Furthermore, the authorial stress/brag carries its special weight to convince readers, who are still outsiders and “strangers,” to come to faith. This is an aspect which Larsen does not consider in Larsen, Recognition-Scenes, 217. 92 E.g., Haenchen, JohEv, 593. 93 For further thematic connections to John 1–20, see Patrick E. Spencer, “Narrative Echoes in John 21: Intertextual Interpretation and Intratextual Connection,” JSNT 75 (2000): 49–68.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

185

Second, in 21:15–23, as part of the tranquil scene that prepares readers to anticipate the end of encounters with Jesus, the knowing, loving, and witnessing motifs are given further significance in light of the context. Jesus’ reinstatement of Peter parallels his reinstatement of Thomas. In 20:24–29, Thomas makes a climactic confession of Jesus’ divine identity; here Peter makes a climactic vow of loving Jesus and a confession of Jesus’ omniscience which marks another pinnacle towards GJohn’s end and resulted in Jesus’ pastoral charge (the witnessing motif). Together the two episodes represent two facets of the renewed and deepened apprehension of Jesus, both undergirded by Jesus’ omniscience. Third, by the double use of the imperative ἀκολούθει in a postresurrection setting (21:15–23), a renewed call to follow Jesus is urged, recalling the promised apprehension earlier in Jesus’ farewell discourse. This also resembles the calling narrative in the beginning and yet is different from it, as Jesus will no longer be with them physically. Thus, with the premise of 20:30–31, a new aspect of the believing motif is now added, namely, an invitation to follow the risen Jesus in a new manner. Fourth, from 21:17–25, we see a strategy of progressively transiting from the reinstatement of Peter to the claim that the BD is both the insider of the story and the author. This strategy is reminiscent of what we have seen in 19:35 and 20:30–31, that the concept of apprehension of Jesus is now directed towards the worlds of the readers and the author. Fifth, via the same use of γράφω and ταῦτα, 20:30–31 and 21:24–25 form a pair. John 20:30–31 speaks to the relationship of the author’s writing purpose and the readers by utilising the believing motif, while 21:24–25 focuses on the relationship of GJohn’s authenticated composition and the author by utilising the knowing and witnessing motifs. The author, appearing at the end of GJohn, ascertains himself as being responsible for the entire GJohn and also pronounces his authorial knowledge on everything about Jesus. Thus, with such overt interactions between the author and the readers, 20:30–21:25 form a heightened ending to this phase of apprehension. A renewed and deepened apprehension promised earlier has started as Jesus has worked out the climactic grand “sign” in John 18–20. For the readers now, the end of GJohn is the beginning of their own apprehension.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact on the Readers D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

1. Synthesis If John 10–17 brings in the depth of apprehending Jesus and focuses on knowing him in a personal way even beyond the time-frame of his earthly life,

186

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

chapters 18–21 give readers a taste of its realisation when the climactic “sign” (Jesus’ death and resurrection) is accomplished. Through this, the characters in the narrative know Jesus in a different way and readers are engaged directly at strategic locations. As surveyed in my narrative overview (section B), during the portrayal of Jesus’ arrest and trials, John continues to highlight Jesus’ omniscience (18:2, 4) and his words being on a par with the scriptures (vv.9, 32). In the trial before the high priest and “Jews” who had heard of Jesus’ teaching, John reverts to an elementary sense of hearing and knowing (v.21). To Pilate, representative of the Roman Empire, Jesus’ mission as testifying the truth is emphatically stated, underlying the criterion of hearing Jesus’ voice as a sign of belonging to the truth (vv.36, 37). This brings to culmination the preceding hearing motif in 5:19–30 and 10:1–21. Facing this Jesus, the judging Pilate is portrayed as uncomprehending and powerless, even though he shows more knowledge than “the Jews” regarding Jesus’ innocence. Jesus is still omniscient, even on the cross. And the impact of this “sign” of Jesus’ death is immediately conveyed upon Jesus’ death. With an interconnected use of seeing, testifying and knowing terms, the narrator’s/BD’s observed facts and their theological significance (19:31–37) conclude the crucifixion scene. For the first time, the narrator/the BD interacts with the readers wherein apprehension of Jesus is brought to them in a quasi-face-toface manner (v.35). With Jesus’ death, the disciples’ evangelistic mission (15:26–27) begins. Later in the narrative, we have Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus showing up for Jesus’ burial, reflecting their decisive believing stance. With Jesus’ resurrection, we see that true seeing, knowing, and witnessing happen when one encounters the risen Jesus with the aid of the promised Paraclete. With the Johannine Jesus’ faith-fostering/-renewing purpose, Thomas experiences the deepened apprehension of Jesus in proclaiming his divine identity. At the same time, readers are further engaged as Jesus commends believing without seeing. In 21:1–23, the tranquil scene continues to show Jesus’ omniscience and care. Similar to Thomas, Peter experiences a renewed and deepened apprehension of Jesus in his climactic vow of loving Jesus and confession of Jesus’ omniscience before his pastoral charge. Bracketing 21:1–23 are the two part conclusions. The first-part (20:30–31) shows how the author interacts with the readers again through utilising the believing purpose. The second-part conclusion (21:24–25) stresses John’s authenticated composition by utilising the witnessing and knowing motifs and underscoring the truthfulness of his account. Within this phase of apprehension (John 18–21), I selected three passages, 19:28–42; 20:1–31; and 21:15–25, for further exegesis and discussion on John’s rhetorical strategies (section C).

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

187

In 19:28–42, the climactic display of the “sign” of Jesus’ death, I contend that, typical of the previous encounters in GJohn, the Johannine Jesus remains omniscient. Through the use of knowing terms, Jesus shows himself to be one who manages his life and knows well the end of his career on earth, fulfilling what he has prophesised before. Then, in the aftermath of Jesus’ death, by inviting the readers to “see” and “believe,” John brings forth his climactic scriptural reflections and engagement with readers. The interruption of 19:35 not only backs up the authenticity of the happenings to the readers, but also buttresses the theological significance of Jesus’ death: Jesus is at once the paschal lamb, righteous sufferer, and pierced Yahweh. The eschatological “seeing” promised in Zechariah has now happened and the divine Yahweh being “looked upon” is now Jesus. 19:35 also strikes the readers by addressing them most directly through ἵνα καὶ ὑµεῖς πιστεύ[σ]ητε. They are thereby encouraged to identify with the BD, to participate in the event, and to respond to the narrator’s invitation to believe/“look upon” Jesus. Via this odd but strategic placement of 19:35 and the narrator’s unusual intrusion into the world of readers, the BD’s eyewitness testimony and conviction are communicated to them in a climactic way unseen previously in GJohn. In 20:1–31, I argued that statements like “the Easter stories add nothing new” to GJohn cannot be true. From 20:1–10 and vv.11–18, a basic pattern of “seeing” and not “knowing” the scriptures is changed upon “seeing” the resurrected Jesus which results in testifying. For Mary Magdalene and Thomas, the process of knowing Jesus involves a personal and intimate aspect, echoing the deepening apprehension in John 13–17. Furthermore, a resurrected Jesus proves John’s (previous) testimony true; the earthly Jesus in GJohn’s storyline is now demonstrated to be the living (and omniscient) Jesus. He whom John presents in the narrated story is now risen and is beyond the boundaries of the story. Thomas’ climactic proclamation that Jesus is his Lord and God, strategically reflects the apex of the result of this apprehension. Superficially, references to the importance of seeing in John 20 seem to be contradictory to Jesus’ “beatitude” of believing-without-seeing in what he tells Thomas (20:29). But as I argue, the seeing-and-not-seeing contrast corresponds to the contrast between “disciples” in the narrative and the future “disciples” in the readers’ world. Through this, the readers are invited to respond to Jesus’ beatitude invitation to believe in Jesus without physically seeing him. This mode of seeing and believing in 20:29 represents another strategy to facilitate interactions between the text/narrative and the readers along the development of the plot. Thus, in the first-part conclusion immediately following, 20:30–31 functions to follow up this concern by restating John’s dual faith-fostering and -engendering purpose (cf. 19:35). From a wider perspective, it also directs readers’ attention to seeing the entirety of the narrated/written signs (with the associated narrated/written words of Jesus) in GJohn.

188

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

In 21:15–25, we see in Peter’s climactic vow of loving Jesus and confession of Jesus’ omniscience (21:15–23) another pinnacle in GJohn, bringing climax to the knowing and loving motifs (“you know everything;” “you know that I love you”) while not dropping the witnessing motif (“feed my sheep”). A new mode of following Jesus (the believing motif) is also demanded by Jesus which echoes the first apprehension phase as well as challenging Peter and the readers. The strategy of shifting the scene from the characters to the narrator also prepares the way for the second-part conclusion 21:24–25, facilitating interactions between the author and the readers in terms of their apprehensions of Jesus. Thus, by identifying with the narrator and the BD and utilising the knowing and witnessing motifs, John focuses on the relationship of his authenticated composition and the author. Through these means, the author ascertains himself as being responsible for the entire GJohn and also pronounces his authorial knowledge on everything about Jesus. Thus, with the same use of γράφω and ταῦτα, 20:30–31 and 21:24–25 form a pair. The first-part conclusion focuses on GJohn’s writing purpose and the readers while the second one focuses on its authenticated composition and the author. These four elements in the two-part conclusion are inter-related. Together they bridge up the worlds of the author and the readers in concluding the message of GJohn. For the readers now, the end of GJohn is the beginning of their own apprehension. 2. Intended Impact on the Readers From the above synthesis, we see how John utilises rhetorical strategies, at the climax of GJohn, in presenting Jesus’ outworking of the supreme “sign” and its effects through the characters’ apprehension of Jesus. Here John conveys his desired apprehension for his readers more directly than in all of the previous phases. To assess John’s intended impact for his readers, I will turn to the same questions I posed earlier in previous Chapters. a) Readers’ Understanding of the Characters’ Apprehension of Jesus and John’s Writing Purpose In John 10–17, we see a shift of focus on the disciples with regard to their foretold deepened apprehension. In chapters 18–21, via the same apprehension language, the impact of Jesus’ death and resurrection rests primarily on the key disciples again. Yet less familiar believing characters, unbelieving characters, and even “the readers” out of the narrative are also engaged by the author in the text. As shown in the following, these characters function collaboratively to create an impact on the readers’ apprehension of Jesus, whether it is faith-fostering or faith-engendering. First, with Jesus’ arrest and most of the disciples having fled, the task of apprehending Jesus is left to the BD and Peter (18:15). Unfortunately, Peter

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

189

shows his failure in his denial. The one exception is the BD, who testifies to what he sees, even at the cross (19:35). Also, he saw the empty tomb and believed (20:8), though still not knowing the scripture. He is there in Jesus’ resurrection appearances, acting as the narrative’s insider and helping to convey the faith-engendering/fostering message directly to the readers. At the same time, his apprehension of Jesus in following and believing him acts as a model for those who want to remain faithful in persecutions. For Peter, his reinstatement from failure through the knowing and loving motifs (21:15–19) shows the readers that failed believers are not to be seen as hopeless. Like Peter, they are encouraged to follow Jesus again (vv.19, 22) when they likewise reaffirm their love for Jesus. For Thomas, his demand for first-hand evidence for believing in Jesus’ resurrection finally helps him to move away from becoming unbelieving to believing (20:25, 27). Seeing Jesus has a positive value for him. The issue of seeing the risen Jesus and believing him points to the fulfilment of Jesus’ prior promise (16:16–24), which is subtly distinguished from the criterion of “seeing signs in order to believe.” Thomas’ experience of seeing and believing is compared with the readers’ not being able to see and yet believing. After encountering the risen Jesus and with the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, both Thomas and Peter have their faith deepened (cf. 20:28; 21:17). Readers in their own possibly failed spiritual journey or lacking faith in Jesus’ resurrection are thereby encouraged. All these experiences of the key disciples in apprehending Jesus through his death and resurrection remain readers’ models: they can undergo the same transformation. With the Paraclete’s help, they can also “see”/experience Jesus. Second, with regard to less familiar believing characters, the abovementioned faith persuasion is still valid. Both Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, not being Jesus’ kinsmen, show their courage in asking for a proper burial for Jesus (19:38–40). Readers who are either indecisive in faith or secret believers can learn from them. In understanding what Jesus’ death means to them, they can stand up for their faith even though they may have struggled for a long time as these characters did. Apprehension of Jesus takes time, a process from not knowing to knowing, not believing to believing, and may take a longer time for some than for others. But as apprehension of Jesus unfolds itself in GJohn, personal reflection can bring forth a positive outcome. Joseph’s and Nicodemus’ example demonstrates that “fear of the Jews” (v.38; 7:13; 12:42) can be overcome when one sees Jesus’ sacrifice. As for Mary Magdalene, one of the brave women who first appear at the cross, she apprehends Jesus in a unique way. She turns from not knowing to knowing via seeing the risen Jesus and hearing his voice as she is the first one to encounter him (20:11–18). Neglected and despised female readers find themselves prefigured in Mary. They are also capable of apprehending Jesus from a personal and relational aspect.

190

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

Third, with regard to unbelieving characters, readers are dissuaded from identifying with them as in John 5–12. It is awful to see the betrayer Judas standing with soldiers sent by the chief priests and Pharisees (18:2–5) to arrest the unarmed Jesus. Finally and openly, the prosecuting “Jews” reveal their evil intention to kill Jesus (18:31). In the face of these “Jews” and the chief priests, even Pilate is portrayed as powerless (19:4–8, 12–16). Though finding Jesus innocent, Pilate shows his uncomprehending/sneering disdain in his dialogue with Jesus (18:38; 19:10–11). The brutal Roman prefect notoriously known by the first readers is not as cruel when compared with these unbelieving “Jews.”94 Using the kingship motif, the chief priests, in claiming that they have no king but Caesar (19:15), repudiate Yahweh’s messianic promises. To the readers, it is these unbelieving characters who are responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. Through all these scenes, their stubborn unbelief and cruelty are heightened in such a way that no unbelieving readers can doubt that if they let the same unbelief remain in them, they too would be similarly unkind to Jesus. It is as if such readers are virtually “participating” in and held accountable in the death of the innocent and yet kingly Jesus. Fourth, with the climactic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, both the believing and unbelieving characters are used as a means of speaking to the readers. Readers themselves are even explicitly mentioned towards the end of Jesus’ death episode and resurrection episodes. With πιστεύ[σ]ητε (19:35; 20:31a) and πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε (20:31b), the author overtly engages the readers through the use of believing motif. They are invited to see and believe also (19:34–37) and are the target of John’s writing purpose (20:30– 31). 95 As I argue in earlier sections of this Chapter, its faith-fostering and faith-engendering aspects should not be set in opposition to each other; both are felt by readers through such explicit and open engagement. b) Readers’ Understanding of Jesus’ Own Apprehension In the last Chapters, we have noted John’s strategy to force readers to think that the Jesus narrated is divine and alive in the readers’ world, relevant to their life. By stressing Jesus’ omniscience, inserting the remembrance language at strategic moments of Jesus’ ministry (2:22; 12:16), and promising that he and his Father will “make their home” with any believers (14:21, 23),

94 Thus, in my opinion, Brant has incorrectly identified “the Jews”/“chorus” as standing at “the side-lines.” Brant, Dialogue-Drama, 183. 95 Thus, the characters serve for the readers both as yardsticks to evaluate their own apprehension of Jesus and as examples of what apprehension takes place in real life. Contra Judith C. S. Redman, “Eyewitness Testimony and the Characters in the Fourth Gospel,” in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John, ed. Christopher W. Skinner, LNTS 461 (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 59–78.

D. Synthesis and Intended Impact

191

the Johannine Jesus is presented as being present with readers and knowing each of them well. In his moments of death, Jesus continues to be shown as the all-knowing one (18:4; 19:28), fulfilling what he has previously prophesied (18:9, 32). Jesus knows well his task, to bear witness to the truth (18:37). Even in his resurrection, he plays an active role in appearing to the disciples, in order to achieve his desired purposes, namely commissioning them, strengthening Thomas’ faith, blessing the future believers who could no longer see him, and challenging Peter to love and follow him. The fact of Jesus’ omniscience culminates in Peter’s confession πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε (21:17). I have argued that the idea of Jesus’ omniscience now reaches a climax; he knows even the extent of one’s love towards him. This highlighted omniscience has an invigorating impact on the readers’ apprehending Jesus. As I have argued, toward the end of GJohn, a new dimension of the believing motif has been introduced, drawing on the use of ἀκολουθέω (21:19, 22). Readers, like Peter, are to follow the glorified Jesus as what the first disciples did in the first apprehension phase; yet this following is now to be done in a manner that no longer involved seeing him. Jesus’ omniscience that we discussed above then helps to buttress readers’ willingness/commitment to follow him in this new way. The risen and ascended Jesus, though no longer seen physically, can be trusted as long as his “presence” brought by the Paraclete is experienced (14:20–21, 23). Most of all, one can rely upon this risen Jesus as he is the living and knowing Jesus all the way, from the narrative “past” to the readers’ “present.” c) The Role of Signs and Words in the Perception/Apprehension of Jesus In John 1–12, both seeing signs and hearing Jesus’ words at times help to lead characters to faith and at times not. We also see in chapters 13–17 that it is the Paraclete who will make Jesus’ signs and words effective in people’s minds. Now, with his death and resurrection as the supreme “sign,” we similarly see that the unbelieving “Jews” are not moved by seeing it; neither do the high priest and Pilate change their mind after hearing Jesus’ words of truth. Yet, seeing Jesus’ death and resurrection has a positive impact on many characters, from key ones to minor ones previously unknown, as I discussed in section a) here. Further, in hearing from the risen Jesus (though hearing terms are not used), both Thomas and Peter have uttered climactic confessions. Their portrayals prove that John’s faith-engendering/-fostering purpose is successfully achieved. With regard to the role of seeing signs, the Thomas pericope presents an intriguing case from the readers’ perspective. In previous chapters, taking signs as “the criterion” for faith is criticised. Nevertheless, seeing the risen Jesus has an utterly vital function in the resurrection narrative. It is critical to

192

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

both the characters in the narrative and the author that Jesus is presented to be truly resurrected, able to be seen and touched, such that what Jesus prophesised remains valid and true. Belief in this special “sign” is of paramount importance, according to John. Actually, throughout GJohn, readers are encouraged to believe in the veracity of Jesus’ signs, unquestionably and even more including this ultimate “sign” (cf. the truthfulness statement in 19:35). From this, I proposed that the Thomas pericope predominantly functions to strengthen believers who lack faith in this sign of resurrection. This is done judiciously in two ways in tension: First by Jesus’ appearing miraculously to Thomas to satisfy his request to see and touch, and then by underlining Jesus’ beatitude for future believers who believe without being able to have such first-hand verification. The first continues the positive literary function of “seeing” to help one to belief in Jesus. The second acknowledges the fact that future believers are unable to “see” as these first disciples did. Nevertheless, for John and the Johannine Jesus, this tension will not be a stumbling block to the readers at all. There is no need to understand seeing and believing as being opposed to each other. By reading the signs written in GJohn (20:30–31) and accepting the author’s testimony (21:24), readers are able to “see” these signs in another sense and believe in Jesus as the characters in the narrative do. Hence, through this intriguing phenomenon, the tension between upholding the verifiable facts about Jesus and admitting the impossibility of first-hand verification is nicely balanced. Given the fact of Jesus’ resurrection and the Paraclete’s help, readers are fully capable of “seeing” and “hearing” Jesus through this “written” mode of apprehension. This remains utterly important from the point of view of John’s persuasive strategy. Looking back, we have seen how John in chapters 1–4 encourages readers to “listen” to Jesus’ words just as the Samaritans did and evaluate the words about signs seen by the characters. In chapters 5–9, John redirects readers’ attention from taking signs as the criterion for faith to an alternative criterion: seeing/perceiving Jesus as being what signs point to (6:22–71). In chapters 13–17, this seeing Jesus means seeing God, which is brought about by the Paraclete in the post-resurrection era. Finally, now, in chapters 18–21, seeing signs/first-hand verification is redirected to seeing the author’s narrated signs and words through his testimony. The seeing of Jesus’ signs and hearing of his words in the past are now put under the concept of reading the testimony in the present. Jesus’ signs and words remembered thus collaborate with each other in meaningful ways for the sake of the readers, such that a desired apprehension of Jesus can be eventually achieved. d) The Role of Faith in One’s Perception/Apprehension of Jesus In the previous chapters, I have shown that while faith distinguishes insiders from outsiders (John 1–4), unbelief distinguishes outsiders from insiders

E. Summary

193

(John 5–12). As apprehension of Jesus cannot be separated from Jesus’ omniscience, since he knows people’s heart and thoughts (throughout GJohn, esp. 21:17), an unbeliever’s apprehension of Jesus can never enter into the personal/intimate core of knowing Jesus. Yet GJohn tells us that every encounter with Jesus entailed belief/unbelief. It is true that belief/unbelief is the outcome of one’s perception of Jesus. Yet it is also true that belief/unbelief remains a presupposition of one’s perception/apprehension. Now, as John 18– 21 shows, upon one’s perception of Jesus, one’s presumed state changes, either acquiring more faith (engendered/fostered) or more unfaith (faith stumbled/becoming more hostile to Jesus). One will not remain neutral after all. Given this understanding, the long-awaited climactic display of Jesus’ sacrifice is clearly intended to encourage the former, more faith. It is presented with the author’s presupposed belief in Jesus. All his authoritative testimonies are geared towards this (19:35; 20:30–31; 21:24–25). Therefore, acquiring these details, one is inevitably struck by the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice presented, which entails both God’s love and Jesus’ divine identity as I argued in this Chapter. The fact that GJohn ends with the author’s heightened interaction with the readers shows that, time and again, each occasion of perception of Jesus intrinsically demands a response. With the end of GJohn, the disciples begin to experience the promised deepened apprehension of Jesus which includes bearing testimony to him as the author/the BD has already attempted to do. For these disciples, the end is the beginning. Yet for the readers, their reflection is called for as to what stance they will take regarding their apprehension of Jesus. After all, the text itself urges a reading that finds resonance with its own faith-engendering/fostering purpose; it begs to be read with faith. 96 True apprehension of Jesus demands faith; without faith one does not truly know Jesus.

E. Summary E. Summary

My aim in this chapter was to show that John 18–21 represent a climactic apprehension of Jesus. From the narrative overview, I have shown that not only does the vivid account of Jesus’ death and resurrection present itself as the climactic “sign” in GJohn; the apprehension vocabulary used contributes significantly towards the portrayal of such an intensified event. Continuing the use of elements present in the previous apprehension phases, the apprehension terms are used at strategic locations to engage the readers in a manner climactic to the overall plot. From the selected passages, I then discussed 96 Cf. Markus Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 75–100.

194

Chapter 6: Phase IV Climactic Apprehension (John 18–21)

John’s persuasive strategies in bringing forth his climactic scriptural reflections and engagement with readers in the scene of Jesus’ death (19:35–37) via his use of seeing, knowing, witnessing, and believing terms. With Jesus’ resurrection, the climactic confessions of Thomas and Peter (20:24–29; 21:15–23) function to challenge readers’ seeing, knowing, and believing in light of Jesus’ divinity and omniscience. The two-part conclusions function to (1) stress John’s dual writing purpose; (2) direct readers’ attention to seeing the entirety of the narrated/written signs and words of Jesus (20:30–31); (3) ascertain the author as being responsible for the entire gospel; and (4) pronounce his authorial knowledge on Jesus (21:24–25). Together these two parts bridge the worlds of the author and the readers. Based on my narrative overview and exegetical analysis, I evaluated the possible intended impact for the readers. First, apprehending Jesus in his death and resurrection encourages readers’ identification through empathising with the key disciples and the lesser believing characters. Some readers in their own spiritual journey, who may lack faith in Jesus’ resurrection, and/or may be crypto-Christians, or may be neglected and despised by society, can thereby be encouraged to encounter Jesus similarly as these characters do. On the other hand, unbelieving characters are portrayed with stubborn unbelief and cruelty such that readers are alienated from them. Further, by openly engaging the readers in his narrative towards the end of the death episode and resurrection episode (19:35; 20:30–31), John’s dual faith-fostering and faithengendering writing purpose can be achieved. Second, as Jesus’ omniscience plays an important role in the characters’ apprehension of Jesus in previous chapters, so in his death and resurrection, this attribute of omniscience is brought to a climax, particularly in Peter’s confession (21:17); Jesus knows everything, even one’s love towards him. With this awareness, readers are summoned to believe/follow the no-longer seen Jesus. This Johannine Jesus can be relied upon, as he is the living and knowing Jesus all the way, from the narrative past to every reader’s present. Third, seeing signs and hearing words of Jesus continue to be complementary, as I argue throughout GJohn. Through the Thomas pericope, the tension between upholding the verifiability of Jesus’ deeds and admitting the impossibility of first-hand verification is nicely balanced. By reading the written signs and accepting the written testimony, future readers are able to “see” these signs in another sense and believe. Thus, such seeing signs and hearing words in the past are now put under the concept of reading GJohn in the present. Lastly, in acquiring the details of Jesus’ death and resurrection, the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice is presented which entails both God’s love and Jesus’ divine identity. Time and again, apprehension of Jesus demands a response. One cannot remain neutral. Facing John’s compelling account of

E. Summary

195

Jesus’ works and deeds, readers’ reflection and response are called for as to what stance they will take regarding their apprehension of Jesus. With these analyses, we find in John 18–21 the last big pieces of our puzzle of the overall picture of apprehension of Jesus in GJohn. Seeing, hearing, knowing, witnessing, remembering, and believing terms are all connected and function differently in chapters 1–4, 5–9, 10–17, and also 18–21. Time is apt for a conclusion to review my overarching arguments and findings after these analyses.

Chapter 7

Conclusions At the beginning of this work I mentioned that there are “species of trees,” oak, horse chestnut, fir, or maple, which are seen almost everywhere in the “forest” of GJohn, and yet their importance may not be sufficiently appreciated. I identified these common species as seeing, hearing, knowing, witnessing, remembering, and believing, terms appearing everywhere in GJohn which play important roles within its theological complexity. Grouping them under the umbrella concept of “apprehension of Jesus”, I attempted to recover the value of these six “tree species.” Now, after wide-ranging analyses in the previous Chapters, it is time to draw this apprehension terminology together in a way that adds to the discussion of the concept in GJohn. In reacting to Mussner’s attempt to carry out a word-based analysis which only focuses on the “gnoseological” terminology (seeing, hearing, knowing, witnessing, and remembering),1 the present work adopts an approach which both broadens the scope of investigation and takes into account the narrative and exegetical aspects in which due attention is paid to the gospel’s overall plot development. Attention is also given to John’s persuasive strategies adopted in the text as well as how John expects his narrative to be perceived. In addition, I further assert that the concept of apprehension of Jesus cannot be traced merely through studying some “crucial words” as identified by scholars (for instance, Abbott’s differentiations in his Johannine Vocabulary and Brown’s four stages of faith). In terms of seeing, hearing, knowing, witnessing, remembering, and believing, I have pointed out such problems in the survey of previous investigations in Chapter 1 as well as in section A of Chapter 2 (Linguistic Foundations). Recognising the limited character of previous investigations by Johannine scholars, I attempted to provide a more holistic treatment to avoid (mis)understandings such as, for instance, taking seeing and hearing as being in competition with each other or considering Jesus’ signs as inferior to his words. In fact, I have shown in this monograph that seeing and hearing, signs and words are actually complementary to each other when the entire narrative is taken into account. Thus, in light of scholars’ previous contributions as well as their problems, I have attempted to contribute to a better understanding of the concept of apprehension of Jesus by suggesting a four-phased apprehension of Jesus in 1

Apparently, as my Chapter 1 shows, Mussner has a different objective than I.

A. Results and Findings

197

line with the overall plot of GJohn. They are, namely, John 1–4 initial encounters; 5–12 subsequent encounters; 13–17 deepening encounters; and 18– 21 heightened and climactic encounters. Through my analyses, I have demonstrated how these motifs of seeing, hearing, knowing, witnessing, remembering, and believing are interconnected and developed progressively through the proposed four phases across GJohn. By analysing key passages selected in each of the apprehension phases and exploring John’s persuasive strategies therein, I have shown the subtlety of these motifs which earlier scholars may have inadequately addressed. Through them I have made modest contributions to show that some of the scholars’ views are now not very tenable. These include views that treat the Johannine seeing (or hearing) as virtually synonymous with knowing and believing as well as various dichotomies in understanding GJohn, notably, (1) the “confessional” vs. “narrational” aspects of John’s testimony (Ricoeur and Lincoln); (2) the “rhetorical” vs. “archive” function of the Johannine remembrance (Thatcher); and (3) the faithfostering vs. faith-engendering writing purpose of GJohn (Brown, Carson, and others). In view of what I have tried to achieve as noted above, I summarise the results of my findings in the following.

A. Results and Findings A. Results and Findings

This fresh interpretation builds upon the shoulders of numerous previous studies as I have briefly indicated above. After a brief review of current Johannine scholarship, I discussed the proper relationship between words, context, and concept. I then analysed and examined the grammatical features of the key apprehension terms in GJohn, focusing on the syntactic functions of the different word-forms of these terms in sentences. Noting the errors committed by previous Johannine scholars in positing overly-subtle differentiations of synonyms for the apprehension terms, I found such differentiations to be superfluous, especially for θεωρέω and ὁράω; γινώσκω and οἶδα; πιστεύω+εἰς and πιστεύω+dative. I then set up the semantic fields for apprehension/perception of Jesus by identifying exhaustively the contents of the semantic clusters for all the words used in GJohn, which provides a basis for tracing the concept in their literary contexts. On the basis of these foundations, I selected a number of key passages in each of the four apprehension phases and investigated how John’s persuasive strategies are utilised.

198

Chapter 7: Conclusions

1. John 1–4: Initial Encounters The initial encounters in John 1–4, characterised by a generally positive and sincere reception of Jesus, are prefaced by the Johannine preamble and monologues (1:1–5, 9–18; 3:16–21, 31–36) which function as setting the stage for perception/apprehension of Jesus as well as providing the interpretive guidelines for reading GJohn. From my analysis of 1:19–2:25 and 4:43–54, I have indicated the importance of empirical senses in the initial apprehension of Jesus as shown in the conversion of John the Baptist and the first disciples (1:19–2:22). Such empirical stress functions to guide readers from the metaphysical truth laid out in 1:1–18 into the empirical narrative world. I also discussed the importance of there being two descriptions of characters’ acts of believing in pericopae (2:1–22; 4:43–54). I have shown that they involve both coming to faith and growing in faith. The characters’ positive apprehension of Jesus is further coupled with Jesus apprehending people in 2:23–25. I argue from 2:23–25 that the way people get to know and believe in Jesus is not totally their own autonomous free choice. The discernment rests upon Jesus himself. True faith goes hand in hand with Jesus’ omniscience. Furthermore, John’s rhetorical strategy is also seen in the significance of remembrance in narrating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (2:13–22). Such remembrance, as part of a cognitive process leading to faith, conveys an aspect of assurance which points to the veracity of the author’s claims where the event’s interpretation and the remembered event itself are not separate. It expresses the author’s intention to influence the readers through guaranteeing the truthfulness of his account as well as to facilitate readers’ participation in his message of faith. 2. John 5–12: Subsequent Encounters John 5–9, with the transition chapters 10–12, represents the subsequent encounters with Jesus which are characterised by a generally negative and hostile response. Especially in John 5–9, we see mostly negative encounters of characters confronting Jesus as they claim to see, hear, know, and believe in him and as Jesus reveals himself through his works and words. From my analysis of 5:19–47; 9:1–41; 12:12–19, and 12:37–43, I spotlight characteristic features of this phase of apprehension. In particular, we should note the universal appeal to faith and eternal life from the perspective of eschatological resurrection and judgment via John’s use of hearing and believing terms (5:19–30). The multiple senses of hearing, namely, hearing in the eschaton and hearing Jesus’ word, as well as the double meaning of aural hearing and obeying, are particularly subtle and deserve notice. Jesus then backs up his message with verifiable and unverifiable witnesses in 5:31–40. Yet, despite these testimonies, Jesus, in his omniscience, points to the crux of

A. Results and Findings

199

“the Jews’” problem: unbelief (5:41–47). Jesus uncovers that the obstacle to a desired apprehension of Jesus lies in what is within a person. In 9:1–41, the unbelieving rejection of Jesus is summarised through the concluding illustration thoughtfully placed. It illustrates that “the Jews’” and the Pharisees’ stern unbelief hinders them from the correct apprehension of Jesus in such a severe manner that even the beggar can perceive their blindspot. Such a reversal of blindness and eyesight (9:39) represents the impact of Jesus’ ministry as it concludes chapters 5–8. Initiated by Jesus’ speech in 5:19–47 (hearing, witnessing, and believing) and concluded by this illustration (seeing, knowing, and believing), they illustrate both the intention and the impact John wishes to create through depicting Jesus’ public ministry. This challenges their own senses of apprehension, whether they have similarly seen, heard, known, and believe in Jesus, as well as acquiring Jesus’ testimony as the characters do, whether they do so superficially, falsely, or genuinely. Within the transitional material in John 10–12, 12:12–19 represents an example reflecting John’s rhetorical strategy to foreshadow the coming of a new phase of apprehension and at the same time bringing the current phase to a close. These include portrayals of the disciples’ rare lack of understanding, their uniquely attested remembering, and the crowd’s positive reception of Jesus’ sign. In particular, the remembrance language signifies strategically again (cf. 2:13–22) another level of narration on top of the narrated storyline about the earthly Jesus which reassures the disciples’ authoritative testimony to the readers. Coupled with 2:13–22, the author’s rhetorical strategy to influence the readers through guaranteeing the truthfulness of his account is clear. Finally, 12:37–43, brings a close to Jesus’ message in John 5–12 by providing a timely reflection on apprehension of Jesus. Through a subtle use of seeing, knowing, and believing terms as well as the Isaianic texts, John shows to the readers that a desired apprehension of Jesus is actually granted and taken away exclusively by Jesus (though it is at the same time the Father who draws people to him). There is a component during the process of apprehension that is out of the control of the author, the characters, and even readers. That component is the activity of the one whom the author claims to have been resurrected and is omniscient. 3. John 13–17: Deepening Apprehension John 13–17 highlights the depth of apprehending Jesus and focuses on knowing Jesus in a personal way which takes place even beyond the time-frame of his earthly life. This deeper apprehension hinges on the Paraclete, is invested with emotions, and characterised by love and their following him. From my analysis of 14:1–26; 15:26–16:15; 16:25–33; and 17:1–26, via seeing and knowing terms, we see a re-definition of apprehension of Jesus;

200

Chapter 7: Conclusions

“knowing/seeing” Jesus is equivalent to “knowing/seeing” the Father (14:7, 9). It also involves a deepened faith in Jesus in his mutual indwelling with the Father, which Jesus encourages the disciples to embark into, based on the stepping-stone of their belief in Jesus’ works (vv.10–14). Whereas Jesus’ departure points to his taking the believers “home” to his Father’s house (vv.1–3), Jesus’ being seen again (resurrection) points to the coming of Jesus and the Father, and their making a “home” with the believers (vv.18–23). With the promised coming of the Paraclete, the disciples will be able to know him relationally, and he in turn will bring to their remembrance Jesus’ words (vv.15–31). Since Jesus has died and is resurrected, a claimed fact which John strategically shows the readers since 2:22, readers are now able to encounter Jesus (and the Father) “realistically” as the disciples did. It is the Paraclete who brings to the readers such remembrance of Jesus who is both in the narrative past and out of the narrative, encountering readers in their real world. In 15:26–16:15, the further elaborated work of the Paraclete continues to point to the apprehension of Jesus in the post-resurrection era. The Paraclete testifies with the disciples and through him the disciples are to remember Jesus’ prophecy of their persecution. He convicts unbelievers of their unbelief and guides believers into all the truth about Jesus. Even the readers’ apprehension of Jesus, when they attempt to understand GJohn, is also interpreted as involving the work of the Paraclete (bearing witness, convicting, and guiding). Thus, we see John’s rhetorical strategy in facilitating readers’ interactions with what happened inside the narrative (Jesus–the promised Paraclete–disciples) and outside it (the living Jesus–the available Paraclete– readers) via John’s remembered account. In 16:25–33, the last section of John 13–16, we see Jesus’ prophecy that the disciples’ faith would generate a loving relationship that promises further apprehension shown in prayer, echoing 13:1; 14:15–31; 15:26–16:15. Yet, with the disciples’ out-of-pace profession of Jesus’ omniscience, 2 their response regarding Jesus’ promised deepened apprehension is anticlimactic. Their failure to adequately comprehend Jesus’ deepened message in chapters 13–16 challenges the readers who can freely experience the work of the Paraclete unlike the disciples at that narrated moment. In 17:1–26, I assert that the prayer of the Johannine Jesus is aimed at speaking to the readers. Through the form of prayer, John 17 concludes chapters 1–16 and impacts the readers in a more personal way. Eternal life is defined as “knowledge” of God and Jesus, which is meant to be a knowing in faith, even a more personal/relational knowing. Stating that the disciples’ basic apprehension is achieved, Jesus intercedes for them so that they can persevere and be equipped to further engender apprehension of Jesus in oth2

Their knowing and believing is similar to what the characters in John 1–4 did.

A. Results and Findings

201

ers. The unity of future believers is also supplicated for the sake of Jesus’ faith-engendering purpose and God’s love for the world. With John’s rhetorical strategy used, readers are left with Jesus’ promise of further making known the Father’s name as they finish reading/hearing Jesus’ prayer. 4. John 18–21: Climactic Apprehension John 18–21 represents a climactic apprehension/perception of Jesus. Not only does the vivid account of Jesus’ death and resurrection present itself as the climactic “sign” in GJohn, the apprehension vocabulary collaborates towards the portrayal of this intensified event. Continuing elements in the previous apprehension phases, these apprehension terms are used at strategic locations to engage the readers directly in a manner climactic to the overall plot. From my analysis of 19:28–42; 20:1–31; and 21:15–25, I contend that, in the aftermath of Jesus’ death and by inviting the readers to “see” and “believe,” John brings forth his climactic scriptural reflections and engagement with readers (19:28–42). The interruption of 19:35 not only backs up the authenticity of the happenings to the readers, but also buttresses the theological significance of Jesus’ death: Jesus is at once the paschal lamb, righteous sufferer, and pierced Yahweh. The eschatological “seeing” promised in Zechariah has now happened and the divine Yahweh being “looked upon” is now Jesus (who is distinguished from the Father). 19:35 also strikes the readers by addressing them most directly; they are thereby encouraged to identify with the BD, to participate in the event, and to respond to the narrator’s invitation to believe/“look upon” Jesus.3 In 20:1–31, I argued that, for Mary Magdalene and Thomas, the process of knowing Jesus involves a personal and intimate aspect, echoing the deepening apprehension in John 13–17. Furthermore, a resurrected Jesus proves John’s (previous) testimony true; the earthly Jesus in GJohn’s storyline is now demonstrated to be the living (and omniscient) Jesus. Thomas’ climactic proclamation that Jesus is his Lord and God, strategically reflects the apex of the result of this apprehension. Superficially, references to the importance of seeing in John 20 seem to be contradictory to Jesus’ “beatitude” of believingwithout-seeing in what he tells Thomas (20:29). But the seeing-and-notseeing contrast corresponds to the contrast between “disciples” in the narrative and the future “disciples” in the readers’ world. Thus, in the first-part conclusion immediately following, 20:30–31 functions to follow up this con3

The OT narratives where Yahweh himself was personally at work and present are now taken up by John and he sees them as being fulfilled in Jesus’ work (and signs). John attributes the subject of both what is “seen” (by the characters) and has been “seen” (by the OT authors) to Jesus himself. The identity of Yahweh is taken as Jesus though he is obviously distinguished from the Father and is subordinated to him in other places in GJohn (cf. footnote 58 of Chapter 2).

202

Chapter 7: Conclusions

cern by restating John’s dual faith-fostering and -engendering purpose (cf. 19:35). In 21:15–25, we see in Peter’s climactic vow of loving Jesus and confession of Jesus’ omniscience another pinnacle in GJohn, bringing climax to the knowing and loving motifs. A new mode of following Jesus (the believing motif) is also demanded by Jesus which echoes the first apprehension stage and challenges John’s readers. For the second-part conclusion 21:24–25, by identifying with the narrator and the BD and utilising the knowing and witnessing motifs, John focuses on the relationship of his authenticated composition and the author. Through these means, the author ascertains himself as being responsible for the entire GJohn and also pronounces his authorial knowledge on everything about Jesus. Together 20:30–31 and 21:24–25 bridge up the worlds of the author and the readers in concluding the message of GJohn. For the readers now, the end of GJohn is the beginning of their own apprehension.

B. John’s Intended Impact on Readers and Its Contributions and Implications for Johannine Scholarship B. John’s Intended Impact and Implications

Having summarised my findings on how the concept of apprehension develops in GJohn from a rhetorical perspective, I turn to John’s intended impact for his readers. I have evaluated this impact by discussing four points in each of the sections of GJohn: First I discussed the effect that John hoped to have by depicting the characters’ apprehension of Jesus. Then I illustrated how Jesus’ own apprehension of the spiritual reality is relevant to the readers’ perception of Jesus. I further evaluated John’s strategy in helping readers to understand the role of Jesus’ signs and words. Finally I discussed what John tells his readers about the role of faith in perceiving Jesus. Now, it is time to address these questions with the entire gospel in view, and reflect upon some of this monograph’s contributions to and implications for issues of concern in our own time. 1. Readers’ Understanding of the Characters’ Apprehension of Jesus and John’s Writing Purpose Characters in GJohn perceive Jesus in different ways as shown in my proposed four apprehension phases. Their responses carry an impact on the readers. For pericopae in John 1–4, we see the characters coming to faith and growing in it after a collaborated use of apprehension terms culminating in πιστεύω. Readers are similarly persuaded, showing John’s dual faithengendering and faith-fostering goal targeted towards believing and nonbelieving readers. In John 5–12, this is done by John’s literary strategy to

B. John’s Intended Impact and Implications

203

dissuade readers from identifying themselves with “the Jews”/Pharisees as well as persuading them to align with the beggar (9:13–38) and the twelve (6:67–69). In John 13–17, the relational stress on faith and the promised Paraclete for the disciples are striking to readers. By identifying with them, the remembered record of Jesus could be used for the readers’ own deeper apprehension with the Spirit’s help as signalled in the text. These benefits of “direct apprehension” and intimate relationship, together with Jesus’ continued evangelistic proclamations in each of the three apprehension phases, appeal profoundly to both Christians and non-Christians. In John 18–21, the same identification and alienation technique applies. An array of believing and unbelieving characters meets the needs of different types of readers. Towards the end of GJohn, by connecting the worlds of the characters and the readers, the author openly engages readers through calling for their belief (19:35; 20:30–31). All these create a powerful impact on the readers, from stern non-believers, interested non-believers, new/unstable believers, professing believers, maturing believers, failed believers, to matured believers. 4 With the strategy of progressive engagement, these different readers are invited to join in the story and to feel the forcefulness of the narratives. As a result, the story of encountering Jesus is “re-enacted” through the on-going readings of GJohn. With these re-enactments, readers of newer generations “repeat” what happened in the narrative. Accordingly, for John, Christianity consists in the continuation of such apprehending experience of Jesus’ works and words. As I have suggested, this impact to readers is achieved via its simultaneous faith-fostering/engendering technique. Contrary to many scholars’ views, GJohn appears neither purely faith-fostering, nor purely faith-engendering. It may be objected that non-believing readers would not have read GJohn directly in the late first century as they would other literature. But as GJohn circulated around the early churches, it is not impossible that interested nonChristians would have heard this gospel when they were invited to attend Christians’ gatherings.5 Furthermore, given the strong likelihood that GJohn was repeatedly read in Christian circles, its universalistic and evangelistic message would appeal to Christians such that they may subsequently have either disseminated the gospel to non-Christian friends or invited them to come to hear it. The Christian readers’ evangelising action corresponds perfectly with Jesus’ testifying command in GJohn and is very conceivable to the author (or even intended) in his writing the gospel. Thus, non-Christians, 4 Cf. Lincoln’s idea of “faith continuum” for readers to enter in; Lincoln, Truth, 180–81. I suggest that his spectrum should be extended to include non-believers. 5 See further Richard J. Bauckham, “The Audience of the Fourth Gospel,” in Jesus in Johannine Tradition, ed. Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2001), 101–12.

204

Chapter 7: Conclusions

via their Christian friends, could come to see the narrated signs and words of Jesus directly, achieving the author’s intention in his work.6 Therefore, the feasible historical setting of John’s churches matches GJohn’s dual purpose that we have identified. If so, in terms of numbers, such not-yet-believing readers may not have been the majority among John’s audience. 7 But given the equally strong faith-engendering sense observed, John seems to have a relatively great concern for these relatively fewer nonbelievers (as direct or indirect audience). Thus, our exegetical-literary investigation contributes to our understanding regarding the Johannine debate on GJohn’s audience and writing purpose. My findings further throw light on the debate regarding the contested ideas on “Johannine community,” namely, how John’s intended readership/purposes would fit in the first readers’ historical circumstances. For instance, is the reading community really “sectarian” and socially closed as some conventional scholarship claims? Do we need a new “reconstruction” of the reading community in light of the findings? In order to engage these questions, more work is needed.8 2. Readers’ Understanding of Jesus’ Own Apprehension Throughout my work, I argued that John’s use of apprehension terms with reference to Jesus is relevant to readers apprehending Jesus. In John 1–4, the portrayal of a divine and omniscient Jesus together with the idea of a still living Jesus has impressed readers (2:23–25). The witness of this divine Jesus concerning heavenly things is solely authoritative. Readers are left with the decision to accept or reject his testimony in total. This theme of Jesus’ omniscience continues throughout the rest of GJohn. His all-knowing perception of people’s inner dispositions and of future anticipated events is apparent. Such omniscience is further reinforced in two ways. The presupposed fact of 6 John’s symbolic language, ironies, and misunderstandings are not obstacles to nonChristians as I have shown in this work. Contra Zumstein, Jean 13–21, 296. Cf. further Hengel’s stress on GJohn’s Gentile mission. Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1989), 119–24. Cf. Aune’s suggestion that the gospels are also designed “to persuade non-Christian members of Christian households (some of which doubtless functioned as church centers) of the ultimate religious significance of Jesus.” Aune, New Testament, 60. 7 Admittedly this is a presumption only. The bifurcation made is for the ease of discussion; cf. my suggested “faith continuum” of readers. 8 E.g., Lamb’s socio-linguistic approach or Carter’s empire-critical approach: Lamb, Johannine Community; Carter, Empire, 256–88. See my Chapter 1, section A for scholars’ growing criticism of the conventional paradigm. My analysis inclines to see the conflict of belief/unbelief as more paradigmatic for readers in general than aiming at reflecting certain specific incidents in the late first century. This echoes the findings of Justin Marc Smith, Why Bíos? On the Relationship Between Gospel Genre and Implied Audience, LNTS 518 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015).

B. John’s Intended Impact and Implications

205

Jesus’ resurrection combines again with the remembrance language in 12:16 (cf. 2:17–22) to strategically frame Jesus’ entire public ministry, signalling to the readers that the remembered Jesus is not past but “present.” Also, Jesus’ emphasis on manifesting himself to the disciples in the future and his promise for his and the Father’s “abode” with believers encourages the readers to expect the “presence” of a living Jesus beside them. These two features, coupled with the more personal/relational stress in John 13–17, create an incisive impression of a divinely apprehending Jesus. This all-knowing attribute reaches a climax in Peter’s confession in 21:17. Jesus knows everything, even about one’s love towards him. With this awareness, readers are summoned similarly to believe/follow Jesus in a manner that no longer involves seeing him physically. The post-resurrection perspective, as noted by Johannine scholars, is to be seen through the concept of apprehension. The mystery of a seemingly anachronistic portrayal of Jesus in GJohn lies in the idea of a living and omniscient Jesus. The powerfulness of Jesus’ omniscience set in the post-resurrection perspective further lies in its invigoration of other concepts. Portrayals of Jesus, that he is trustworthy (as shown in the concept of witness), caring (John 13–17), divine (1:1; 5:17–18; 8:58; 19:37; 20:28), and omnipotent (12:39–41), are now vitalised to affect readers’ apprehension of Jesus as this Jesus is living and omniscient, present with the readers. Such a cumulative impact makes GJohn uniquely effective in achieving John’s dual writing purpose. And this literary impact lies beyond what this literary piece of work can contain. Through readers’ awareness of this apprehending Jesus, their faith can be engendered and fostered. Even though they no longer “see” and “hear” as the characters did, their apprehension of Jesus can be in effect equivalent to the characters’ during Jesus’ earthly ministry. They can equally grasp this narrated Jesus and, at the same time, they know that they are grasped by him. This contributes to our understanding of GJohn’s uniqueness among the canonical gospels. 3. The Role of Signs and Words in the Perception/Apprehension of Jesus The role of Jesus’ signs and words in GJohn has generated debates in Johannine scholarship. From my investigation, I conclude that seeing Jesus’ signs and hearing his words function complementarily. Both signs and words can lead to or confirm a genuine faith in Jesus; both can lead to a superficial/counterfeit faith which is exposed to be false later on. What John does criticise, rather, is a “rationalistic/humanistic” view of faith, i.e., requiring signs as a prerequisite for faith (4:48). Having shown that this is fatal to apprehending Jesus, an alternative way to “see/perceive Jesus himself” is urged (6:40), which is further elaborated as “seeing the Father” (14:9). Upholding the value of signs, readers are encouraged to see from them deeper issues of

206

Chapter 7: Conclusions

the spiritual realities. In the Thomas pericope, Thomas’ insistence on seeing and touching the risen Jesus is subtly differentiated from taking signs as “the criterion” for faith. Jesus’ beatitude for future believers who will believe without being able to have such first-hand verification is put together with Jesus’ deliberate act to satisfy Thomas’ request of seeing and touching. The tension between upholding the verifiability of Jesus’ deeds (Thomas’ request) and admitting the impossibility of first-hand verification (Jesus’ beatitude) is nicely balanced. By reading the signs written in GJohn and accepting John’s testimony, future believers/readers are able to “see” these signs in another sense and believe. Such signs and words are not only significant for the characters but also for the readers. Signs and words function to invite readers to evaluate Jesus’ challenges and encourage them to engage in a “direct” seeing and hearing of Jesus (4:42; 19:35). Further, readers are shown that a correct/desired apprehension of Jesus does not hinge on seeing and hearing from Jesus alone. The key hindrance to true perception of Jesus lies in what is within a person, not without. The key furtherance to a desired perception is the Paraclete, who makes the narrated signs and words effective in readers’ minds. As signs and words become narrated signs and words, in “seeing” and “hearing” GJohn, readers can take John’s testimony as truthful in the sense that, according to the author, objective verifiability and subjective interpretation of these narrated signs and words co-inhere. Accordingly, the signs of the earthly Jesus are meaningful and the faith generated thereby is not denigrated. The historical and the theological are the two faces of the same coin according to John’s testimony.9 Without one, the other cannot function properly to solicit a true apprehension of Jesus. If John were to comment, many issues raised in the quests of the historical Jesus in the last centuries would be alien to him. John has masterfully handled “signs” and “words” in Jesus’ milieu and utilises them to make an impact on the audience in his own times. Thus, my analysis of the multifaceted features of Jesus’ signs and words in relation to the concept of faith contributes to a more

9

Cf. Bauckham’s notion of testimony as both “the historically appropriate category” and “theologically appropriate category.” Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 473; 505–8. Cf. the renewed interest in recovering the epistemological and historical value of testimony, for instance, C.A.J. Coady, Testimony: A Philosophical Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); C. Stephen Evans, The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996); Jennifer Lackey and Ernest Sosa, eds., The Epistemology of Testimony (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Jennifer Lackey, Learning from Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

B. John’s Intended Impact and Implications

207

holistic appreciation of GJohn in its entirety and a more sophisticated view of how the remembered Jesus was “testified” in the late first century.10 4. The Role of Faith in One’s Perception/Apprehension of Jesus In GJohn, time and again the readers are confronted with the importance of faith in apprehending Jesus. In one sense, it affects the readers’ eternal destiny. Salvation or condemnation is at stake. In another sense, readers are also struck by the notion that belief/unbelief is not only the end result of the process of apprehending Jesus; it is also paradoxically one’s presupposition prior to it.11 Unbelievers claim to have seen, heard, or known. Yet such perception remains inadequate, sometimes even false. Jesus’ further clarification can even lead to firmer unbelief.12 The significance of Jesus’ message has to be grasped through a true faith. This applies also to the readers. Only faithful readers can come to truly apprehend Jesus. Furthermore, while belief/unbelief is the result of people’s own choice, they are caused by Jesus at the same time. Faith is an option but paradoxically also a gift from God/Jesus (12:39–41). The Paraclete works together with people’s decision to believe. Without faith, they cannot enter into the relational core of knowing Jesus; they fail to have an intimate relationship with the triune God and are alienated from being God’s elect. Being struck by the significance of how Jesus’ sacrifice is presented, entailing both God’s love and Jesus’ divine identity, apprehension of Jesus demands a response. One simply cannot remain neutral. Facing John’s compelling account of Jesus’ works and deeds, readers’ reflections and responses are called for as to what stance they will take regarding their perception of Jesus (19:35; 20:30–31; 21:24–25) and what it means to believe in him. Seeing, hearing, knowing, witnessing, and remembering terms are all tightly connected with believing. Together they function progressively through chapters 1–4, 5–9, 10–17, and 18–21 so as to demonstrate the multi-layered importance of faith in readers’ apprehension of Jesus. Readers’ belief/unbelief, as part of their apprehension/perception process and with their own presuppositions, is opened to challenging possibilities upon 10 Our findings echo Paul Ricoeur’s notion that memory remains the only resource concerning our reference to the past. But of course, more work is needed for further dialogue between John and Ricoeur on matters of memory and imagination as well as testimony and historiography. See Ricoeur, Time and Narrative; Paul Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, trans. Kathleen Blamey (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); Paul Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, trans. Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004). 11 Cf. Lincoln’s thoughtful reflection, Lincoln, Truth, 367–68. 12 Admittedly, the role of presuppositions/biases in one’s cognitive process opens up another discipline, cognitive psychology.

208

Chapter 7: Conclusions

encountering the narrated Jesus. Taking Jesus’ trustworthy signs and words as the basis and means, readers’ progressive and deepening faith is called for, through which God’s glory is seen. Thus, GJohn also provides the source for our theological reflection on deeper aspects of the Christian faith.13 Furthermore, John’s overt way to engage his audience for such theological reflections through his gospel is unparalleled, at least among the canonical gospels.14 My study thus helps us to a better recognition of the unique Johannine contribution to the theological landscape of early Christianity. John’s testimony of Jesus, with fact and authoritative interpretation being bound together, offers a profound theology of faith which is intended to lead to an intimate knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Very likely, at the turn of the century when Jesus’ disciples began to die out, John felt the need to leave a legacy of Jesus eyewitnessed, a version of his own original presentation of who Jesus is and how he should be known by subsequent generations. To him, his masterpiece answers people’s profound need for apprehending Jesus. My analysis of the concept of apprehension and its intended impacts reveals his pastoral and missionary heart for the church and the world. After all, GJohn speaks meaningfully and powerfully in the late first century, and does so still, after a lapse of two millennia.

13 Evidently, regarding the contemplative aspects on seeing and hearing Jesus, further interaction could be made with von Balthasar’s notion of seeing/knowing the beauty of God in his aesthetic reading of the NT, OT, and beyond. Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics: I: Seeing the Form, ed. John Kenneth Riches, trans. Joseph Fessio, vol. 1, 7 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982); Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics: VII: Theology: The New Covenant, ed. John Kenneth Riches, trans. Brian McNeil, vol. 7, 7 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990). Cf. the mystical tradition of cataphatic spirituality (e.g., Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises) and Jey J. Kanagaraj, “Mysticism” in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into Its Background, JSNTSup 158 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998). 14 Though Luke may be the best after him. But this would be another further research area to compare the persuasive strategies adopted by the different gospel authors to engage their readers towards a desired apprehension of Jesus through their own accounts of Jesus.

Appendix

Grammatical Usage of Key Apprehension Terms Key: Verb (V); Subject (S); Object/complement (O); Noun (N).

A. Seeing A. Seeing V= ὁράω/εἶδον S= Relating to God: Jesus (1:47, 48, 50; 3:11 [we], 32; 5:6; 6:46; 8:38, 57; 9:1; 11:33, 34; 16:22; 19:26); Those sympathetic to Jesus: John the Baptist (1:33, 34); the disciples (1:39 [2x]; 14:7; 16:16, 17, 19; 20:20, 25); Nathanael (1:46, 50, 51); people of Samaria (4:29); the nobleman at Capernaum and the Galileans (4:48); Nicodemus (7:52); Abraham (8:56 [2x]); the man blind from birth (9:37); Mary (11:32); Martha (11:40); some Greeks (12:21); Isaiah (12:41); the beloved disciple (19:35; 20:8); Mary Magdalene (20:18); Thomas (20:25, 27, 29); Peter (21:21); Those hostile to Jesus: the Jews (5:37); the world (15:24); one of the servants of the high priest (18:26); the chief priests and the officers (19:6); the soldiers (19:33, 37). Others (no clear stance noted): no one (1:18); one/anyone (3:3, 36; 6:46; 14:9 [2x]; 20:29); the Galileans (4:45); the Jews (11:31); the people (6:14); the crowd (6:22, 24, 26, 30, 36; 12:9, 40). O= Relating to God: God (1:18); the Holy Spirit (1:33, 34); the form of the Father (5:37); the Father (6:46 [2x]; 14:7, 9); Jesus (1:46; 4:29; 6:36;520 9:37; 11:32; 12:21; 14:9; 16:16, 17, 19; 19:6, 33, 37; 20:18, 20, 25 [2x], 29 [2x]); Relating to salvation: greater things (1:50); heaven and angels of God (1:51); kingdom of God (3:3); life (3:36); all that Jesus did (4:45); signs and wonders (4:48); sign Jesus did (6:14); sign(s) (6:26, 30, 6:36521); that no prophet arises out of Galilee (7:52); the day of Jesus (8:56 [2x]); the glory of God (11:40); Jesus’ glory (12:41); the works Jesus did (15:24); Relating to activities of Jesus: the place Jesus stayed (1:39 [2x]); Jesus’ hands (20:27); that no other small boat there and Jesus had not entered the boat (6:22); that Jesus was not there (6:24); the tomb (11:34); the actions of the soldiers towards Jesus (19:35); the situation of the empty tomb (20:8); Not explicitly mentioned (3:11, 32; 8:38; 12:40);

520 521

NA28 î66, 75vid and most of the rest of the witnesses except ‫ א‬A a b e q sys.c. An inference from the context for textual witnesses ‫ א‬A a b e q sys.c which lack µε.

210

Appendix

Characters: Nathanael (1:47, 48, 50); the paralytic (5:6); Abraham (8:57); the man born blind (9:1); Mary (11:31, 33); Lazarus (12:9); the disciples (16:22); Peter (18:26); Jesus’ mother and the beloved disciple (19:26); the beloved disciple (21:21). Interjection in the form of ἴδε (1:29, 36, 47; 3:26; 5:14; 7:26; 11:3, 36; 12:19; 16:29; 18:21; 19:4, 14, 26, 27); in the form of ἰδού (4:35; 12:15; 16:32; 19:5). V= θεάοµαι S= Relating to God: Jesus (1:38; 6:5); Those sympathetic to Jesus: we (1:14); John the Baptist (1:32); the disciples (4:35); the Jews (11:45). O= Relating to God: the Holy Spirit (1:32); Relating to salvation: Jesus’ glory (1:14); what Jesus did (11:45); Relating to activities of Jesus: the fields (4:35); that a large crowd was coming to him (6:5). Characters: the disciples (1:38). V= θεωρέω S= Those sympathetic to Jesus: the Samaritan woman (4:19); the disciples (6:19, 62; 7:3; 14:19; 16:10, 16, 17, 19; 17:24); Peter (20:6); Mary Magdalene (20:12, 14); many (2:23); Those hostile to Jesus: the Pharisees (12:19); Others (no clear stance noted): the crowd (6:2); a hired hand (10:12); the world (14:17, 19); one/ anyone (6:40; 8:51; 12:45); undefined (9:8). O= Relating to God: Jesus (6:19, 40, 62; 12:45; 14:19 [2x]; 16:10, 16, 17, 19; 20:14); the Father (12:45); the Holy Spirit (14:17); two angels (20:12). Relating to salvation: signs Jesus did (2:23; 6:2); that you are a prophet (4:19); the works Jesus does (7:3); death (8:51); Jesus’ glory (17:24); Relating to activities of Jesus: the linen wrappings (20:6); Characters: the man blind from birth (9:8); Others: the wolf (10:12); that the Pharisees are gaining nothing (12:19). V= βλέπω S= Relating to God: Jesus (5:19); Those sympathetic to Jesus: John the Baptist (1:29); the disciples (13:22; 21:9); Mary Magdalene (20:1); Peter (20:5; 21:20); the man born blind (9:7, 15, 19, 21, 25); Those hostile to Jesus: the Pharisees (9:41); Others (no clear stance noted): one(s) (9:39 [3x]; 11:9). O= Relating to God: Jesus (1:29); the light of this world (11:9); Relating to salvation: what the Father does (5:19); Characters: the disciples (13:22); the beloved disciple (21:20); Others: the stone taken away (20:1); the linen wrappings (20:5); a charcoal fire (21:9).

B. Hearing

211

V= ἀναβλέπω S= Those sympathetic to Jesus: the man born blind (9:11, 15, 18 [2x]). O= N/A. V= ἐµβλέπω S= Relating to God: Jesus (1:42); Those sympathetic to Jesus: John the Baptist (1:36). O= Relating to God: Jesus (1:36); Characters: Peter (1:42).

B. Hearing B. Hearing V= ἀκούω S= Relating to God: Jesus (3:32; 5:30; 8:26, 40; 9:35; 11:4, 6; 15:15); God (9:31 [2x]; 11:41, 42 [the Father]); the Holy Spirit (16:13); Those sympathetic to Jesus: the disciples (1:37, 40; 14:24, 28; 6:60); Nicodemus (3:8); the friend of the bridegroom (3:29); the Samaritans (4:42); the nobleman (4:47); the sheep (10:3, 8, 27; 10:16 [other sheep]); Martha (11:20); Mary (11:29); Peter (21:7). Those hostile to Jesus: the Pharisees (4:1; 7:32; 9:40); Pilate (19:8, 13); the Jews (5:37; 8:38, 43, 47; 9:27 [or the Pharisees]; 10:20; 18:21 [or the world]); Others (no clear stance noted): one/ anyone (5:24; 6:45; 8:47; 12:47; 18:37); who (6:60); the crowd (7:40; 12:12, 18, 29, 34); the dead (5:25 [2x], 28); the law (7:51); not explicitly mentioned (9:32). O= Relating to God: the Father’s voice (5:37; 12:29 [/thunder]); from the Father (6:45; 8:26, 38522; 15:15); Jesus (10:20; 11:41, 42; 18:21); what Jesus said/ Jesus’ words (4:42; 5:24; 7:40; 8:43; 9:40; 12:47; 14:24 [=Father’s word], 28); Jesus’ voice (5:25, 28; 10:3 [the shepherd’s voice]; 10:16, 27; 18:37); Jesus’ teaching on life (6:60); the truth from God (8:40); the words of God (8:47 [2x]); People’s Words (other than Jesus’): John the Baptist’s words (1:37, 40); the crowd’s muttering about Jesus (7:32); the answer from the man born blind (9:27 [2x]); Martha and Mary’s word (11:4); Martha’s word (11:29); the Jews’ words (19:8, 13); the beloved disciple’s word (21:7); Relating to salvation: that Jesus had done a sign (12:18); that the Christ remains forever (12:34); Reports of activities: that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (4:1); that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee (4:47); that one opened the eyes of a man born blind (9:32); that the Jews had cast out the man born blind (9:35); that Lazarus was sick (11:6); that Jesus was coming (11:20); that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem (12:12);

522 An interpretation taking τοῦ πατρὸς in NA28 as referring to God. Note other textual variants other than the supporting witnesses î66 B L W 070.

212

Appendix

Characters: the bridegroom (3:29); the devil (8:38523); sinners (9:31); one who is Godfearing and does His will (9:31); thieves and robbers (10:8); Others: the sound of the wind (3:8); not explicitly mentioned (3:32; 16:13); undefined (5:25, 30; 6:60; 7:51).

C. Knowing C. Knowing V= γινώσκω S= Relating to God: Jesus (1:48; 2:24, 25; 4:1; 5:6, 42; 6:15; 10:14, 15, 27; 16:19; 17:25; 21:17); the Father (10:15); Those sympathetic to Jesus: Nicodemus (3:10); the nobleman (4:53); the disciples (6:69; 12:16; 13:7, 12, 28; 14:7 [3x], 17, 20; 15:18); Jesus’ sheep (10:14); Philip (14:9); the people whom the Father gave Jesus (17:7, 8, 23, 25); Those hostile to Jesus: the Jews (8:27, 28; 8:32, 43, 52, 55 [who had believed him]; 10:38; 19:4); the world (16:3); Others (no clear stance noted): the world (1:10; 14:17, 31; 17:25); all (13:35); all people (17:3); one/ anyone (7:17; 11:57); rulers (7:26); the people of Jerusalem (7:27); the crowd (7:49; 12:9); the law (7:51); the Pharisees/ the man born blind/ the Jews (10:6 “they”).524 O= Relating to God: Jesus (1:10; 10:14, 15; 14:7, 9; 16:3; 17:3); the Father/ God (8:55; 10:15; 14:7 [2x]; 16:3; 17:3, 25 [2x]); the Holy Spirit (14:17 [2x]); Characters: Nathanael (1:48); all (2:24); the Jews (5:42); Jesus’ sheep (10:14, 27); Places: where Jesus is from (7:27); where Jesus was (11:57); Things: what was in man (2:25); Jesus’ teaching of reborn (3:10); what the Pharisees heard of Jesus (4:1); the people’s intention (6:15); the origin of Jesus’ teaching (7:17); the law (7:49); what a man does (7:51); the truth (8:32); what Jesus said (8:43); what Jesus was telling them (10:6); what Jesus was doing (13:7, 12); Facts or a situation: that it was at that hour Jesus said to the nobleman (4:53); that the paralytic had been there a long time (5:6); that Jesus is the Holy One of God (6:69); that this is the Christ (7:26); that Jesus had been speaking to the Jews about the Father (8:27); that I am (8:28); that Jesus has a demon (8:52); that the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father (10:38); that Jesus was there (12:9); the event of entering Jerusalem and its scriptural fulfilment (12:16); why Jesus told Judas to do what he was about to do (13:28); that the disciples are Jesus’ disciples (13:35); that Jesus is in his Father, and the disciples in Jesus, and Jesus in the disciples (14:20); that Jesus loves the Father (14:31); that the world has hated Jesus before it hated the disciples (15:18); that the disciples wanted to ask Jesus (16:19); that everything the Father has given Jesus is from the Father (17:7); that Jesus came from the Father (17:8); that the Father sent Jesus and loved the world even as the Father loved Jesus

523

An interpretation taking τοῦ πατρὸς in NA28 as referring to the devil. Note the various textual variants adding υµων to the text in the NA28 apparatus. 524 Cf. 9:38, 40, ἐκεῖνοι should refer to the Pharisees or together with the man born blind. But, with reference to 10:19, the Jews are there hearing too.

C. Knowing

213

(17:23); that the Father has sent Jesus (17:25); that Pilate found no guilt in Jesus (19:4); that Peter loved Jesus (21:17). V= οἶδα S= Relating to God: Jesus (3:11, 4:22 [“we”]; 5:32; 6:6, 61, 64; 7:15, 29; 8:14, 37, 55 [3x]; 11:42; 12:50; 13:1, 3, 11, 18; 16:30; 18:4; 19:10, 28; 21:15, 16, 17); Those sympathetic to Jesus: John the Baptist (1:31, 33); Nicodemus (3:8); the disciples (4:32; 13:7, 17; 14:4, 5 [2x]; 16:18, 30; 20:9; 21:4, 12); the Samaritan woman (4:10, 22, 25); the Samaritan (4:42); the paralytic (5:13); the man born blind (9:12, 25 [2x], 31 [we]); the sheep (10:4, 5); Martha (11:22, 24); the servant (15:15); the beloved disciple (19:35); Mary Magdalene (20:2 [“we”], 13, 14); “we” (21:24 [the author(s)?]); Those hostile to Jesus: the Jews (6:42; 9:24, 29 [2x], 30; 18:21 [or the world]); Pharisees (8:14, 19 [3x]; 11:49 [together with the chief priests]); the world (15:21); Judas (18:2); Others (no clear stance noted): Pharisees (1:26; 3:2 [with Nicodemus, “we”]); the master of the feast (2:9); the servants who had drawn the water (2:9); the people of Jerusalem (7:27, 28 [3x]); the parents of the man born blind (9:20, 21 [2x]); one (12:35). O= Relating to God: Jesus (1:26, 31, 33, 7:28; 8:19 [2x]); who healed the paralytic (5:13); who opened the eyes of the man born blind (9:21); the shepherd’s voice (10:4); Father/ God (7:28, 29 [the One who sent Jesus]; 8:19 [2x], 55 [3x]); the one who sent Jesus (15:21); Characters: Jesus’ father and mother (6:42); who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray Jesus (6:64); the voice of strangers (10:5); who was to betray Jesus (13:11); whom Jesus has chosen (13:18); Places: where the wine came from (2:9 [2x]); where the wind comes from or where the wind goes (3:8); where Jesus is from (7:27, 28; 8:14 [2x] [“where I came from and where I am going”]; 9:29, 30); where Jesus was (9:12); where one is going (12:35); the way where Jesus was going (14:4); where Jesus was going (14:5); the way (14:5); the place (18:2); where they have laid Jesus (20:2, 13); Things: the gift of God that is Jesus’ identity (4:10); the food Jesus eats (4:32); such learning (7:15); “nothing” (11:49); what Jesus was doing (13:7); Jesus’ teaching on washing feet (13:17); what his master is doing (15:15); what Jesus was talking about (16:18); all things (16:30); all that would happen to Jesus (18:4); what Jesus said (18:21); the Scripture (20:9); everything (21:17); Facts or a situation: that Jesus is a teacher come from God (3:2); not explicitly mentioned (3:11; 4:22 [2x]); that Messiah is coming (4:25); that Jesus is indeed the Saviour of the world (4:42); that the testimony which the Father gives about Jesus is true (5:32); what Jesus was going to do (6:6); that the disciples were grumbling about Jesus’ teaching (6:61); that the believing Jews are Abraham's descendants (8:37); that this is our son and that he was born blind (9:20); how the man born blind sees (9:21); that Jesus is a sinner (9:24); whether Jesus is a sinner (9:25); that though the man born blind was blind, now he sees (9:25); that God spoke to Moses (9:29); that God does not listen to sinners (9:31); that whatever Jesus asks from God, God will give him (11:22); that Lazarus will rise again in the resurrection on the last day (11:24); that the Father always hears Jesus (11:42); that the Father’s commandment is eternal life (12:50); that Jesus’ hour had come (13:1); that the Father had given all

214

Appendix things into Jesus’ hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God (13:3); that Jesus knew all things (16:30); that Pilate has authority to release or crucify Jesus (19:10); that all was now finished (19:28); that the beloved disciple was telling the truth (19:35); that it was Jesus (20:14; 21:4); that it was the Lord (21:12); that Peter loved Jesus (21:15, 16); that the beloved disciple’s testimony is true (21:24).

D. Witnessing D. Witnessing V= µαρτυρέω S= Relating to God: Jesus (3:11 [“we”]; 4:44; 5:31; 7:7; 8:13, 14, 18; 13:21; 18:37); The Father (5:32 [2x] [another], 37; 8:18); the Holy Spirit (15:26); Those sympathetic to Jesus: John the Baptist (1:7, 8, 15, 32, 34; 3:26; 5:33); John’s disciples (3:28); the Samaritan Woman (4:39); the disciples (15:27); the beloved disciple (19:35; 21:24); Those hostile to Jesus: one of the officers (in Jesus’ saying 18:23); Other people (no clear stance noted): one/ anyone (2:25); the crowd (12:17); Other things: Jesus’ works (5:36 “the works which the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I do”; 10:25 “the works that Jesus do in my Father's name”); the Scriptures (5:39). O= Relating to God: Jesus (with περί: 1:7, 8 [“about the light”]; 1:15; [5:31, 32 [2x], 37, 39; 8:18 [2x]; 10:25; 15:26 “about myself”]; [5:36 “about me, that the Father has sent me”]; [8:13, 14 “about yourself”]; with object in dative: 3:26); Characters: John the Baptist (with object in dative: 3:28 [about John, that John said, 'I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.']); about man (with περί: 2:25) about the world (with περί: 7:7 that its works are evil); Things: to the truth (5:33; 18:37 dative case); about the wrong (18:23 with περί); about “these things” (21:24 with περί); Facts or a situation: sayings concerning Jesus baptizing with Holy Spirit (1:32); that this is the Son of God (1:34); what “we” [Jesus] have seen (3:11 accusative case); what Jesus has seen and heard (3:32 accusative case); that John said, 'I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him' (3:28); "He told me all that I ever did." (4:39); that a prophet has no honour in his own hometown (4:44); “about me, that the Father has sent me” (5:36); about the world that its works are evil (7:7); the prophecy of betrayal (13:21); Others: not explicitly mentioned ([12:17 the event of resurrection of Lazarus?]; 15:27; [19:35 the event of Jesus’ side pierced?]). N= µαρτυρία Its modifier= John the Baptist’s (1:7, 19); Jesus’ (3:11 [our]; 3:32, 33; 5:31; 8:13, 14); which the Father gives about Jesus (5:32); from man (5:34); Jesus has (5:36); of two men (8:17); of the beloved disciple (19:35; 21:24). Its description=

E. Remembering

215

to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him (1:7); content of John’s witness introduced in 1:19–36 (1:19); Nicodemus did not receive (3:11); no one received (3:32); whoever receives certifies that God is true (3:33); I do not receive (5:34); is not true when Jesus bears witness about himself (5:31; 8:13); is true (5:32; 8:14, 17; 19:35; 21:24); greater than that of John (5:36).

E. Remembering E. Remembering V= µιµνήσκω S= Those sympathetic to Jesus: the disciples (2:17, 22; 12:16). O= Jesus’ sayings: that Jesus had said this (2:22); Sayings of the Scriptures: that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me" (2:17); that these things had been written about Jesus and had been done to him (12:16). V= ὑποµιµνῄσκω S= Relating to God: The Holy Spirit (14:26). O= Jesus’ sayings: to the disciples all that Jesus said to them (14:26). V= µνηµονεύω S= Those sympathetic to Jesus: the disciples (15:20; 16:4); Others: a woman (16:21). O= Jesus’ sayings: the word that Jesus said to them: 'A servant is not greater than his master' (15:20); when their hour comes the disciples may remember that Jesus told such things to them (16:4); Others: the anguish (16:21).

F. Believing F. Believing V= πιστεύω S= Relating to God: Jesus (2:24); Those sympathetic to Jesus: Nathanael (1:50); the disciples (2:11, 22; 6:64 [some of them], 69; 11:15; 13:19; 14:1 [2x], 11 [2x], 29; 16:27, 30, 31; 17:8); Nicodemus (3:12 [2x]); the Samaritan woman (4:21); the Samaritans (4:39 “many,” 41 “many more”, 42); the nobleman (4:48, 50, [53 and all his household]); the man born blind (9:35, 36, 38); Martha (11:26, 27, 40); Philip (14:10); the beloved disciple (20:8); Thomas (20:25, 29); people/ the crowd (2:23; 7:31 “many of the crowd”; 8:30; 10:42 “many”); many of the Jews (11:45; 12:11); many of the rulers (12:42); Those hostile to Jesus: the Jews (5:38, 44, 46 [2x], 47 [2x]; 8:31, 45, 46; 9:18; 10:25, 26, 37, 38 [2x]); Jesus’ brothers (7:5); the rulers or the Pharisees (7:48); the Pharisees (8:24); the world (16:9; 17:21); the crowd (6:29, 30, 36; 12:37, 39);

216

Appendix

Others (no clear stance noted): all (1:7; 11:48); one(s)/anyone (1:12 [who received Jesus]; 3:15, [3:16; 6:40; 11:26 “all who”], 3:18 [3x], 36; 5:24; 6:35, 47, [6:64; 17:20; 20:29 those]; 7:38, 39; 11:25; 12:44 [2x], 46; 14:12); “who” (12:38); people/ the crowd (12:36 “the crowd”; 11:42 “the crowd standing around”); you (19:35; 20:31 [2x]). O= Relating to God: God: –object in dative form: [5:24 the one who sent Jesus dative]; –with εἰς + acc.: [12:44 in the one who sent me]; [14:1 in God]; Jesus: –with εἰς + acc. (in most cases either εἰς αὐτόν, or εἰς ἐµὲ): 2:11; 3:16, [3:18 [2x] eclipsed in the 2nd time], [3:36 in the Son]; 4:39; [6:29 the one whom the Father has sent]; 6:35, 40; 7:5, 31, 38, 39, 48; 8:30; [9:35 in the Son of Man]; 9:36; 10:42; 11:25, 26, 45, 48; 12:11; [12:36 in the light], 12:37, 42, 44 [2x], 46; 14:1, 12; 16:9; 17:20 [“in me through their word”]; –with ἐν + dat.: 3:15 (ἐν αὐτῷ); –object in dative form: [4:21; 5:46; 8:45, 46; 10:37, 38 me]; [5:38 the one whom the Father has sent]; [6:30 you]; [8:31 him]); –in the name of (εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα): Jesus (1:12; 2:23); the only begotten Son of God (3:18); –with διά + gen.: 1:7 (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ); –absolute use: though not explicitly mentioned, but Jesus and/ or his word is implied (1:50; 3:12; 4:41, 42, 48, 53; 5:44; 6:36, 47, 64 [2x], 69; 9:38; 10:25, 26; 11:15, 40; 12:39; 14:11, 29; 16:31; 19:35; 20:8, 25, 29 [2x], 31); Jesus’ sayings (in dative form except 11:26): the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken (2:22); the word that Jesus spoke to him (4:50); my words (5:47); Jesus’ saying (11:26 τοῦτο, in accusative form); Jesus’ claims: –introduced by ὅτι: that I am [he] (8:24; 13:19); that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world (11:27); that the Father sent Jesus (11:42; 17:8, 21); that Jesus is in the Father, and the Father is in him (14:10, 11); that Jesus came from God (16:27, 30); that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (20:31); –in dative form: our report [concerning Jesus] (12:38); Jesus’ works (in dative form): the works [of Jesus] (10:38); Others (in dative form except 9:18): “[entrust] himself (accusative) to them (dative)” (2:24); Moses (5:46); Moses’ writing (5:47); concerning the man born blind that he had been blind and had received sight (περί αὐτοῦ ὅτι…) (9:18).

Bibliography Abbott, Edwin A. Johannine Grammar. Diatessarica 6. London: A. and C. Black, 1906. –. Johannine Vocabulary: A Comparison of the Words of the Fourth Gospel with Those of the Three. Diatessarica 5. London: A. and C. Black, 1905. Akala, Adesola J. The Son-Father Relationship and Christological Symbolism in the Gospel of John. LNTS 505. London: T&T Clark, 2014. Allison, Dale. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010. Anderson, Paul N. The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered. LNTS 321. London: T&T Clark, 2006. –. The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011. Anderson, Paul N., Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher, eds. John, Jesus, and History, Volume 1: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views. SBLSymS 44. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. – eds. John, Jesus, and History, Volume 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel. SBLSymS 44. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Arichea, Daniel C. “Translating ‘Believe’ in the Gospel of John.” BT 30, no. 2 (1979): 205–9. Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Asiedu-Peprah, Martin. Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as Juridical Controversy. WUNT 132. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Attridge, Harold W. “Temple, Tabernacle, Time, and Space in John and Hebrews.” Early Christianity 1, no. 2 (2010): 261–74. Audi, Robert. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2011. Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988. Bae, Sungjin. “Jesus’ Resurrection as the Climactic Semeion in the Fourth Gospel.” PhD dissertation, Louisville, KY: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008. Bahr, Ann Marie B. “‘Knowing God’ in the Fourth Gospel: The Household and the Word.” PhD dissertation, Pennsylvania: Temple University, 1989. Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Translated by Christine van Boheemen. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Balthasar, Hans Urs von. The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics: I: Seeing the Form. Edited by John Kenneth Riches. Translated by Joseph Fessio. Vol. 1. 7 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982.

218

Bibliography

–. The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics: VII: Theology: The New Covenant. Edited by John Kenneth Riches. Translated by Brian McNeil. Vol. 7. 7 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990. Barrett, C. K. The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1978. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Bartholomä, Philipp F. The Johannine Discourses and the Teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics: A Contribution to the Discussion Concerning the Authenticity of Jesus’ Words in the Fourth Gospel. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 57. Tübingen: Francke, 2010. Bassler, Jouette M. “Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 108, no. 4 (1989): 635–46. Bauckham, Richard J. “Eyewitness Memory.” Pages 319–57 in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. –. “For Whom Were Gospels Written?” Pages 9–48 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard J. Bauckham. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John.” NTS 53 (2007): 17–36. –. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. –. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. –. “The Audience of the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 101–12 in Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Edited by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2001. –. “The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author.” JSNT 49 (1993): 21–44. – ed. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. –. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Beasley-Murray, G. R. John. 2nd ed. WBC. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999. Beck, David R. The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel. BIS 27. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –. “‘Whom Jesus Loved’: Anonymity and Identity: Belief and Witness in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 221–39 in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John. Edited by Christopher W. Skinner. LNTS 461. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Becker, Jürgen. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 2 vols. ÖTK 4. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1979. –. “Wunder und Christologie: Zum literarkritischen und christologischen Problem der Wunder im Johannesevangelium.” NTS 16, no. 2 (1970): 130–48. Beirne, Margaret M. Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel: A Genuine Discipleship of Equals. JSNTSup 242. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Bekken, Per Jarle. The Lawsuit Motif in John’s Gospel from New Perspectives: Jesus Christ, Crucified Criminal and Emperor of the World. NovTSup 158. Leiden: Brill Academic, 2014. Van Belle, Gilbert. “L’unité littéraire et les deux finales du quatrième évangile.” Pages 297–316 in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes. Festschrift für Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Andreas Dettwiler. ATANT 97. Zürich: Theologischer, 2009.

Bibliography

219

–. “Style Criticism and the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 291–316 in One Text, a Thousand Methods: Studies in Memory of Sjef van Tilborg. Edited by Patrick Chatelion Counet and Ulrich Berges. Boston: Brill Academic, 2005. –. The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel: Historical Survey and Critical Evaluation of the Semeia Hypothesis. BETL 116. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994. Van Belle, Gilbert, Michael Labahn, and P. Maritz, eds. Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation. BETL 223. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Van Belle, Gilbert, J. G. Van der Watt, and P. J. Maritz, eds. Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar. BETL 184. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005. Bennema, Cornelis. “Christ, the Spirit and the Knowledge of God.” Pages 107–33 in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God. Edited by Mary Healy and Robin Parry. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2007. –. Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2009. –. “The Identity and Composition of Oi Ioudaĩoi in the Gospel of John.” TynBul 60, no. 2 (2009): 239–63. Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Edited by A. H. McNeile. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928. Bernier, Jonathan. Aposynagōgos and the Historical Jesus in John: Rethinking the Historicity of the Johannine Expulsion Passages. BIS 122. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Beutler, Johannes. “Faith and Confession: The Purpose of John.” Pages 19–32 in Word, Theology, and Community in John. Edited by John Painter, R. Alan Culpepper, and Fernando F. Segovia. St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002. –. Martyria: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Zeugnisthema bei Johannes. Frankfurter Theologische Studien 10. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1972. Bittner, Wolfgang J. Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium: Die Messias-Erkenntnis im Johannesevangelium vor ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund. WUNT 2/26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Black, David Alan. “On the Style and Significance of John 17.” CTR 3 (1988): 141–59. Blaine, Bradford B. Peter in the Gospel of John. SBLAB 27. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Blomberg, Craig L. “The Historical Reliability of John: Rushing in Where Angels Fear to Tread?” Pages 71–82 in Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Edited by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2001. –. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001. Bockmuehl, Markus. Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006. Boice, James Montgomery. Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970. Boismard, Marie Emile. “Rapports entre foi et miracles dans l’évangile de Jean.” ETL 58, no. 4 (1982): 357–64. Bonney, William. Caused to Believe: The Doubting Thomas Story at the Climax of John’s Christological Narrative. BIS 62. Leiden: Brill Academic, 2002. Borchert, Gerald L. John 1–11. NAC 25A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001. –. John 12–21. NAC 25B. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003. Borgen, Peder. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. NovTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1965.

220

Bibliography

Brant, Jo-Ann A. Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Breck, John. “John 21: Appendix, Epilogue or Conclusion?” SVTQ 36, no. 1 (1992): 27–49. Brodie, Thomas L. The Gospel according to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. –. The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel: A Source-Oriented Approach. London: Oxford University Press, 1993. Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. Edited by Francis J. Moloney. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 2003. –. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist, 1979. –. The Gospel according to John I—XII: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 29. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. –. The Gospel according to John XIII—XXI: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 29A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970. Brown, Tricia Gates. Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in SocialScientific Perspective. JSNTSup 253. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Bruner, Frederick Dale. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011. Bultmann, Rudolf K. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. BeasleyMurray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. –. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. 2 vols. New York: Scribner, 1951. –. “Γινώσκω Κτλ.” TDNT, 1964. Burdick, D. W. “Οἶδα and Γινώσκω in the Pauline Epistles.” Pages 344–56 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974. Burkholder, Benjamin J. “Considering the Possibility of a Theological Corruption in Joh 1,18 in Light of its Early Reception.” ZNW 103, no. 1 (2012): 64–83. Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. Van den Bussche, Henri. “La Structure de Jean I-XII.” Pages 61–109 in L’Évangile de Jean: Études et Problèmes. Edited by M. E. Boismard and F. M. Braun. Recherches Bibliques 3. Bruges, France: Desclée de Brouwer, 1958. Bynum, Wm. Randolph. The Fourth Gospel and the Scriptures: Illuminating the Form and Meaning of Scriptural Citation in John 19:37. NovTSup 144. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Byrne, Brendan. “The Faith of the Beloved Disciple and the Community in John 20.” JSNT 23 (1985): 83–97. Byrskog, Samuel. “Memory and Identity in the Gospels: A New Perspective.” Pages 33–57 in Exploring Early Christian Identity. Edited by Bengt Holmberg. WUNT 226. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. –. Story as History-History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. WUNT 123. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Campbell, Constantine R. Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. SBG 13. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Carson, Donald A. “Current Source Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Some Methodological Questions.” JBL 97, no. 3 (1978): 411–29. –. “Is Faith in Christ Without Evidence Superior Faith? A Re-Examination of John 20:29.” Pages 105–18 in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology:

Bibliography

221

Essays in Honor of Max Turner. Edited by I. Howard Marshall, Volker Rabens, and Cornelis Bennema. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. –. “Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30–31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 124, no. 4 (2005): 693–714. –. The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus: An Exposition of John 14–17. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988. –. The Gospel according to John. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1991. –. “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered.” JBL 106, no. 4 (1987): 639–51. Carter, Warren. John and Empire: Initial Explorations. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Casey, Maurice. Is John’s Gospel True?. London: Routledge, 1996. Chapman, John. “‘We Know That His Testimony Is True.’” JTS O.S.31, no. 4 (1930): 379–87. Chatman, Seymour B. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978. Chennattu, Rekha M., and Mary L. Coloe, eds. Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney. Biblioteca di scienze religiose 187. Rome: LAS, 2005. Chrysostom, John. The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. John. 2 vols. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1848. Coady, C. A. J. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Collins, Billie Jean, Bob Buller, and John F. Kutsko. The SBL Handbook of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines. 2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2014. Conway, Colleen M. Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization. SBLDS 167. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999. –. “Speaking Through Ambiguity: Minor Characters in the Fourth Gospel.” BibInt 10, no. 3 (2002): 324–41. Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989. Croteau, David A. “An Analysis of the Concept of Believing.” ThM thesis, Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002. Cruse, D. A. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Cullmann, Oscar. Early Christian Worship. Translated by A. Stewart Todd and James B. Torrance. London: SCM, 1953. –. “Eiden kai episteusen. La vie de Jésus, objet de la «vue» et de la «foi» d’après le Quatrième Evangile.” Pages 52–61 in Aux sources de la Tradition chrétienne. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950. Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. –. “Designs for the Church in the Imagery of John 21:1–14.” Pages 369–402 in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jan Gabriël Van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 200. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. –. John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994.

222

Bibliography

–. “Nicodemus: The Travail of New Birth.” Pages 249–59 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by Steven A. Hunt, D. François Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 314. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. “Pursuing the Elusive.” Pages 109–22 in What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies. Edited by Tom Thatcher. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. –. The Gospel and Letters of John. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1998. –. The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools. SBLDS 26. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975. –. “The Plot of John’s Story of Jesus.” Interpretation 49, no. 4 (1995): 347–58. –. “The Weave of the Tapestry: Character and Theme in John.” Pages 18–35 in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John. Edited by Christopher W. Skinner. LNTS 461. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Gospel according to S. John. 2 vols. London: J. Parker, 1874. Davies, Margaret. Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel. JSNTSup 69. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Deeks, David. “Structure of the Fourth Gospel.” NTS 15, no. 1 (1968): 107–29. Dewey, Arthur J. “The Eyewitness of History: Visionary Consciousness in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 59–70 in Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Edited by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2001. Dodd, C. H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. –. “Note on John 21,24.” JTS N.S.4, no. 2 (1953): 212–13. –. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Le Donne, Anthony. The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Draper, Jonathan A. “Practicing the Presence of God in John: Ritual Use of Scripture and the Eidos Theou in John 5:37.” Pages 155–70 in Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity. Edited by Jonathan A. Draper. SemeiaSt 47. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Dschulnigg, Peter. Jesus begegnen: Personen und ihre Bedeutung im Johannesevangelium. 2nd ed. Münster: Lit, 2002. Duke, Paul D. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1985. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Ensor, Paul W. Jesus and His Works: The Johannine Sayings in Historical Perspective. WUNT 2/85. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. Erickson, Richard J. “Oida and Ginōskō and Verbal Aspect in Pauline Usage.” WTJ 44, no. 1 (1982): 110–22. Estes, Douglas. The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric and Persuasive Discourse. BIS 115. Leiden: Brill, 2013. –. The Temporal Mechanics of the Fourth Gospel: A Theory of Hermeneutical Relativity in the Gospel of John. BIS 92. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Evans, Craig A. To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation. JSOTSup 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989.

Bibliography

223

Evans, C. Stephen. The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Farelly, Nicolas. “An Unexpected Ally: Nicodemus’s Role Within the Plot of the Fourth Gospel.” TJ 34, no. 1 (2013): 31–43. –. The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel: A Narrative Analysis of Their Faith and Understanding. WUNT 2/290. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Fee, Gordon D. “On the Text and Meaning of John 20,30–31.” Pages 29–42 in To What End Exegesis?: Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. –. “On the Text and Meaning of John 20,30–31.” Pages 2193–2205 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett, Frans Van Segbroeck, Gilbert Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Fortna, Robert T. “Source and Redaction in the Fourth Gospel’s Portrayal of Jesus’ Signs.” JBL 89, no. 2 (1970): 151–66. –. The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. –. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Fortna, Robert T., and Tom Thatcher, eds. Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2001. Fowler, Robert M. “Who Is ‘the Reader’ in Reader Response Criticism.” Semeia, no. 31 (1985): 5–23. Fowler, Roger. Linguistics and the Novel. London: Methuen, 1977. Freed, Edwin D. Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John. NovTSup 11. Leiden: Brill, 1965. –. “Variations in the Language and Thought of John.” ZNW 55, no. 3–4 (1964): 167–97. Frey, Jörg. Die Johanneische Eschatologie I. WUNT 96. Tübingen: Mohr, 1997. –. Die Johanneische Eschatologie II. WUNT 110. Tübingen: Mohr, 1998. –. Die Johanneische Eschatologie III. WUNT 117. Tübingen: Mohr, 2000. –. “Love-Relations in the Fourth Gospel: Establishing a Semantic Network.” Pages 171–98 in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation. Edited by Gilbert Van Belle, Michael Labahn, and P. Maritz. BETL 223. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Frey, Jörg, and Udo Schnelle, eds. Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive. WUNT 175. Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Gaffney, James. “Believing and Knowing in the Fourth Gospel.” TS 26, no. 2 (1965): 215– 41. Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. “The Archive of Excess: John 21 and the Problem of Narrative Closure.” Pages 240–52 in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. C. Black. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1996. Geeraerts, Dirk. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Giblin, Charles H. “The Tripartite Narrative Structure of John’s Gospel.” Bib 71, no. 4 (1990): 449–68. Gignac, Francis T. “The Use of Verbal Variety in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 191–200 in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in

224

Bibliography

Honor of Francis J. Moloney. Edited by Rekha M. Chennattu and Mary L. Coloe. Rome: LAS, 2005. Glasson, T. Francis. Moses in the Fourth Gospel. London: SCM, 1963. De Goedt, Michel. “Un schème de révélation dans le quatrième Évangile.” NTS 8, no. 2 (1961): 142–50. Grayston, Kenneth. “The Meaning of Paraklētos.” JSNT 13 (1981): 67–82. Green, Gene L. “Lexical Pragmatics and the Lexicon.” BBR 22, no. 3 (2012): 315–34. –. “Relevance Theory and Theological Interpretation: Thoughts on Metarepresentation.” JTI 4, no. 1 (2010): 75–90. Greimas, Algirdas Julien. Sémantique structurale, recherche de méthode. Paris: Larousse, 1966. Grundmann, Walter. “Verständnis und Bewegung des Glaubens im Johannes-Evangelium.” KD 6 (1960): 131–54. Haenchen, Ernst. Das Johannesevangelium: Ein Kommentar. Edited by Ulrich Busse. Tübingen: Mohr, 1980. Hahn, Ferdinand. “Das Glaubensverständnis im Johannesevangelium.” Pages 50–69 in Glaube und Eschatologie: Festschrift für W. G. Kümmel zum 80 Geburtstag. Edited by Erich Grässer and Otto Merk. Tübingen: Mohr, 1985. –. “Sehen und Glauben im Johannesevangelium.” Pages 125–41 in Neues Testament und Geschichte: historisches Geschehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament: Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Heinrich Baltensweiler and Bo Ivar Reicke. Tübingen: Mohr, 1972. Hamid-Khani, Saeed. Revelation and Concealment of Christ: A Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel. WUNT 2/120. Tübingen: Mohr, 2000. Harris, Elizabeth. Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist. JSNTSup 107. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Hartenstein, Judith. Charakterisierung im Dialog: die Darstellung von Maria Magdalena, Petrus, Thomas und der Mutter Jesu im Kontext anderer frühchristlicher Traditionen. NTOA 64. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Harvey, A. E. Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel. London: SPCK, 1976. Hawthorne, Gerald F. “The Concept of Faith in the Fourth Gospel.” BSac 116, no. 462 (1959): 117–26. Heath, Jane. “‘You Say That I Am a King’ (John 18.37).” JSNT 34, no. 3 (2012): 232–53. Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1989. Hera, Marianus Pale. Christology and Discipleship in John 17. WUNT 2/342. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Herman, Luc, and Bart Vervaeck. Handbook of Narrative Analysis. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005. Hill, Charles E. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Hindley, J. Clifford. “Witness in the Fourth Gospel.” SJT 18, no. 3 (1965): 319–37. Hitchcock, F. R. Montgomery. “Is the Fourth Gospel a Drama?” Theology 7 (1923): 307– 17. –. “The Use of Γράφειν.” JTS O.S.31, no. 3 (1930): 271–75. Hodges, Zane Clark. “Untrustworthy Believers: John 2:23–25.” BSac 135, no. 538 (1978): 139–52. Holleran, J. Warren. “Seeing the Light: A Narrative Reading of John 9.” ETL 69, no. 1 (1993): 5–26.

Bibliography

225

–. “Seeing the Light: A Narrative Reading of John 9.” ETL 69, no. 4 (1993): 354–82. Hong, Ji Y. E. “Analisis narrativo del evangelio segun San Juan. Estudio del discurso joanico: Memoria, testimonio, dialogo.” PhD thesis, Navarre, Spain: Universidad de Navarra, 2004. Hooker, Morna D. “John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue.” NTS 16, no. 4 (1970): 354–58. Hopkins, Anthony Dennis. “A Narratological Approach to the Development of Faith in the Gospel of John.” PhD dissertation, Louisville, KY: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1992. Horstmann, A. “Οἶδα.” EDNT, 1991. Hoskyns, Edwyn C. The Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. N. Davey. 2nd ed. London: Faber & Faber, 1947. Hunt, Steven A., D. François Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann, eds. Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. WUNT 314. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Hurtado, Larry W. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. –. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. –. “Remembering and Revelation: The Historic and Glorified Jesus in the Gospel of John.” Pages 195–213 in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal. Edited by David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, Helen K. Bond, and Troy Miller. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. Hylen, Susan. Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2009. Jackson, Howard M. “Ancient Self-Referential Conventions and Their Implications for the Authorship and Integrity of the Gospel of John.” JTS 50, no. 1 (1999): 1–34. Jannidis, Fotis. “Character.” Pages 14–29 in Handbook of Narratology. Edited by Peter Hühn, John Pier, Wolf Schmid, and Jarg Schanert. Narratologia 19. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Johns, Loren L., and Douglas B. Miller. “The Signs as Witnesses in the Fourth Gospel: Reexamining the Evidence.” CBQ 56, no. 3 (1994): 519–35. Johnson, Luke Timothy. “On Finding the Lukan Community: A Cautious Cautionary Essay.” Pages 89–100 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers. Edited by Paul J. Achtmeier. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979. Johnston, George. The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. SNTSMS 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Jones, Larry Paul. The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John. JSNTSup 145. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. De Jonge, Marinus. Jesus, Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective. Translated by John E. Steely. SBLSBS 11. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977. Judge, P. J. “A Note on Jn 20:29.” Pages 2183–92 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett, Frans Van Segbroeck, Gilbert Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. Vol. 3. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Kähler, Martin. Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus. Leipzig: Deichert, 1892.

226

Bibliography

Kammler, Hans-Christian. “Die ‘Zeichen’ des Auferstandenen, Überlegungen zur Exegese von Joh 20,30–31.” Pages 191–211 in Johannesstudien: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des vierten Evangeliums. WUNT 88. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. Kanagaraj, Jey J. “Mysticism” in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into Its Background. JSNTSup 158. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Käsemann, Ernst. The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17. Translated by Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Keener, C. S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Kellum, L. Scott. The Unity of the Farewell Discourse: The Literary Integrity of John 13:31–16:33. JSNTSup 256. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Kierspel, Lars. The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context. WUNT 2/220. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Kittel, Gerhard. “Ἀκούω Κτλ.” TDNT, 1964. Klink, Edward W., ed. The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity. LNTS 353. London: T&T Clark, 2010. –. “The Gospel Community Debate: State of the Question.” Currents in Biblical Research 3, no. 1 (2004): 60–85. –. The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John. SNTSMS 141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Knights, Chris. “Nathanael and Thomas: Two Objectors, Two Confessors–Reading John 20:24–29 and John 1:44–51 in Parallel.” ExpTim 125, no. 7 (2014): 328–32. Koester, Craig R. “Hearing, Seeing, and Believing in the Gospel of John.” Bib 70, no. 3 (1989): 327–48. –. “Jesus’ Resurrection, the Signs, and the Dynamics of Faith in the Gospel of John.” Pages 47–74 in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Edited by Craig R. Koester and Reimund Bieringer. WUNT 222. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. –. “Theological Complexity and the Characterization of Nicodemus.” Pages 165–81 in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John. Edited by Christopher W. Skinner. LNTS 461. London: T&T Clark, 2013. –. “The Spectrum of Johannine Readers.” Pages 5–19 in “What Is John?”: Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel. Edited by Fernando F. Segovia. SBLSymS 3. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996. –. The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Köstenberger, Andreas J. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. –. “‘I Suppose’ (Οἶµαι): The Conclusion of John’s Gospel in Its Literary and Historical Context.” Pages 72–88 in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B.W. Winter on His 65th Birthday. Edited by Peter J. Williams, Andrew D. Clarke, Peter M. Head, and David Instone-Brewer. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. –. John. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. –. “John.” Pages 415–513 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. –. The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples according to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel’s Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “The Seventh Johannine Sign: A Study in John’s Christology.” BBR 5 (1995): 87–103.

Bibliography

227

–. “The Two Johannine Verbs for Sending: A Study of John’s Use of Words with Reference to General Linguistic Theory.” Pages 125–43 in Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures. Edited by D.A. Carson and Stanley E. Porter. JSNTSup 168. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Stephen O. Stout. “‘The Disciple Jesus Loved’: Witness, Author, Apostle: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.” BBR 18, no. 2 (2008): 209–32. Krafft, Eva. “Die Personen des Johannesevangeliums.” EvT 16 (1956): 18–32. Kremer, Jacob. “‘Nimm deine Hand und lege sie in meine Seite!’: Exegetische, hermeneutische und bibeltheologische Überlegungen zu John 20,24–29.” Pages 2153– 81 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett, Frans Van Segbroeck, Gilbert Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Kysar, Robert. John, the Maverick Gospel. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2007. –. “The Expulsion from the Synagogue: The Tale of a Theory.” Pages 237–45 in Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005. –. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1975. –. “The Whence and Whither of the Johannine Community.” Pages 65–81 in Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown. Edited by John R. Donahue. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2005. –. Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005. Labahn, Michael. “Between Tradition and Literary Art: The Miracle Tradition in the Fourth Gospel.” Bib 80, no. 2 (1999): 178–203. –. “‘Blinded by the Light’: Blindheit, Sehen und Licht in Joh 9: Ein Spiel von Variation und Wiederholung Durch Erzählung und Metapher.” Pages 453–509 in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation. Edited by Gilbert Van Belle, Michael Labahn, and P. Maritz. BETL 223. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. –. Jesus als Lebensspender: Untersuchungen zu einer Geschichte der johanneischen Tradition anhand ihrer Wundergeschichten. BZNW 98. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Lackey, Jennifer. Learning from Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Lackey, Jennifer, and Ernest Sosa, eds. The Epistemology of Testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Lamb, David A. Text, Context and the Johannine Community: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Johannine Writings. LNTS. London: T&T Clark, 2014. Lammers, Klaus. Hören, Sehen und Glauben im Neuen Testament. SBS 11. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966. Larsen, Kasper Bro. Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John. BIS 93. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Last, Richard. “Communities That Write: Christ-Groups, Associations, and Gospel Communities.” NTS 58, no. 2 (2012): 173–98. Lee, Dorothy A. Flesh and Glory: Symbol, Gender, and Theology in the Gospel of John. New York: Crossroad, 2002. –. “Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalene and Thomas in John 20.” JSNT 58 (1995): 37–49. –. “The Gospel of John and the Five Senses.” JBL 129, no. 1 (2010): 115–27.

228

Bibliography

–. The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning. JSNTSup 95. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Lehrer, Adrienne. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1974. Léon-Dufour, Xavier. Lecture de l’Evangile selon Jean. 4 vols. Paris: Seuil, 1988. –. “Trois chiasmes Johanniques.” NTS 7, no. 3 (1961): 249–55. Lieu, Judith. “Blindness in the Johannine Tradition.” NTS 34, no. 1 (1988): 83–95. Lightfoot, R. H. St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary. Edited by C. F. Evans. London: Oxford University Press, 1960. Lincoln, Andrew T. “‘I Am the Resurrection and the Life’: The Resurrection Message of the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 122–44 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “Reading John: The Fourth Gospel under Modern and Postmodern Interrogation.” Pages 127–49 in Reading the Gospels Today. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. –. “The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness.” JSNT 85 (2002): 3–26. –. The Gospel according to Saint John. BNTC. London: Continuum, 2005. –. “Trials, Plots and the Narrative of the Fourth Gospel.” JSNT 56 (1994): 3–30. –. Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000. –. “‘We Know That His Testimony Is True’: Johannine Truth Claims and Historicity.” Pages 179–97 in John, Jesus, and History: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views. Edited by P.N. Anderson, F. Just, and T. Thatcher. SBLSymS 44. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John: Based on the Revised Standard Version. NCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981. Loader, William R. G. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Louw, Johannes P. “On Johannine Style.” Neot 20 (1986): 5–12. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. –. Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament. SBLRBS 25. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992. Lozada, Francisco, and Tom Thatcher, eds. New Currents Through John: A Global Perspective. SBLRBS 54. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Lubac, Henri de. Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man. Translated by Elizabeth Englund and Lancelot C. Sheppard. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988. Lyons, John. Semantics. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Maccini, Robert G. Her Testimony Is True: Women as Witnesses according to John. JSNTSup 125. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. MacGregor, G. H. C., and A. Q. Morton. The Structure of the Fourth Gospel. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1961. Mardaga, Hellen. “The Use and Meaning of Ἐκεῖνος in Jn 19,35.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 20 (2007): 67–80. Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2003.

Bibliography

229

Mburu, Elizabeth W. Qumran and the Origins of Johannine Language and Symbolism. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 8. London: T&T Clark, 2010. McComiskey, Thomas Edward. “Zechariah.” Pages 1003–1244 in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. Edited by Thomas Edward McComiskey. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992. McGaughy, Lane C. Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Einai as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek. SBLDS 6. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. McHugh, John F. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4. Edited by G. N. Stanton. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2009. McIver, Robert K. Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels. SBLRBS 59. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. McKay, Kenneth L. “On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek.” NovT 23, no. 4 (1981): 289–329. Meeks, Wayne A. “Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.” JBL 91, no. 1 (1972): 44–72. –. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NovTSup 14. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Menken, Maarten J. J. Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form. CBET 15. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996. –. “The Old Testament Quotation in John 19,36: Sources, Redaction, Background.” Pages 2101–18 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett, Frans Van Segbroeck, Gilbert Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. –. “The Textual Form and the Meaning of the Quotation from Zechariah 12:10 in John 19:37.” CBQ 55, no. 3 (1993): 494–511. Merenlahti, Petri. “Characters in the Making: Individuality and Ideology in the Gospels.” Pages 49–72 in Characterization in the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism. Edited by David M. Rhoads and Kari Syreeni. JSNTSup 184. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Michaelis, Wilhelm. “Ὁράω Κτλ.” TDNT, 1979. Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Minear, Paul S. “Diversity and Unity: A Johannine Case-study.” Pages 162–75 in Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie: Festschrift für Eduard Schweizer. Edited by Ulrich Luz and Hans Weder. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. –. “The Original Functions of John 21.” JBL 102, no. 1 (1983): 85–98. Mitchell, Margaret M. “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim That ‘The Gospels Were Written for All Christians.’” NTS 51, no. 1 (2005): 36–79. Mlakuzhyil, George. The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel. AnBib 117. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1987. Moles, J. L. “Truth and Untruth in Herodotus and Thucydides.” Pages 88–121 in Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World. Edited by C. Gill and T. P. Wiseman. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993. Moloney, Francis J. Glory Not Dishonor: Reading John 13–21. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998. –. Love in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical, Theological, and Literary Study. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

230

Bibliography

–. “Narrative Criticism of the Gospels.” Pages 85–105 in “A Hard Saying”: The Gospel and Culture. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001. –. The Gospel of John. SP 4. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. –. “The Gospel of John as Scripture.” CBQ 67, no. 3 (2005): 454–68. –. “Who Is ‘the Reader’ In/of the Fourth Gospel.” ABR 40 (1992): 20–33. Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. Revised. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Motyer, Stephen. “Method in Fourth Gospel Studies: A Way Out of the Impasse?” JSNT 66 (1997): 27–44. –. Your Father the Devil?: A New Approach to John and “the Jews.” Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997. Moule, C. F. D. The Phenomenon of the New Testament. London: SCM, 1967. Müller, Mogens. “‘Have You Faith in the Son of Man?’ (John 9:35).” NTS 37, no. 2 (1991): 291–94. Mussner, Franz. Die Johanneische Sehweise und die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus. QD 28. Freiburg: Herder, 1965. Myers, Alicia D. Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis on the Fourth Gospel’s Use of Scripture in Its Presentation of Jesus. LNTS 458. London: T&T Clark, 2012. –. “‘Jesus Said to Them…’: The Adaptation of Juridical Rhetoric in John 5:19–47.” JBL 132, no. 2 (2013): 415–30. Nässelqvist, Dan. “Stylistic Levels in Hebrews 1.1–4 and John 1.1–18.” JSNT 35, no. 1 (2012): 31–53. Neyrey, Jerome H. “The Trials (Forensic) and Tribulations (Honor Challenges) of Jesus: John 7 in Social Science Perspective.” BTB 26, no. 3 (1996): 107–24. Ng, Wai-Yee. Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation. Studies in Biblical Literature 15. New York: Peter Lang, 2000. Nicklas, Tobias. Ablösung und Verstrickung: “Juden” und Jüngergestalten als Charaktere der erzählten Welt des Johannesevangeliums und ihre Wirkung auf den implizierten Leser. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Nicol, Willem. The Sēmeia in the Fourth Gospel: Tradition and Redaction. NovTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Nineham, D. E. “Eye-Witness Testimony and the Gospel Tradition, III.” JTS 11, no. 2 (1960): 253. Obermann, Andreas. Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium: Eine Untersuchung zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der Schriftzitate. WUNT 2/83. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. O’Brien, Kelli S. “Written That You May Believe: John 20 and Narrative Rhetoric.” CBQ 67, no. 2 (2005): 284–302. O’Day, Gail R. Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. –. “The Gospel of John: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pages 491–865 in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Vol. 9. 12 vols. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1994. Oehler, Wilhelm. Das Johannesevangelium eine Missionsschrift für die Welt. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1936. Origen. Commentary on the Gospel According to John: Books 1–10. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. FC 80. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989.

Bibliography

231

Osborne, Grant R. “The Gospel of John.” Pages 1–313 in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary Vol. 13. Edited by Philip W. Comfort. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2007. –. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006. Østenstad, Gunnar H. Patterns of Redemption in the Fourth Gospel: An Experiment in Structural Analysis. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1998. Painter, John. “Memory Holds the Key: The Transformation of Memory in the Interface of History and Theology in John.” Pages 229–48 in John, Jesus, and History: Critical Appraisals of Critical Views. Edited by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher. SBLSymS 44. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. –. “Monotheism and Dualism: Reconsidering Predestination in John 12:40.” Pages 119–39 in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney. Edited by Rekha M. Chennattu and Mary L. Coloe. Rome: LAS, 2005. Painter, John, R. Alan Culpepper, and Fernando F. Segovia, eds. Word, Theology, and Community in John. St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002. Parsenios, George L. Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature. NovTSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. Rhetoric and Drama in the Johannine Lawsuit Motif. WUNT 258. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Pérez, Fernando R. Ver a Jesús y sus signos, y creer en Él: Estudio exegético-teológico de la relación “ver y creer” en el evangelio según san Juan. Analecta Gregoriana 292. Rome: Editrice Pontifica Universita Gregoriana, 2004. Phillips, G. L. “Faith and Vision in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 83–96 in Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by F.L. Cross and C.H. Dodd. London: Mowbray, 1957. Pitkin, Barbara. “Seeing and Believing in the Commentaries on John by Martin Bucer and John Calvin.” Church History 68, no. 4 (1999): 865–85. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament: With Reference to Tense and Mood. SBG 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Porzig, Walter. Das Wunder der Sprache. 3rd ed. Bern: Francke, 1962. De la Potterie, Ignace. “‘C’est lui qui a ouvert la voie’: la finale du prologue johannique.” Bib 69, no. 3 (1988): 340–70. –. “Genèse de la foi pascale d’après Jn. 20.” NTS 30, no. 1 (1984): 26–49. –. La Vérité dans Saint Jean. 2 vols. 2nd ed. AnBib 73–74. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1999. –. “οἶδα et γινώσκω. Les deux modes de la connaissance dans le quatrième Évangile.” Bib 40 (1959): 709–25. Powell, Mark Allan. “Narrative Criticism.” Pages 239–55 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Preiss, Théo. “Justification in Johannine Thought.” Pages 9–31 in Life in Christ. London: SCM, 1957. Quast, Kevin. Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis. JSNTSup 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989. Redelings, David A. “The Epistemology of Belief in the Gospel of John: Miracles and the Kerygmatic Word as the Non-Fictional Grounds for Knowledge.” PhD thesis, St. Andrews, Scotland: University of St. Andrews, 2002.

232

Bibliography

Redman, Judith C. S. “Eyewitness Testimony and the Characters in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 59–78 in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John. Edited by Christopher W. Skinner. LNTS 461. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Reed, Jeffrey T. “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament: A Basic Guide to Theory, Terminology, and Literature.” Pages 222–65 in Approaches to New Testament Study. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and David Tombs. JSNTSup 120. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Regev, Eyal. “Were the Early Christians Sectarians?” JBL 130, no. 4 (2011): 771–93. Reinhartz, Adele. “‘Jews’ and Jews in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 213–27 in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel. Edited by Didier Pollefeyt, Reimund Bieringer, and Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2001. –. “Reading History in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 191–94 in What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies. Edited by Tom Thatcher. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. –. “The Johannine Community and Its Jewish Neighbors: A Reappraisal.” Pages 111–38 in What Is John?: Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. F. Segovia. Vol. 2. 2 vols. SBLSymS 3. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1998. –. The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel. SBLMS 45. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992. Renz, Gabi. “Nicodemus: A Narrative Sensitive Investigation.” Pages 255–83 in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John. Edited by John Lierman. WUNT 2/219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Resseguie, James L. “John 9: A Literary-Critical Analysis.” Pages 295–303 in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives. Edited by Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis. Vol. 2. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1982. –. The Strange Gospel: Narrative Design and Point of View in John. BIS 56. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Ricoeur, Paul. Memory, History, Forgetting. Translated by Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. –. Oneself as Another. Translated by Kathleen Blamey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. –. “The Hermeneutics of Testimony.” Pages 119–54 in Essays on Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Lewis S. Mudge. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. –. Time and Narrative. Translated by David Pellauer and Kathleen Mclaughlin. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. –. “World of the Text, World of the Reader.” Pages 491–98 in A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination. Edited by Mario J. Valdés. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. Ridderbos, H. N. The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Riesenfeld, Harald. “Zu den johanneischen ἵνα-Sätzen.” ST 19 (1965): 213–20. Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002. Rissi, Mathias. “Der Aufbau des vierten Evangeliums.” NTS 29, no. 1 (1983): 48–54. Robert, R. “La double intention du mot final du prologue johannique.” RThom 87, no. 3 (1987): 435–41. –. “Le mot final du prologue johannique. A propos d’un article récent.” RThom 89, no. 2 (1989): 279–88.

Bibliography

233

Robinson, J. A. T. “The Destination and Purpose of St John’s Gospel.” NTS 6, no. 2 (1960): 117–31. Roose, Hanna. “Joh 20,30f.: Ein (un)passender Schluss? Joh 9 und 11 als primäre Verweisstellen der Schlussnotiz des Johannesevangeliums.” Bib 84, no. 3 (2003): 326– 43. Rubel, Georg. Erkenntnis und Bekenntnis: Der Dialog als Weg der Wissensvermittlung im Johannesevangelium. NTAbh II/54. Münster: Aschendorff, 2009. Ruckstuhl, Eugen. Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums: Der gegenwärtige Stand der einschlägigen Forschungen. Studia Friburgensia, Neue Folge 3. Freiburg Schweiz: Paulusverlag, 1951. Ruckstuhl, Eugen, and Peter Dschulnigg. Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage im Johannesevangelium: die johanneischen Sprachmerkmale auf dem Hintergrund des Neuen Testaments und des zeitgenössischen hellenistischen Schrifttums. NTOA 17. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Ruschmann, Susanne. Maria von Magdala im Johannesevangelium: Jüngerin-ZeuginLebensbotin. NTAbh 40. Münster: Aschendorff, 2002. Salier, Willis H. The Rhetorical Impact of the Semeia in the Gospel of John. WUNT 2/186. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. De Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally, Albert Sechehaye, and Albert Riedlinger. Translated by Roy Harris. London: Duckworth, 1983. Scacewater, Todd A. “The Predictive Nature of Typology in John 12:37–43.” WTJ 75, no. 1 (2013): 129–44. Schlatter, Adolf. Der Evangelist Johannes. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975. –. Der Glaube im Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1885. Schmitz, E. D. “Γινώσκω Κτλ.” NIDNTT, 1976. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St. John. Edited by J. Massingberd Ford and Kevin Smyth. Translated by Kevin Smyth. Vol. 1. 3 vols. New York: Herder, 1968. –. The Gospel according to St. John. Translated by David Smith and G. A. Kon. Vol. 3. 3 vols. Tunbridge Wells, U. K.: Burns & Oates, 1982. –. The Gospel according to St. John. Translated by Cecily Hastings, Francis McDonagh, David Smith, and Richard Foley. Vol. 2. 3 vols. London: Burns & Oates, 1980. Schneider, Gerhard. “Ἀκούω.” EDNT, 1990. Schneiders, Sandra M. “To See or Not to See: John 9 as a Synthesis of the Theology and Spirituality of Discipleship.” Pages 189–209 in Word, Theology, and Community in John. Edited by John Painter, R. Alan Culpepper, and Fernando F. Segovia. St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002. Schnelle, Udo. Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992. –. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 4th ed. THKNT 4. Leipzig: Evangelische, 2009. Scholtissek, Klaus. “‘Geschrieben in diesem Buch’ (Joh 20,30)—Beobachtungen zum kanonischen Anspruch des Johannesevangeliums.” Pages 207–26 in Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium: Festgabe für Johannes Beutler SJ zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Michael Labahn, Klaus Scholtissek, and Angelika Strotmann. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004. –. “The Johannine Gospel in Recent Research.” Pages 444–72 in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Edited by S. McKnight and G.R. Osborne. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

234

Bibliography

Schottroff, Luise. Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt. WMANT 37. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970. Schröter, Jens. Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. WMANT 76. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997. Schwankl, Otto. Licht und Finsternis: Ein metaphorisches Paradigma in den johanneischen Schriften. Herders biblische Studien 5. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. Segovia, Fernando F. The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991. –. “The Final Farewell of Jesus: A Reading of John 20:30–21:25.” Semeia 53 (1991): 167– 90. – ed. What Is John: Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel. SBLSymS 7. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1999. – ed. “What Is John?”: Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel. SBLSymS 3. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1996. Shelfer, Lochlan. “The Legal Precision of the Term ‘Paraklētos.’” JSNT 32, no. 2 (2009): 131–50. Sheppard, Beth M. “The Gospel of John: A Roman Legal and Rhetorical Perspective.” PhD thesis, Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1999. Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Sim, David C. “The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham.” JSNT 24, no. 84 (2002): 3–27. Sim, Margaret G. Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek: New Light from Linguistics on the Particles HINA and HOTI. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Skinner, Christopher W., ed. Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John. LNTS 461. London: T&T Clark, 2013. –. John and Thomas: Gospels in Conflict? Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question. Princeton Theological Monograph 115. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009. Smalley, Stephen S. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1978. Smith, D. Moody. John. ANTC. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999. –. Review of Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel, by Andrew T. Lincoln.” JTS 58, no. 1 (2007): 221–26. –. The Theology of the Gospel of John. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Smith, Justin Marc. Why Bíos? On the Relationship Between Gospel Genre and Implied Audience. LNTS 518. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. WBC 32. Dallas: Word, 1984. Spencer, Patrick E. “Narrative Echoes in John 21: Intertextual Interpretation and Intratextual Connection.” JSNT 75 (2000): 49–68. Spicq, Ceslas. Dieu et l’homme selon le Nouveau Testament. LD 29. Paris: Cerf, 1961. Stagg, Frank. “The Abused Aorist.” JBL 91, no. 2 (1972): 222–31. Staley, Jeffrey L. “Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in John 5 and 9.” Semeia, no. 53 (1991): 55–80. –. The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel. SBLDS 82. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1988. –. “The Structure of John’s Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel’s Narrative Structure.” CBQ 48, no. 2 (1986): 241–64. Stibbe, Mark W. G. John’s Gospel. New Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 1994.

Bibliography

235

Stube, John Carlson. A Graeco-Roman Rhetorical Reading of the Farewell Discourse. LNTS 309. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Spiritual Remembering: John 14.26.” Pages 55–68 in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn. Edited by Stephen C. Barton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Graham N. Stanton. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. Sturdevant, Jason S. “Incarnation as Psychagogy: The Purpose of the Word’s Descent in John’s Gospel.” NovT 56, no. 1 (2014): 24–44. Tam, Josaphat C. “How ‘True’ Is the ‘Witness’: An Examination of the Use of ALETHES and MARTYRIA with Special Reference to John 19:35.” ThM thesis, Deerfield, IL: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2008. –. Review of Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel, Edited by Steven A. Hunt, D. François Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann. Reviews of Biblical and Early Christian Studies, March 1, 2014. No pages. Online: http://rbecs.org/2014/03/01/csfg/. –. Review of The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John, Edited by Craig R. Koester and Reimund Bieringer. Reviews of Biblical and Early Christian Studies, July 19, 2013. No pages. Online: http://rbecs.org/2013/07/19/jfr/. –. Review of The Rhetorical Impact of the Semeia in the Gospel of John, by Willis Hedley Salier. Reviews of Biblical and Early Christian Studies, February 18, 2012. No pages. Online: http://rbecs.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-rhetorical-impact-of-the-semeia-inthe-gospel-of-john/. –. “When Papyri and Codices Speak: Revisiting John 2:23–25.” Bib 95, no. 4 (2014): 570– 88. Tarelli, C. C. “Johannine Synonyms.” JTS O.S.47, no. 187/188 (1946): 175–77. Tenney, Merrill C. “Topics from the Gospel of John: Part IV: The Growth of Belief.” BSac 132, no. 528 (1975): 343–57. Thatcher, Tom. Greater Than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2009. –. “John’s Memory Theater: The Fourth Gospel and Ancient Mnemo-Rhetoric.” CBQ 69, no. 3 (2007): 487–505. –. “Remembering Jesus: John’s Negative Christology.” Pages 165–89 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. –. The Riddles of Jesus in John: A Study in Tradition and Folklore. SBLMS 53. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. – ed. What We Have Heard from the Beginning: The Past, Present and Future of Johannine Studies. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. –. Why John Wrote a Gospel: Jesus, Memory, History. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2006. Thatcher, Tom, and Richard A. Horsley. “Verisimilitude vs. Verification.” Pages 120–34 in John, Jesus, and the Renewal of Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013. Thatcher, Tom, and Alan Kirk, eds. Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity. SemeiaSt 52. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Thatcher, Tom, and Stephen D. Moore, eds. Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature. SBLRBS 55. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Thatcher, Tom, and Catrin H. Williams, eds. Engaging with C.H. Dodd on the Gospel of John: Sixty Years of Tradition and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

236

Bibliography

Thettayil, Benny. In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19–26 and A Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Thiselton, Anthony C. “Semantics and New Testament Interpretation.” Pages 75–104 in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Edited by I. Howard Marshall. Exeter: Paternoster, 1977. Thompson, Marianne M. The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. –. “Signs and Faith in the Fourth Gospel.” BBR 1 (1991): 89–108. Thyen, Hartwig. Das Johannesevangelium. HNT 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Van Tilborg, Sjef. Imaginative Love in John. BIS 2. Leiden: Brill, 1993. –. Reading John in Ephesus. NovTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Tolmie, D. François. Jesus’ Farewell to the Disciples: John 13:1–17:26 in Narratological Perspective. BIS 12. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Tovey, Derek. Narrative Art and Act in the Fourth Gospel. JSNTSup 151. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Townsend, Henry C. “The Gospel of Evidence.” Expositor 25, 8th series (1923): 312–20. Trebilco, Paul. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. WUNT 166. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Trier, Jost. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes: die Geschichte eines Sprachlichen Feldes: von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13 Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Winter, 1931. Trites, Allison A. The New Testament Concept of Witness. SNTSMS 31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Tuckett, Christopher. “Gospels and Communities. Was Mark Written for a Suffering Community?” Pages 377–96 in Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity: Studies in Honour of Henk Jan De Jonge. Edited by Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, Harm W. Hollander, and Johannes Tromp. NovTSup 130. Leiden: Brill, 2008. –. “Seeing and Believing in John 20.” Pages 169–85 in Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. Boer. Edited by Jan Krans, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, Peter-Ben Smit, and Arie Zwiep. NovTSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Turner, Max. “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament.” Pages 146–74 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Turner, Nigel. “Style.” A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 4. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976. Tyler, Ronald L. “The Source and Function of Isaiah 6:9–10 in John 12:40.” Pages 205–20 in Johannine Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack. Edited by James Eugene Priest. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University Press, 1989. Van Unnik, W. C. “The Purpose of St. John’s Gospel.” Pages 382–411 in Studia Evangelica I. TU 73. Berlin: Akademie, 1959. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “The Hermeneutics of I-Witness Testimony: John 21.20–24 and the ‘Death’ of the ‘Author.’” Pages 366–87 in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson. Edited by A. Graeme Auld. JSOTSup 152. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. –. “The Reader in New Testament Interpretation.” Pages 301–28 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.

Bibliography

237

Vorster, Willem S. “The Growth and Making of John 21.” Pages 2193–2205 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett, Frans Van Segbroeck, Gilbert Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. Vol. 3. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Von Wahlde, Urban C. “Literary Structure and Theological Argument in Three Discourses with the Jews in the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 103, no. 4 (1984): 575–84. –. The Earliest Version of John’s Gospel: Recovering the Gospel of Signs. Wilmington: Glazier, 1989. –. The Gospel and Letters of John: Vol. 1: Introduction, Analysis, and Reference. ECC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. –. The Gospel and Letters of John: Vol. 2: The Gospel of John. ECC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. –. “‘The Jews’ in the Gospel of John: Fifteen Years of Research (1983–1998).” ETL 76, no. 1 (2000): 30–55. –. “The Witnesses to Jesus in John 5:31–40 and Belief in the Fourth Gospel.” CBQ 43, no. 3 (1981): 385–404. Welck, Christian. Erzählte Zeichen: Die Wundergeschichten des Johannesevangeliums literarisch untersucht: Mit einem Ausblick auf Joh 21. WUNT 2/69. Tübingen: Mohr, 1994. Wengst, Klaus. Das Johannesevangelium: 1. Kapitel 1–10. 2nd ed. TKNT 2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004. Wenz, Helmut. “Sehen und Glauben bei Johannes.” ThZ 17, no. 1 (1961): 17–25. Wilkens, Wilhelm. Zeichen und Werke: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des 4. Evangeliums in Erzählungs- und Redestoff. ATANT 55. Zürich: Zwingli, 1969. Williams, Catrin H. I Am He: The Interpretation of “Anî Hû” in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. WUNT 2/113. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. “Isaiah in John’s Gospel.” Pages 101–16 in Isaiah in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. London: T&T Clark, 2005. –. “‘Seeing the Glory’: The Reception of Isaiah’s Call-Vision in John 12:41.” Pages 253– 80 in Judaism, Jewish Identities, and the Gospel Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maurice Casey. Edited by James G. Crossley. London: Equinox, 2010. Williams, Michael A. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Williams, Peter J. “Not the Prologue of John.” JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011): 375–86. Witherington, Ben. John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1995. Witmer, Stephen E. Divine Instruction in Early Christianity. WUNT 2/246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996. Wright, William M. Rhetoric and Theology: Figural Reading of John 9. BZNW 165. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Zumstein, Jean. “Jesus’ Resurrection in the Farewell Discourses.” Pages 103–26 in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Edited by Craig R. Koester and Reimund Bieringer. WUNT 222. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. –. Kreative Erinnerung: Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelium. 2nd ed. ATANT 84. Zürich: Theologischer, 2004. –. L’évangile selon saint Jean (13–21). CNT 4b. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2007.

238

Bibliography

–. “L’interprétation johannique de la mort du Christ.” Pages 2119–38 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett, Frans Van Segbroeck, Gilbert Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. –. “Mémoire et relecture pascale dans l’Évangile selon Jean.” Pages 299–316 in Miettes exégétiques. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1991. –. “Zur Geschichte des johanneischen Christentums.” TLZ 122 (1997): 417–28. “Monologue.” The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Online: http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/97801 99208272.001.0001/acref-9780199208272-e-742. “Γινώσκω.” LSJ, 1940.

Index of References Index of References

Old Testament Genesis 28:12

58

96

Isaiah 6 6:1 6:9–10 6:9 6:10 29:18 35:5 40–55 40:3 42:6–7 53:1 64:1

109 109 109 110 109 101 101 17–18 54 101 109 58

Exodus 12:10 12:46

160 160, 163

Numbers 9:12 21:8

160, 163 164

Deuteronomy 19:15 1 Samuel 8:7

159

Jeremiah 17:9–10

66

Psalms 33:21 (LXX) 68:10 (LXX) 118:139 (LXX)

160 61–62 61

Zechariah 9:9 12:10–13:1 12:10

106–107 164 160–161, 164

Apocrypha 1 Esdras 5:43

60

Sirach 49:13

60

New Testament Matthew 5:8

34

Luke 24:25–27

170

240

John 1–20 1–18 1–17 1–16 1–12

1–9

1–4

1–2 1 1:1–2:22 1:1–18 1–16 1:1–19:34 1:1–5

1:1 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6–18 1:6–8 1:6 1:7–8 1:7 1:8 1:9–18

1:9–11 1:9 1:10 1:11–12

Indexes

184 165 143, 159, 165, 174 141, 145, 200 11, 118, 125–126, 132–133, 136, 141– 142, 144, 148, 165, 191 88–89, 108, 112, 114, 128, 134, 142, 150, 153 14, 19, 29–30, 46– 81, 85–86, 90–91, 99, 106, 111, 113, 115–123, 139, 143– 144, 146, 151, 161, 169, 175, 192, 195, 197–198, 200, 202, 204, 207 131 46 118 46, 48, 55, 58, 72, 99, 198 130 161 30, 46, 49–50, 67, 72, 74, 115, 118, 165, 173, 198 1, 67, 205 51 51, 178 48, 50, 59, 78, 118, 157 46 50, 53, 55 98 54 37–39, 48, 51 37–38, 48 30, 46, 49–50, 72, 74, 115, 118, 165, 198 118 48, 50–51, 78 14, 50–51, 54 58

1:11 1:12–13 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:15 1:16–18 1:16 1:18 1:19–12:50 1:19–3:35 1:19–3:15 1:19–2:25 1:19–2:22 1:19–51 1:19–34 1:19 1:20 1:23 1:26 1:27 1:29–2:25 1:29–2:22 1:29–51 1:29–36 1:29–34 1:29 1:30 1:31 1:32–34 1:32–33 1:32 1:33 1:34 1:35–2:25 1:35–2:22 1:35–51 1:35–42 1:35–41 1:35 1:36 1:37

48, 50 50 39–40, 48, 51, 59, 65 40, 48 11, 35, 48, 50–51, 54, 59, 79, 110 37–38, 48, 53–54 18 48, 50–51, 59 48, 51, 67, 76, 132 18 50 51, 72 47, 51, 53, 68, 71– 72, 78–79, 198 53, 63–64, 68, 72, 198 50, 71 48, 53 38, 48, 53 48, 54 54 48, 54 48, 54 68 67 55–59, 64, 118, 169 56 20, 54–55 34–35, 48, 54, 56, 106 48, 54 48, 54, 56, 59, 106 56 54 35, 37–38, 48, 54, 56 48, 54–55 37–38, 48, 54, 56 48, 60 65–66 16, 49, 51, 53, 63, 72, 79 55 56 48, 56, 106 34–35, 48, 54, 56 48, 56, 181

Index of References 1:38 1:39 1:40 1:41 1:42 1:43–51 1:43–45 1:43 1:45 1:46–51 1:46 1:47 1:48 1:49 1:50–51 1:50 1:51 2–11 2 2:1–22 2:1–12 2:1 2:2 2:9 2:11

2:12 2:13–25 2:13–22

2:13 2:17–22 2:17 2:18–22 2:18–19 2:18 2:19 2:20 2:21–22 2:21 2:22

35, 48, 56–57, 181 35, 48, 56–57 48, 56, 181 49, 56–57, 178 48, 56–57, 181 55, 179 56 48, 56, 106, 181 49, 56–57 56 34, 48, 56–57 34, 48, 56–57 34, 36, 48, 56–57, 66 49, 56–57 56 34, 39, 48–49, 56, 58 48, 57–58 177 38, 67 53, 68, 72, 198 50–51, 58, 63–64, 70–73, 79 46, 58 48 59 7, 39, 48–49, 58–59, 65, 73, 101, 108, 110–111, 114 48 65 26, 50–51, 53, 59, 63–64, 70–73, 107– 108, 110, 114, 122, 137, 161, 198–199 46 147, 205 22, 38, 48, 61–62, 106–107 154 69 60, 65, 70, 77, 119 60 60 60 60–61, 73 22, 38–39, 48–49, 60–62, 76, 106–107,

2:23–3:21 2:23–25

2:23–24 2:23 2:24–25 2:24 2:25 3 3:1–36 3:1–15 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:4–8 3:8 3:10 3:11

3:12

3:14 3:15–16 3:15 3:16–36 3:16–21

3:16–19 3:16 3:17 3:18–19 3:18 3:19–21 3:19 3:20 3:21 3:22–30 3:22

241 118, 136, 145, 149, 169–170, 190, 200 9 47, 50–51, 53, 64– 68, 72–73, 76, 79, 89, 98, 110–111, 114, 118, 172, 180, 198, 204 67 35, 39, 48, 65–68 67 36, 39, 65–68, 156 36, 38, 48, 52, 57, 67–68, 91, 110, 140 46, 78 26 48, 50–51, 65, 71– 72, 91, 121, 166 65 48, 52, 103 34, 48, 52 52 12, 48 37, 48, 52 13, 34, 36–38, 48, 52, 76, 109, 138, 165 34, 39, 48–49, 52, 65, 78, 85, 99, 113, 166 164, 166 178 39–40, 48–49 72 30, 46, 48–50, 72, 74, 78, 115, 118, 165, 198 94 39–40, 48, 51, 118, 142, 180 51 51 39–40, 48, 51 118 51 51 48, 59 48, 50 48

242 3:25 3:26 3:27 3:28 3:29 3:31–36

3:31–32 3:31 3:32 3:33 3:35 3:36 4 4:1–54 4:1–42 4:1 4:2 4:3–4 4:4 4:5 4:8 4:10–14 4:10 4:11 4:13–14 4:14 4:17 4:19–26 4:19 4:21 4:22 4:23–24 4:23 4:25 4:26 4:27 4:28–30 4:28 4:29 4:31–38 4:31 4:32 4:33 4:34 4:35

Indexes 48 34, 37–38, 48 48, 76 37–38, 48 48 30, 46, 48–50, 72, 74, 78, 115, 118, 165, 198 76 51 13, 38, 48, 50–51 38, 48 51, 67 34, 39, 48, 51, 94, 178 52, 66 50 16, 26, 48, 50, 71, 91 36, 48, 52, 76, 101 48 46 52, 76 52 48 52 48, 52, 70, 118 70, 91 118 70 52 35 35, 48, 52, 102, 169 39–40, 48, 103 36, 48, 52, 106 103 93–94 48, 52, 178 103 48 52 169 34, 52, 178 52 48 48, 106 48 48, 97, 115 34–35, 48

4:36 4:39–42 4:39 4:40–42 4:41–42 4:41 4:42 4:43–54 4:44 4:45 4:46–54 4:46 4:47–50 4:47–48 4:47 4:48 4:49–50 4:50 4:51–53 4:51 4:52–53 4:52 4:53 4:54 5–21 5–17 5–12

5–9

5–8

5 5:1–18 5:1–47 5:1–9 5:1

70 68 38–39, 48, 52, 66 52 49 39, 48 36, 39, 48, 72, 206 47–48, 50, 53, 68, 71–72, 78–79, 198 37–38, 48 48, 68 91 46 69–70 69 48 9, 39, 48, 69–70, 73, 77, 119, 172, 205 69 39, 48–49, 68–70 70 70 73, 79 48 39, 48–49, 68–70, 72 7, 68 19 166 29–30, 53, 81–124, 126, 143–144, 150, 160, 189, 192, 197– 199, 202 77, 80–81, 84–85, 88–89, 94, 96, 102, 104, 106, 111, 113, 116–117, 122, 131, 140, 144, 151–152, 161, 192, 195, 198, 207 81, 88, 99, 101–102, 104–105, 112–113, 120, 122, 125, 199 90, 100–101, 105 7, 82, 85, 90–91, 97, 102, 112 17, 26, 101 99 81

Index of References 5:3 5:5 5:6 5:10 5:13 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:17–30 5:17–18 5:17 5:18 5:19–47

5:19–30

5:19–29 5:19 5:20–22 5:20 5:21–22 5:21 5:23–24 5:23 5:24 5:25–29 5:25 5:26–27 5:26 5:27 5:28–29 5:28 5:29 5:30 5:31–47 5:31–40 5:31–39 5:31–35 5:31–32 5:31 5:32–35 5:32

82, 105 101 34, 36, 82, 85, 91, 118 91 37, 82, 85, 91 34, 82, 91 91 90, 96 101 205 90, 92, 97–98 94, 96, 104 81–82, 84–85, 89– 91, 96, 99, 105, 111–113, 117–118, 122, 125, 198–199 85, 89, 92, 95–99, 112, 143, 157, 186, 198 87 82, 90, 93, 119 93 82, 92–93, 97 93 82 94 93–94 36, 41, 82, 87, 92– 94, 104, 117, 178 93 12, 36, 82, 93–94, 117, 157 67 93 93 117, 122 12, 36, 82, 93, 157 93, 105 82, 93, 96 92, 95–96, 98–99, 183 96–98, 113, 198 120 95 95 37–38, 82, 96–97 96 36, 38, 82, 96–97

5:33–35 5:33 5:34 5:35 5:36–40 5:36 5:37–38 5:37 5:38 5:39–40 5:39 5:40 5:41–47 5:41–44 5:41–42 5:42 5:43–44 5:43 5:44 5:45–47 5:45 5:46–47 5:46 5:47 6–12 6 6:1–71 6:1–21 6:1–15 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:5–6 6:5 6:6 6:8 6:12 6:14–15 6:14 6:15 6:16–21 6:16 6:19 6:21

243 95–96 37–38, 97 38, 82, 97 82 95, 97 37–38, 82, 92, 95, 97–98 95 12, 36, 38, 82, 97, 157 39, 82, 97, 99, 113 95 38, 82, 97, 109 82, 97, 120, 178 199 95, 98, 111 95 36, 82, 98–99, 113, 118, 120 95 82, 98, 102 39, 82, 98–99, 109, 111, 113, 120 95, 98–99, 102, 113 82, 92, 95, 98 120 39, 82, 95, 98 39, 82, 85, 95, 98– 99, 113 91 90, 103, 115, 120 26 85, 112 82, 86 81 7, 35, 82 82 118 35, 82, 86, 101 36, 82, 86 82 82 8 7, 86, 119 36, 82, 86, 118 82, 85 82 35, 82 82

244 6:22–71 6:22–59 6:22 6:24 6:25–51 6:25–40 6:26 6:27–29 6:27 6:28 6:29 6:30–40 6:30 6:32 6:33 6:34 6:35 6:36 6:38–39 6:38 6:39 6:40 6:41–42 6:41 6:42 6:43–51 6:44 6:45–46 6:45 6:46 6:47–48 6:47 6:49–51 6:51 6:52 6:53–59 6:54 6:58 6:59 6:60–66 6:60–61 6:60 6:61 6:62

Indexes 82, 84–86, 88, 99, 112, 119, 150, 192 86, 116 82 82, 86, 119 9 172 86, 112, 118 101 82 115 39, 82, 86, 112, 162 172 39–40, 82, 86, 112, 119 102 86 115 39, 82, 86, 102, 112, 117 34, 39, 82, 86, 112, 120 102 82 82, 157 35, 39, 82, 86, 112, 178, 205 102 86, 115 54 135 109 13 12, 36, 82 34, 86 86, 117 39, 82, 122, 178 117 87, 102, 117 115 135 178 117 87 116 86 36, 82, 87, 115 36, 86, 115 35, 82, 86, 119

6:64 6:65 6:66 6:67–69 6:67 6:68–69 6:69 6:70–71 7 7:1–13 7:1 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:7 7:10 7:11 7:12 7:13 7:14–8:59 7:14 7:15 7:16–18 7:17 7:18 7:19 7:20 7:21–24 7:22–23 7:24 7:25 7:26–27 7:26 7:27 7:28–29 7:28 7:29 7:30 7:31 7:32 7:33–36 7:33–34 7:34 7:35–36 7:36 7:37–39 7:37–38

36, 39, 82, 86, 119, 157 109 54, 82, 86 123, 203 82 117, 140 15, 37, 39, 82, 86, 122, 131 119 17 83, 85, 87, 116 81–82 35, 82 59, 82–83 39, 82 37–38, 82 83 82 83 83, 189 83–86, 90, 99, 112 81 36, 83, 87, 102, 115 87, 102 83 83 83, 87, 120 83, 115 87 102 83 83, 115 87, 115 34, 83 37, 83, 102 102 83, 87, 106, 121 36, 83 83 39, 83, 102 83 131 119 83 115 83 87, 112, 117 87

Index of References 7:37 7:38 7:39 7:40–43 7:40 7:42 7:43 7:44 7:45–52 7:47 7:48 7:49 7:50–51 7:50 7:51 7:52 7:53–8:11 8 8:12

8:13–20 8:13 8:14 8:17 8:18 8:19–20 8:19 8:20 8:21–29 8:21–22 8:21 8:22 8:23–24 8:24 8:25 8:26 8:27–28 8:27 8:28 8:30–31 8:30–32 8:30 8:31–59 8:31–47 8:31

87 39, 83, 87 39, 83 102 36, 83 115 102 83 87, 166 83 39, 83 83 121 72, 111 83, 104 83, 102, 115 83 120 83, 87–89, 101, 103, 112–113, 117–118, 122, 178 87 37–38, 83 36–38, 83, 106, 119, 131 38, 83 37–38, 83 115 37, 83, 102, 121 87 105, 131 131 83, 119 40, 115 102, 119 39, 83, 87–88, 113, 122, 131 102, 115 36, 83, 87, 102, 112, 119, 138 138 83, 106 13, 83, 87, 119, 164 40 15 39–40, 83 87, 112, 116 66 39–40, 83

8:32 8:33 8:37 8:38 8:39 8:40 8:41 8:42 8:43–47 8:43 8:44 8:45–46 8:45 8:46 8:47 8:48 8:50 8:51 8:52–53 8:52 8:53 8:55 8:56 8:57 8:58 8:59 9

9:1–10:21 9:1–41

9:1–7 9:1 9:2–3 9:2 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:6 9:7

245 83 115, 159 36, 83, 87, 112, 119–120 12, 34, 36, 83, 87, 102, 112, 119, 138 83, 115 36, 83, 87, 102, 112, 119, 138 115 102, 180 120 11, 36, 83, 87, 104, 106 83, 115, 119 40, 87 39, 83 39, 83 36, 40, 83, 87 87, 115 83 35, 83, 87, 117 87 83, 115 115 36, 83, 102, 106 119 34, 87, 115 87, 119, 205 83 5, 35–36, 81, 99– 101, 105, 114–116, 161, 177 17 16, 26, 81, 83–85, 88–89, 99–100, 110–113, 118, 122, 125, 198–199 100 34–35, 83, 101, 105, 119 103 83, 105 59, 83, 101, 103– 104, 119 103 103 83 83, 101

246 9:8–12 9:8 9:10 9:11 9:12 9:13–38 9:13–17 9:13 9:14 9:15 9:16 9:17 9:18–23 9:18–19 9:18 9:19 9:20 9:21 9:22–23 9:22 9:24–34 9:24 9:25 9:26 9:27 9:28 9:29 9:30–33 9:30 9:31 9:32–33 9:32 9:34 9:35–41 9:35 9:36 9:37 9:38–39 9:38 9:39–41 9:39

9:40–41 9:40 9:41 10–17

Indexes 100–101 35, 83, 101 83 83 37, 83, 101 123, 203 100 83 83, 102 83 7, 103 83, 102 100–101 120 83, 101–102 83 83 83, 102 102 83, 101, 120 88, 100 83, 102 83, 88, 102, 105, 113 83, 102 83, 102, 104 83, 102, 120 83, 102, 106 120 83, 102 83, 102 103 83 103 100, 103 39, 83, 103 39, 83, 101, 103 34–35, 83, 101, 103 103 39, 83, 103 104 83, 88, 104–105, 110, 113, 118, 122– 123, 199 120 36, 83, 104 83, 105, 122 150, 173, 185, 188, 195, 207

10–12

10:1–12:50 10:1–42 10:1–21 10:3 10:4 10:5 10:6 10:8 10:9 10:10 10:11 10:12 10:13 10:14–15 10:14 10:15 10:16 10:18 10:20 10:21 10:22–42 10:22–39 10:24 10:25–26 10:25 10:26 10:27 10:28 10:29 10:32 10:35 10:37–38 10:37 10:38 10:39 10:42 11–12 11 11:1–12:11 11:3 11:4 11:5–6

81, 84–85, 88, 106, 108, 111–113, 116– 119, 122, 125, 128– 129, 141, 147–148, 151, 153, 198–199 85, 128 83 85, 117, 128, 157, 186 36, 83, 88, 157, 171 83, 88 83, 88 83, 88–89, 106 83 83, 89, 118, 148 178 148 35, 88 88 119 36, 83, 88, 148 36, 83, 88 36, 83, 88, 157, 181 159 36, 83, 89 83 85, 89, 112, 128 116 83 89 37–39, 83 39, 122 36, 83, 88, 119, 157 157 67 83 98 118, 132–133 39, 89 15, 39, 83, 89, 133 83 39, 83 161 177 26, 83, 85, 88, 106, 117, 128 34, 83 83 119

Index of References 11:6 11:7 11:8 11:9 11:12 11:13–15 11:13 11:14 11:15 11:16 11:17 11:20 11:22 11:24 11:25–26 11:25 11:26 11:27 11:28 11:29 11:31–34 11:31 11:32 11:33–35 11:33 11:34 11:36 11:37 11:40 11:41–42 11:41 11:42 11:45 11:47–53 11:48 11:49 11:50 11:52 11:53 11:54 11:55 11:56 11:57 12–21 12 12:1 12:4 12:9

83 83 83 83 83 119 83 83 39, 83, 88, 131, 162 83, 173 83 83 83, 88 83, 88 88 39, 83, 148 39, 83 39, 83, 88, 180 83 83 83 83 34 119 34 34 34, 83 83 39, 83, 88 141 36, 83 36, 39, 83, 88–89, 118–119 35, 39, 83, 108, 120 120 39, 83 83 83 83 83 83 126 83 83 141 38 60, 126 83 60, 83

12:10–11 12:10 12:11 12:12–50 12:12–19

12:12 12:13 12:14–15 12:15 12:16–19 12:16

12:17–18 12:17 12:18 12:19 12:20–36 12:21 12:26 12:29 12:32–34 12:34 12:35–36 12:35 12:36 12:37–43

12:37–41 12:37–38 12:37 12:38 12:39–41 12:39 12:40 12:41 12:42 12:43

247 120 83 39, 83, 108, 116, 120 84–85, 88, 128 81, 85, 89, 106, 111–113, 122, 125, 137, 161, 198–199 81, 84, 106, 108 106 107 34 88 22, 38, 61, 63, 73, 84, 88, 106–107, 110, 114, 136, 147, 149, 190, 205 89 60, 84, 108, 116 7, 84, 108 34–35, 84, 89 85 34, 84, 88 84, 88, 143 36, 84, 108 164 84, 108 89, 118 50, 84 39, 84, 108 81, 85, 89, 106, 108–112, 114, 119– 120, 122, 125, 148, 151, 164, 198–199 110–111, 121, 123 12 39, 84, 108–109, 120 39, 84, 109–110, 157 205, 207 39, 98, 109, 111, 122 84, 109–110, 119 35, 84, 109, 163, 173 39, 84, 109, 111, 166, 189 111

248 12:44–50 12:44–46 12:44–45 12:44 12:45 12:46 12:47 12:48 12:50 13–21

13–17

13–16

13 13:1–16:33 13:1–17:26 13:1–30 13:1–20 13:1 13:2 13:3 13:5 13:7 13:11 13:12 13:15 13:16 13:17 13:18–30 13:18 13:19 13:20 13:21–30 13:21 13:22 13:23 13:24 13:28 13:29 13:31–16:33 13:31–14:31

Indexes 85, 89, 118 89 132 39, 41, 84 35, 84, 132 39, 41, 84, 89 12, 36, 84 84, 122 36, 84 125, 138, 140, 148, 160, 163, 170, 172, 181, 183, 204 18, 29–30, 81, 106, 124–125–53, 156, 160, 175, 179–181, 187, 191–192, 197, 199, 201, 203, 205 110, 130, 139–141, 143, 146–147, 158, 200 129 128 3, 148 127–129 129 36, 126–127, 129, 139, 146, 149, 200 127 36, 127, 129, 159 127 127, 129 36, 127, 129, 157 127, 129 149 67 127, 129 125 36, 127, 129, 157 39, 127, 136, 161 127, 132 129, 157 37–38, 127, 131 127 127 127 127 127 127, 130, 144 137

13:31–38 13:31–35 13:31–33 13:31 13:33 13:34–35 13:34 13:35 13:36–38 13:36 13:38 14–17 14–16 14:1–31 14:1–26 14:1–14 14:1–3 14:1 14:3 14:4 14:5 14:6–7 14:6 14:7–10 14:7–9 14:7 14:8 14:9–10 14:9 14:10–14 14:10–11 14:10 14:11 14:12 14:15–31 14:15–26 14:15–16 14:15 14:16–17 14:16 14:17 14:18–23 14:18–21 14:19

127–128, 144 129 131 131, 141 127 131, 181 127 127, 131 131 131, 181 127 130 38 128, 144 126, 130–131, 145, 151, 199 127, 129, 131 135, 143, 145, 200 39, 127, 131, 133, 136, 140, 145 143 127, 131 127, 131, 173 164 132, 148 89 147 37, 127, 132, 145, 200 127, 131 164 34, 127, 132, 145, 200, 205 132, 145, 200 133 39, 127, 133 39, 127, 133, 140 39, 127, 133 121, 127, 129, 139, 145–146, 200 134, 138 134 127, 135, 180 136 134 35, 127, 134 135, 145, 200 136 35, 127, 135

Index of References 14:20–21 14:20 14:21 14:22 14:23–24 14:23

14:24 14:25–26 14:26

14:27 14:28–29 14:28 14:29 14:31 15:1–25 15:1–17 15:1–2 15:5 15:8 15:10 15:15 15:18–16:28 15:18–16:4 15:18–25 15:18 15:20 15:21 15:22–25 15:24 15:26–16:15

15:26–16:4 15:26–27 15:26 15:27 16 16:1 16:2 16:3 16:4 16:5

181, 191 127, 135 127, 135, 139, 143, 149, 180, 190 127, 135 180 77, 127, 135–136, 143, 148–149, 181, 190–191 36, 127 150 21, 23, 38, 127, 136–137, 139, 147, 151, 161 136 170 36, 67, 127, 180 39, 127, 136, 162 127, 129, 144, 148 127–128, 137 129 148 148 127 127 36, 127 150 129 129, 144 127 38, 127, 150 127 137 127 121, 126–128, 130, 137–139, 145–146, 152, 199–200 130, 144 23, 137, 158, 161, 165, 186 38, 127, 137, 170 37, 127, 137, 161 171 127, 137 127, 137 127 38, 127, 137, 147, 149–150, 161 140

16:6 16:8–15 16:8–11 16:8 16:9 16:10 16:12–15 16:12 16:13–15 16:13–14 16:13 16:16–24 16:16–22 16:16 16:17 16:18 16:19–22 16:19 16:21 16:22 16:23–24 16:23 16:25–33 16:25 16:26 16:27–28 16:27 16:29 16:30 16:31 16:32–33 16:32 16:33 17 17:1–26 17:1–5 17:1 17:3 17:4–5 17:5 17:6–19 17:6

249 127–128 151 130, 144 138 39, 127, 138 35, 127, 138 129, 139 127, 138, 140 138 23 127, 138, 147, 170, 174 127–128, 172, 189 129, 139, 171 34–35, 127 34–35, 127 127 149 34–36, 127, 139– 140 38, 127, 150 34, 127 139, 144 139–140 126–130, 139, 145– 146 127, 139, 152, 199– 200 139–140 139 39, 127, 139, 180 34, 127, 139 15, 36, 39, 127, 139, 142–143, 147, 156 39, 127, 140 149 34, 94 140 130, 141, 144, 148, 152, 154, 200 126–128, 130, 141, 145–146, 199–200 141 127, 141 127, 141, 143, 148 141 143 141–142 59, 127, 142, 149

250 17:7–8 17:7 17:8 17:9–19 17:12 17:15 17:17–19 17:17 17:20–26 17:20 17:21 17:23 17:24 17:25–26 17:25 17:26 18–21

18–20 18–19 18 18:1–19:16 18:1–11 18:1 18:2–5 18:2 18:4 18:5 18:6 18:7 18:8 18:9 18:12–27 18:14 18:15 18:16 18:17 18:19 18:20 18:21 18:23 18:25 18:26 18:27 18:28–19:16

Indexes 142 127 15, 39, 127 142 127, 142, 157 142 142 170, 174 141–142 39, 127, 142, 149 39, 127, 142, 148, 162 127, 142 35, 127, 143 143 14, 36, 127, 143 127, 143, 149 29–30, 53, 81, 151, 153–154–195, 197, 201, 203, 207 181, 184–185 17, 126 154, 161 155–156 156 155 189 155–156, 186 36, 155–156, 159, 186, 190 157 157 155 155, 157 157, 161, 186, 190 156 155 155, 157, 188 155 155 155 155 34, 36, 155, 157, 186 38, 155, 157 155 155, 157 155 156

18:31 18:32 18:33–19:22 18:36 18:37 18:38 18:39 19:4–8 19:4 19:5 19:6 19:8 19:10–11 19:10 19:11 19:12–16 19:12 19:13 19:14 19:15 19:16–42 19:16–27 19:19–20 19:26 19:27 19:28–42 19:28–30 19:28 19:30 19:31–37 19:32–34 19:33 19:34–37 19:34 19:35–37 19:35

19:36–37 19:36 19:37 19:38–42 19:38–40

190 157, 161, 186, 190 164 186 11–12, 36–38, 155, 157, 186 155, 190 155 190 34, 155 34 34, 155 155 190 36, 155, 158 158 190 155 155 34, 155 190 155–156, 158, 164 156 159 34, 155 34, 155 155, 159, 186, 201 156, 159 36, 155, 159, 190 155, 159 156, 158, 160, 164, 186 164–165 34, 155, 160 190 163–164 164, 193 17, 19–20, 24, 37– 39, 155, 158, 160– 166, 174, 176, 178, 182–188, 190, 192– 194, 201–203, 206– 207 160–161, 164 163 34, 155, 163–164, 173, 205 156, 166 189

Index of References 19:38–39 19:38 19:39 20–21 20

20:1–21:25 20:1–31 20:1–29 20:1–10 20:1–2 20:1 20:2 20:3–10 20:3 20:4 20:5 20:6 20:8 20:9 20:10 20:11–23 20:11–18 20:11 20:12 20:13 20:14 20:15 20:16 20:17 20:18 20:19–29 20:19–25 20:19 20:20 20:21 20:22 20:24–29 20:23 20:25–29

111 155, 166, 171, 189 72, 166 60 11, 27, 164, 169– 170, 173–175, 187, 201 156 155, 159, 186–187, 201 16, 155–156, 158, 167–168 156, 167, 169–170, 174, 187 168 155, 168–169 155, 168–169, 171 168 155 155 35, 155, 168–169, 171 35, 155, 168–169 35, 39, 155, 168– 170, 189 155, 168, 170, 174 155 175 156, 167–168, 171, 174, 187, 189 155, 168, 171 35, 155, 168, 171 155, 168, 171 35, 155, 168, 171 155 171 171 34, 155, 168, 171 156, 167, 171, 173 168 155, 168, 171 34, 155, 168, 171– 172 171 134, 158, 172, 175 9, 27, 168, 173, 185, 193 171 171

20:25 20:26–29 20:26 20:27 20:28 20:29

20:30–21:25 20:30–31

20:30 20:31 21 21:1–23 21:1–14 21:1–13 21:1 21:2 21:3 21:4 21:6 21:7 21:8 21:9 21:12 21:13 21:14 21:15–25 21:15–23

21:15–19 21:15–17 21:15 21:16 21:17–25

251 34, 39, 155, 168, 171–172, 189 172 155, 168 35, 155, 168, 172, 189 9, 168, 172–173, 189, 205 9, 34, 39, 78, 155, 168, 170, 172–175, 177, 187, 201 18, 155–156, 158, 176, 182, 184–185 20, 24–25, 53, 75, 78, 115, 156, 158, 161–162, 164, 168, 174–179, 182–188, 190, 192–194, 201– 203, 207 155, 177 1, 24–25, 39, 155, 178, 182, 190 20, 57, 175–176, 179, 184 156, 158, 176–177, 183–184, 186 156, 158, 176–177 179 59, 155, 179 155 179 155 158 155 155 155 155, 158 158 59–60, 155, 179 155, 159, 186–187, 201–202 156, 173, 176, 179– 180, 182, 184–185, 187, 194 135, 177, 189 57 36, 155, 180–181 36, 155, 180–181 185

252 21:17–19 21:17

21:19 21:20–24 21:20–23 21:20 21:21 21:22 21:23 21:24–25

Indexes 180 36–37, 155–156, 180–181, 189, 191– 192, 194, 205 155, 180–181, 189, 191 19 180, 182 155, 180–181 155, 180 155, 180–181, 189, 191 155, 180–182 20, 156, 158, 164, 176–177, 181–186, 188, 193–194, 202, 207

21:24 21:25

37–38, 50, 155, 161, 182–183, 192 65, 155, 183

1 Corinthians 15:4

170

Hebrews 1:1–4

46

1 John 2:20–21 2:27 5:13

23 23 179

Other Ancient Sources Rabbinic tractate Pirqe Avot 2:8 6:7

Apostolic Fathers 97 97

Ign. Smyrn. 1–2 4

160 110

Ign. Trall. 9 10

160 160

Index of Modern Authors Index of Modern Authors Abbott, Edwin A. 6, 24, 35, 37, 40, 45, 101, 195, 216 Akala, Adesola J. 67, 216 Allison, Dale 17, 21, 216, 235 Anderson, Paul N. 18–19, 22, 107, 216, 227, 230, 235 Arichea, Daniel C. 24, 216 Ashton, John 5–6, 11, 19, 216 Asiedu-Peprah, Martin 17, 96, 102, 216 Attridge, Harold W. 149, 216 Aune, David E. 5, 203, 216 Bae, Sungjin 153, 216 Bahr, Ann Marie B. 13, 216 Bal, Mieke 74, 216 Balthasar, Hans Urs von 207, 216 Barr, James 32, 217 Barrett, C. K. 7, 14–15, 24, 58, 62, 65, 97–98, 153, 162, 169, 171–172, 182, 217 Bassler, Jouette M. 165, 217 Bauckham, Richard J. 3–4, 11, 19–23, 25, 55, 109, 175, 180, 182–183, 202, 205, 217, 226, 233 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 7–8, 25, 65–66, 93, 103, 158, 165, 169, 177, 217, 219 Beck, David R. 26, 70, 91, 160, 180, 217 Becker, Jürgen 11, 66, 141, 217 Beirne, Margaret M. 217 Bekken, Per Jarle 18, 217 Bennema, Cornelis 16, 26, 50, 58, 70, 78, 90–91, 104, 109, 166, 171, 173, 218, 220 Bernard, J. H. 65, 96–97, 103, 172, 218 Bernier, Jonathan 5, 218 Beutler, Johannes 17, 116, 161, 165, 176, 218, 232

Bittner, Wolfgang J. 7, 9, 218 Black, David Alan 6, 24, 140, 183, 216, 218, 222 Blaine, Bradford B. 26, 57, 168, 218 Blomberg, Craig L. 218 Bockmuehl, Markus 192, 218 Boice, James Montgomery 17, 218 Boismard, Marie Emile 49, 218–219 Bonney, William 27, 66, 171–172, 218 Borchert, Gerald L. 51, 65, 140, 169, 172, 218 Borgen, Peder 86, 218 Brant, Jo-Ann A. 46, 164, 189, 219 Breck, John 175, 219 Brodie, Thomas L. 4, 65, 162–163, 175, 219 Brown, Raymond E. 4, 6, 8–10, 15, 24, 26, 35–37, 40, 45, 51, 60, 62, 65–67, 69, 79, 86, 91, 96–98, 101, 103–104, 131, 139, 153, 159, 161, 163, 171– 172, 182, 195–196, 219, 226 Brown, Tricia Gates 133 Bruner, Frederick Dale 96, 219 Buller, Bob 220 Bultmann, Rudolf K. 7–16, 40, 65–66, 70, 74, 90, 93, 96–97, 104, 132, 142, 153, 162–163, 169, 171, 175, 219 Burdick, D. W. 15, 219 Burkholder, Benjamin J. 51, 219 Burridge, Richard A. 2, 219 Bynum, Wm. Randolph 162, 219 Byrne, Brendan 173, 219 Byrskog, Samuel 21, 161, 165, 219 Campbell, Constantine R. 15, 219 Carson, Donald A. 7, 25, 41, 96, 129, 142, 153, 161–162, 171–173, 177, 182, 196, 219, 225–226 Carter, Warren 4, 203, 220

254 Casey, Maurice 109, 161, 220, 236 Chapman, John 182, 220 Chatman, Seymour B. 74, 220 Chennattu, Rekha M. 109, 220, 223, 230 Coady, C. A. J. 205, 220 Collins, Billie Jean 220 Coloe, Mary L. 109, 220, 223, 230 Conway, Colleen M. 26, 169, 220 Cotterell, Peter 32, 220 Croteau, David A. 24, 220 Cruse, D. A. 32–33, 42, 220 Cullmann, Oscar 6, 9–13, 21, 25, 36, 220, 223 Culpepper, R. Alan 2–4, 11, 16, 18, 24, 27, 46, 52, 61, 65, 74, 81, 85, 90, 99–100, 116, 166, 175, 183, 218, 220, 222, 230, 232 Cyril of Alexandria 96, 221 Davies, Margaret 177, 221 De Goedt, Michel 54, 223 De Jonge, Marinus 3, 66, 76, 224, 235 De la Potterie, Ignace 14, 17, 45, 51, 168, 230 De Saussure, Ferdinand 31, 34, 41, 232 Deeks, David 49, 221 Dewey, Arthur J. 10, 22, 221 Dodd, C. H. 6, 8, 14, 23, 25, 40, 60, 65, 70, 96–97, 133, 140, 153, 161, 175, 178, 182, 221, 230, 234 Draper, Jonathan A. 221 Dschulnigg, Peter 26, 161, 166, 221, 232 Duke, Paul D. 102, 221 Dunn, James D. G. 21, 90, 221, 234 Ensor, Paul W. 92, 221 Erickson, Richard J. 15, 221 Estes, Douglas 57, 93, 103, 134, 139, 221 Evans, C. Stephen 205, 222 Evans, Craig A. 109–110, 221 Farelly, Nicolas 16, 26, 59, 78, 166, 172, 182, 222 Fee, Gordon D. 24, 161, 177, 222

Indexes Fortna, Robert T. 7, 9–10, 175, 202, 217–218, 221–222 Foucault, Michel 23 Fowler, Robert M. 3, 222 Fowler, Roger 74, 222 Freed, Edwin D. 35, 110, 222 Frey, Jörg 94, 117, 124, 128, 131, 175, 220, 222 Gadamer, Hans-Georg 5 Gaffney, James 15–16, 24, 26, 39–40, 104, 222 Gamble, Harry Y. 178, 222 Gaventa, Beverly Roberts 183, 222 Geeraerts, Dirk 42, 222 Giblin, Charles H. 49, 222 Gignac, Francis T. 222 Glasson, T. Francis 87, 223 Grayston, Kenneth 133, 223 Green, Gene L. 33 Greimas, Algirdas Julien 34, 223 Grundmann, Walter 9, 12, 223 Haenchen, Ernst 65–66, 91, 173, 183, 223 Hahn, Ferdinand 9, 23, 173, 223 Hamid-Khani, Saeed 40, 87, 116, 223 Harris, Elizabeth 19, 223 Hartenstein, Judith 223 Harvey, A. E. 17–19, 223 Hawthorne, Gerald F. 24, 223 Hengel, Martin 203, 223 Hera, Marianus Pale 140, 223 Herman, Luc 133, 223 Hill, Charles E. 14, 223 Hindley, J. Clifford 17, 223 Hitchcock, F. R. Montgomery 16, 46, 182, 223 Hodges, Zane Clark 66, 223 Holleran, J. Warren 81, 100, 223 Hong, Ji Y. E. 22, 224 Hooker, Morna D. 55, 224 Hopkins, Anthony Dennis 12, 26, 40, 58, 224 Horsley, Richard A. 75, 234 Horstmann, A. 14, 224 Hoskyns, Edwyn C. 65, 96–97, 104, 182, 224 Hunt, Steven A. 26, 52, 221, 224, 234

Index of Modern Authors Hurtado, Larry W. 22, 104, 224 Hylen, Susan 26, 224 Jannidis, Fotis 74, 224 Johns, Loren L. 9, 224 Johnson, Luke Timothy 4, 224 Johnston, George 133, 224 Jones, Larry Paul 159, 224 Kähler, Martin 76, 224 Kammler, Hans-Christian 153, 225 Kanagaraj, Jey J. 207, 225 Käsemann, Ernst 10, 140, 225 Keener, C. S. 2, 65–66, 182–183, 225 Kellum, L. Scott. 129, 225 Kierspel, Lars 90, 225 Kirk, Alan 21, 234 Kittel, Gerhard 11, 225 Klink, Edward W. 3–4, 24, 225 Koester, Craig R. 3, 11–12, 24, 70, 103, 131, 166, 177, 225, 234, 236 Krafft, Eva 70, 226 Kremer, Jacob 226 Kutsko, John F. 220 Kysar, Robert 2, 4, 14, 24, 226 Labahn, Michael 24, 66, 70, 99, 101, 124, 177, 218, 222, 226, 232 Lackey, Jennifer 205, 226 Lamb, David A. 4, 203, 226 Lammers, Klaus 12, 226 Larsen, Kasper Bro 16, 46, 58, 77, 81, 104, 124, 171–173, 183, 226 Last, Richard 3 Le Donne, Anthony 21, 221 Lee, Dorothy A. 6, 12, 26, 96, 100, 115–116, 173, 226 Lehrer, Adrienne 42, 227 Léon-Dufour, Xavier 49, 65, 69, 159, 162, 175, 227 Lieu, Judith 227 Lightfoot, R. H. 66, 153, 227 Lincoln, Andrew T. 10, 16, 18–20, 24, 46, 50, 54, 58–59, 61, 66, 75, 78, 90, 96, 98, 100–101, 104, 134, 136–137, 141–143, 160–162, 169–171, 177, 182, 196, 202, 206, 223, 227, 233 Lindars, Barnabas 65, 160, 227

255

Loader, William R. G. 49, 227 Louw, Johannes P. 32, 39, 41–42, 137, 227 Lubac, Henri de 62, 227 Lyons, John 32–34, 41–42, 227 Maccini, Robert G. 17–18, 20, 25, 59, 227 MacGregor, G. H. C. 49, 227 Mardaga, Hellen 159, 227 Marshall, I. Howard 32, 171, 220, 235 Martyn, J. Louis 4–5, 18, 24, 79, 90, 100, 114, 116, 227 Mburu, Elizabeth W. 159, 228 McComiskey, Thomas Edward 162, 228 McGaughy, Lane C. 177, 228 McHugh, John F. 14, 51, 54, 58, 60, 65– 67, 69, 228 McIver, Robert K. 21, 228 McKay, Kenneth L. 15, 228 Meeks, Wayne A. 4, 24, 86, 98, 116, 228 Menken, Maarten J. J. 109–110, 162– 163, 228, 236 Merenlahti, Petri 74, 228 Metzger, Bruce M. 51, 103, 131, 161, 177, 228 Michaelis, Wilhelm 10, 228 Michaels, J. Ramsey 2, 24, 46, 49–51, 65, 67, 90–91, 96–97, 103–104, 108, 139, 141–142, 153, 159, 169, 172, 175, 228 Miller, Douglas B. 9, 224 Minear, Paul S. 159, 175, 228 Mitchell, Margaret M. 3, 228 Mlakuzhyil, George 49, 228 Moles, J. L. 75, 228 Moloney, Francis J. 3–4, 65, 70, 109, 125, 140, 147, 169, 171–173, 175, 219–220, 223, 228, 230 Moore, Stephen D. 234 Morris, Leon 25, 161, 182, 229 Motyer, Stephen 3, 90, 229 Moule, C. F. D. 178, 229 Moyise, Steve 109, 236 Müller, Mogens 103, 229 Mussner, Franz 5, 11, 14–15, 20–21, 23, 61, 76, 148, 195, 229 Myers, Alicia D. 26, 96, 229

256 Nässelqvist, Dan 46, 229 Neyrey, Jerome H. 17, 229 Ng, Wai-Yee 159, 229 Nicklas, Tobias 229 Nicol, Willem 7, 16, 153, 166, 222, 229 Nida, Eugene A. 32–33, 42, 137, 227, 229 Nineham, D. E. 107, 229 O’Brien, Kelli S. 27, 229 O’Day, Gail R. 74, 170, 229 Obermann, Andreas 169, 229 Oehler, Wilhelm 24, 229 Osborne, Grant R. 33, 230, 232 Painter, John 22, 100, 107, 109, 116, 218, 230, 232 Parsenios, George L. 19, 124, 129, 230 Pérez, Fernando R. 10, 230 Phillips, G. L. 6, 11, 35, 230 Pitkin, Barbara 9, 230 Porter, Stanley E. 15, 33, 41, 62, 226– 227, 230–231, 234 Porzig, Walter 42, 230 Powell, Mark Allan 230 Preiss, Théo 17, 230 Quast, Kevin 168, 230 Redelings, David A. 25, 230 Redman, Judith C. S. 189, 231 Reed, Jeffrey T. 33, 231 Regev, Eyal 4, 231 Reinhartz, Adele 4, 29, 90, 231 Renz, Gabi 52, 75, 231 Resseguie, James L. 105, 231 Ricoeur, Paul 3, 18, 28, 55, 74–75, 196, 206, 231 Ridderbos, H. N. 161, 182, 231 Riesenfeld, Harald 24, 231 Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith 74, 231 Rissi, Mathias 49, 231 Robert, R. 51 Robinson, J. A. T. 24, 232 Roose, Hanna 176, 232 Rubel, Georg 232 Ruckstuhl, Eugen 7, 161, 232

Indexes Ruschmann, Susanne 26, 168, 232 Salier, Willis H., 3, 8, 66, 70, 86, 101, 232, 234 Scacewater, Todd A. 109, 232 Schlatter, Adolf 103, 172, 232 Schmitz, E. D. 14, 232 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 7–8, 11, 24, 26, 51, 58, 62, 65–66, 70, 90, 96–97, 103, 141, 161, 169, 172, 182, 232 Schneider, Gerhard 12, 232 Schneiders, Sandra M. 100, 232 Schnelle, Udo 7, 9, 24, 65, 96, 104, 139, 142, 147, 159, 162, 173, 222, 232 Scholtissek, Klaus 176, 232 Schottroff, Luise 11, 233 Schröter, Jens 21, 233 Schwankl, Otto 6, 233 Segovia, Fernando F. 3–4, 13, 100, 116, 129, 131, 135–139, 175, 218, 225, 230–233 Shelfer, Lochlan 133, 233 Sheppard, Beth M. 18, 62, 227, 233 Sim, David C. 3, 233 Sim, Margaret G. 94, 233 Skinner, Christopher W. 26–27, 160– 161, 166, 171, 189, 217, 221, 225, 231, 233 Smalley, Stephen S. 233 Smith, D. Moody 19, 65, 91, 160, 183, 222, 233 Smith, Justin Marc 203, 233 Smith, Ralph L. 162, 233 Spencer, Patrick E. 183, 233 Spicq, Ceslas 37, 233 Stagg, Frank 182, 233 Staley, Jeffrey L. 3, 49, 74, 99, 105, 233 Stibbe, Mark W. G. 16, 46, 233 Stout, Stephen O. 19, 226 Stube, John Carlson 129, 234 Stuhlmacher, Peter 21, 234 Sturdevant, Jason S. 13, 234 Tam, Josaphat C. 17, 19–20, 65, 159, 162, 175, 234 Tarelli, C. C. 35, 234 Tenney, Merrill C. 15, 24, 219, 234

Index of Modern Authors Thatcher, Tom 3–4, 10, 18, 21–23, 62– 63, 75, 104, 196, 202, 216–218, 221–222, 227, 230–231, 234 Thettayil, Benny 35, 235 Thiselton, Anthony C. 32, 235 Thompson, Marianne M. 8–9, 12, 66, 70, 171, 176, 235 Thyen, Hartwig 60, 65, 70, 96, 140, 175, 180, 235 Tolmie, D. François 3, 26, 52, 124, 129, 139, 146–148, 221, 224, 234–235 Tovey, Derek 19–20, 180, 235 Townsend, Henry C. 17, 235 Trebilco, Paul 2, 235 Trier, Jost 42, 235 Trites, Allison A. 17–19, 97, 235 Tuckett, Christopher 3, 153, 161–162, 169–170, 172–173, 175, 222, 224, 226, 228, 235–237 Turner, Max 32, 171, 220, 235 Turner, Nigel 41, 235 Tyler, Ronald L. 109, 235 Van Belle, Gilbert. 7, 99, 124, 175, 217–218, 222, 224, 226, 228, 236– 237 Van den Bussche, Henri 49, 219 Van der Watt, Jan Gabriël 175, 218, 220 Van Tilborg, Sjef 2, 4, 7, 218, 235

257

Van Unnik, W. C. 24, 235 Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 19–20, 28, 182, 235 Vervaeck, Bart 133, 223 Von Wahlde, Urban C. 7, 90, 96–98, 103, 116, 236 Vorster, Willem S. 175, 236 Welck, Christian 7, 175, 236 Wengst, Klaus 24, 65, 96, 103, 236 Wenz, Helmut 171, 236 Wilkens, Wilhelm 7, 66, 236 Williams, Catrin H. 109–110, 156, 234, 236 Williams, Michael A. 14, 236 Williams, Peter J. 46, 182, 225, 236 Witherington, Ben 25, 236 Witmer, Stephen E. 13, 236 Wright, N. T. 5, 101, 109, 115–116, 236 Zimmermann, Ruben 26, 52, 175, 220– 221, 224, 234 Zumstein, Jean 4, 21, 61, 77, 131, 137, 139, 147, 153, 159, 162, 169, 175, 180, 182, 203, 217, 236

Index of Subjects Index of Subjects Abide, abode 95, 97, 99, 113, 128, 134– 35, 144, 147, 151, 204 Abraham 20, 87, 115, 208, 212 Andrew 10, 16, 18–19, 55–56, 58, 170, 225, 227, 233 Aristotle 16 Attest, attestation 57, 88, 90, 99, 103, 107–108, 113, 146, 162, 182, 198 Augustine 169 Author, authorial 1–3, 5–6, 9, 19, 21, 25, 28–29, 36, 38–39, 41, 46–47, 50–51, 53–55, 57–60, 63–64, 66, 68–71, 73–77, 79–82, 89, 108–109, 111, 113–114, 116–117, 119–122, 124– 125, 135, 137, 139, 144–146, 148, 150, 154, 158–160, 164, 166, 169, 172, 177, 181–185, 187, 189, 191– 193, 197–198, 200–202, 205, 207, 212, 217, 226, 235 – authorship 2, 182–183, 224 – Autor 94 – implied author 3, 19, 147–148, 182 BD, Beloved Disciple 20, 35, 37–38, 154–155, 157–161, 163–165, 167– 170, 173, 176, 179–187, 192, 200– 201 Beggar 88, 100–105, 112–113, 116–117, 119–124, 174, 198, 202 Believe, belief 1, 6, 8–12, 15–16, 21, 23–29, 38–40, 42–44, 49–81, 84–89, 92–96, 98–100, 102–108, 110–114, 116–117, 119–124, 127–132, 135, 138, 141, 143–146, 150–152, 154– 155, 157–161, 163–169, 171–174, 176–178, 180–181, 183–201, 203– 206, 211–214, 216–218, 220, 222, 225, 229–230, 234–236 – Glauben 173

– acceptance 38, 40, 104 – Bekenntnis 232 – believer 9, 22, 24, 26, 64, 66, 77, 82, 87–88, 93, 97, 105, 111–112, 116– 117, 122, 127–129, 132, 134–137, 140–145, 148, 150–151, 157, 173, 188–191, 199–200, 202, 204–205, 223–224 – confess 49, 54, 56–57, 59, 101, 139, 165, 177 – confession 9, 26, 37, 55, 57, 86, 116– 117, 119, 139, 157, 172, 180, 184– 185, 187, 190, 193, 201, 204, 218 – conversion 24, 49, 51–53, 55, 57, 59, 64, 72, 79, 105, 112, 118, 197 – denial 37, 54, 148, 155, 158, 179, 188 – doubt 19, 27, 171, 218 – engendering 24, 68, 75, 79, 115–117, 123, 129, 132, 137, 140–142, 145, 147, 150, 158, 161, 164, 176–178, 183, 186–190, 192–193, 196, 199– 203 – entrust 39, 68, 180, 215 – episteusen 11, 220 – faith 6, 8–13, 15–16, 23–27, 30, 35, 40, 47, 49, 51–53, 55, 57–74, 76–80, 83, 85–92, 94–95, 98–99, 101, 103– 104, 108, 110–124, 126–127, 129– 133, 135–141, 144–147, 149–152, 158, 161, 163–166, 168–169, 171– 174, 176–178, 180, 183, 185–193, 195–197, 199, 201–207, 218–219, 222–226, 229–230, 235 – faithful 59, 61, 78, 88, 97, 123, 188, 206 – faithless 171 – fides 21, 137, 236–237 – follow 12, 42–44, 47, 51, 55–56, 95, 117, 122, 125, 128, 130, 157, 172,

Index of Subjects 179–180, 184, 186, 188, 190, 193, 200, 204 – follower 55, 77, 84, 90, 142, 150–151 – fostering 16, 20, 24, 51, 68, 75, 79, 115–116, 123, 128–130, 132, 136– 137, 141, 145, 147, 158, 161, 171, 174, 176–178, 180, 183, 185–190, 192–193, 196, 201–202, 204 – Glaube 9, 12, 23, 171, 223, 226, 232, 236 – Glaubende 11, 233 – Glaubensvorstellung 173 – harden 110, 119–120, 150 – non-believers 24, 105, 129, 134, 202– 203 – non-believing 75, 132, 147, 177, 201–202 – not-yet-believing 52, 78, 120, 203 – obedience 12, 103, 158 – obedient 13, 29, 69 – obey 51, 101, 112, 154, 156–157, 197 – professing 67, 73, 202 – trust 25, 40, 42–44, 69, 76–77, 103, 116, 133 – unbelief 40, 60–61, 78, 80–82, 84–86, 88–89, 91–92, 95–98, 100–102, 104–106, 108–113, 115, 118, 120– 121, 124, 129, 136–137, 143–144, 150, 165, 171, 189, 191, 193, 198– 199, 203, 206 – unbeliever 12, 109, 111, 121, 123, 137, 144, 192, 199, 206 – unbelieving 8, 54, 65–66, 77–78, 85– 88, 92, 97, 102, 104, 106, 110, 113– 117, 119, 121, 123, 130, 132, 136, 138, 141–142, 144, 146, 150, 167, 170–171, 187–190, 193, 198, 202 – unfaith 192 Beloved 2, 4, 10, 18–20, 25, 55, 75, 161, 168, 173, 208–210, 212–214, 217, 219, 227, 230 Cana 46, 51, 58–60, 65, 68 Character, characterisation 1, 5, 12, 26– 28, 30, 34, 36–39, 41, 46–47, 49–50, 52–53, 55, 57–59, 61, 64, 67–69, 71–74, 76–82, 86, 89, 91, 98, 100– 101, 105–106, 110–119, 121–124, 127–128, 133–134, 138–139, 143,

259

145–149, 151, 153–154, 158, 160– 161, 164–165, 168–174, 176–181, 185, 187–191, 193, 195, 197–201, 204–205, 208–213, 217–218, 220– 221, 224–225, 228–229, 231, 233– 234 – Charaktere 229 – Charakterisierung 223 Christian, non-Christian 2–4, 6–7, 21, 55, 66, 72, 109–110, 116–117, 119, 138, 141, 146–147, 151, 153, 156, 159, 163, 171, 178, 202–203, 207, 217, 219–222, 224–225, 228, 231, 233–236 – crypto-Christian 101, 193 Chrysostom 96, 220 Church 7–9, 14, 21, 24, 60, 116, 175, 178, 182, 203, 207, 220, 222–223, 225, 230 Confessional 18–19, 75, 196 Connote, connotation 6, 12, 86, 94, 124, 150 Devil 90, 229 Discipleship 12, 26, 70, 91, 100, 124, 140, 146–147, 180, 217, 223, 232 Encounter 10, 26, 30, 46–47, 49, 51–53, 58, 70–71, 74, 79, 81, 91, 111, 115, 122, 153, 157–158, 166, 170, 172– 174, 178, 180, 184–186, 196–197, 218 Eschatology, eschatological 23, 85–86, 89–90, 92–96, 98–99, 112, 117–118, 121–122, 124, 131, 142, 159, 162, 165, 169, 175, 186, 197, 200, 222– 223, 229, 235 Father 12–13, 34, 36–37, 67, 86–91, 93–99, 103, 109, 112–115, 119, 121, 125, 128–135, 138, 140–146, 148, 150–151, 156, 163, 169, 178, 189, 198–200, 204, 207–216, 229 Glory, glorification 8, 10, 35, 50, 59, 64, 73, 78–79, 84–85, 95, 99, 106, 109– 111, 113, 120–121, 127–128, 140, 142, 145, 148–149, 151, 170–172,

260

Indexes

180, 190, 207–209, 216–217, 226, 228, 236 God 1, 7–8, 13–14, 16, 22–23, 25, 34– 36, 38–41, 50, 53–58, 66, 78, 86–87, 89, 92, 95, 98–105, 109, 111, 113, 115, 118, 120–121, 128–129, 131, 138, 140–141, 145, 148–150, 156, 158, 162, 168, 170, 172, 174, 177, 179, 186, 191–193, 199–200, 206– 218, 221, 224–225, 236 Greco-Roman 2, 11, 18, 22, 86, 96, 124, 129, 160, 219, 230, 234

Identity 2–3, 5, 12, 16, 18, 36–37, 46, 50, 54–55, 57, 63–64, 75–76, 78, 90–91, 100–102, 105, 109, 118, 121, 123–124, 130, 141, 157, 162–163, 171, 177, 179, 181, 184–185, 192– 193, 200, 206, 212 Ignatius of Loyola 207 Isaiah, Isaianic 35, 54, 108–110, 114, 116, 122, 124, 156, 198, 208, 221, 235–236 Israel 22, 54, 56–57, 75, 101, 106, 109, 163, 176, 217, 224, 232, 234

Hear, hearing 1, 3–6, 10–13, 15, 28, 32, 36, 43, 47, 51–53, 56–58, 64, 69–71, 73, 76–77, 80, 84–89, 92–95, 97–99, 101, 103–106, 108, 111–113, 117, 119–124, 127–128, 130, 137, 143, 145–146, 148–150, 156, 165, 167, 170–171, 173, 176, 185, 188, 190– 191, 193–198, 200, 202, 204–207, 210–213, 221, 225, 230–231, 234– 235 – aural 11, 13, 94–95, 97, 112, 156, 197 – ears 12 – hearer 94, 141, 147 – heed 93–95 – listen 87, 89, 94, 100, 102, 104–105, 120–121, 169, 191, 212 Herod 61 Herodotus 75, 228 Historian 75, 160 Historic 22, 224 Historical 5–7, 9, 20, 62, 65, 70, 76, 92, 104, 161, 182, 205, 218, 221–225, 229 Historicity 2, 5, 18, 25, 107, 161, 216, 218, 227 Historiography, historiographical 11, 20–21, 160, 183, 206, 217, 221 History 2, 4–6, 8, 10, 18, 21–25, 46, 52, 79, 90, 100, 116, 161, 165, 178, 205–206, 216–217, 219, 221–222, 227, 230–231, 234 – Geschichte 4, 9, 24, 42, 223, 226, 235, 237 Hour 59, 125, 128, 138, 148, 170, 211– 212, 214

Jerome 17, 229 Jerusalem 46, 65, 81, 106–108, 163, 210–212 Jesus, the Son 1–2, 7–8, 21, 51, 53–57, 66–67, 78, 86, 92–95, 103, 109, 112, 128, 134–135, 142–144, 147–148, 168, 177, 207, 213–216, 220–221, 224–225, 229 Jesus’ ascension 86, 118, 137, 170, 178 Jesus’ crucifixion 7, 61, 125, 153–154, 157–158, 163–164, 185, 189 Jesus’ resurrection 7, 9, 22, 26, 35, 60– 64, 76, 83, 85–86, 88–89, 92–93, 99, 106–107, 112, 117–118, 122–123, 127, 131, 134–135, 143–144, 147– 148, 151–155, 157–158, 165–166, 168, 170–171, 173, 175–177, 183, 185, 187–188,189–193, 197, 199– 200, 204, 212–213, 216, 225, 227, 234, 236 "Jews" 17, 26, 29, 36, 39–40, 53–54, 60–61, 64, 68, 70, 73, 81, 85–103, 105–106, 110–113, 115–118, 120– 123, 125, 130, 132, 134, 137, 156, 163, 165, 170,185, 188–190, 198, 202, 208–212, 214, 225, 229, 231, 236 John Calvin 8, 230 John the Baptist 12, 24, 35, 37–38, 48– 51, 53–56, 58, 64, 67, 71–72, 79, 95–97, 99, 113, 153, 197, 208–210, 212–213, 216, 220, 224 Joseph of Arimathea 157–158, 165, 185, 188

Index of Subjects Judas 128, 134, 146, 148, 155, 189, 211–212 Know, knowledge 1–2, 5, 10, 13–16, 18, 20–21, 23–28, 30, 33, 36–37, 40–44, 47, 50, 52–60, 62–64, 66, 68–73, 76, 78, 84–89, 91, 95, 98, 100–107, 109–115, 117–119, 121–124, 126– 136, 138, 140–146, 148, 150–152, 154–160, 163–170, 172–174, 176, 178–190, 192–201, 203–207, 211– 212, 216, 218, 220–222, 226–227, 230 – epistemology 16, 25, 62, 78, 205, 216, 218, 226, 230 – anagnorisis 16 – cognition 25, 28, 62 – cognitive 1, 16, 23, 62, 73, 78, 197, 206 – comprehend 22, 50, 59, 61, 64, 121, 139, 145, 199 – connaissance 14, 230 – Erkenntnis 7, 218, 232 – experience 33, 68, 105, 116, 157, 185, 188 – foreknowledge 60, 91, 128 – incomprehension 126, 138 – learn 42, 84, 117, 121, 146, 154, 188, 205, 226 – misunderstand 52, 106 – misunderstanding 26, 31, 40, 121, 180, 203 – not-knowing 115, 129, 145 – Oida 15, 221 – perceive 3, 10, 28, 51, 59, 62–63, 78– 79, 101, 108–109, 113, 115, 118– 119, 121, 123, 147, 149, 151, 161, 183, 191, 195, 198, 201, 204, 221 – perceiver 66 – perception 1, 10–11, 16, 30, 37, 58, 60–62, 64, 72, 74–75, 77–78, 97–98, 107, 114, 118–119, 121, 123, 145, 149–150, 158, 161, 164, 190–192, 196–197, 200–201, 203–206 – perceptive 85, 104, 108, 113, 115, 146, 148, 171 – recognise 7, 12, 16, 32, 46–47, 54, 61, 66, 75, 78, 99, 106, 124, 128, 137, 143, 146, 156, 170, 172, 195, 226

261

– recognition 16, 46, 58, 77, 81, 104, 124, 134, 171–173, 183, 207, 226 – recognition scenes 46, 58, 77, 81, 104, 124, 171–173, 183 – think 43, 83, 138, 178, 183 – uncomprehending 74, 157, 172, 185, 189 – understand 27, 42–44, 52, 54, 68, 74, 78, 87–88, 101, 103–104, 106, 108, 114, 132, 135–137, 144, 146, 160, 169, 172, 191, 199, 201 – understanding 1, 5–6, 8, 10–11, 13– 14, 16, 19–21, 23, 26, 29–31, 33, 45, 47, 49, 54, 61–63, 73–79, 87, 91, 101, 104, 106–108, 113–114, 116, 118–120, 128, 136–137, 146–148, 160, 162, 166,169, 172, 177, 183, 187–189, 192, 195, 198, 201, 203– 204, 216, 222, 235 – unknowing 128, 143, 147 – unknown 61, 158, 190 – unperceptive 86, 88, 91, 102 – Verstandes 42, 235 – Verständnis 9, 223 – Wissensvermittlung 232 Lamb 35, 54–56, 162, 165, 186, 200 Lazarus 88–89, 106, 108, 112, 116–117, 119–120, 127, 146, 208, 210, 212– 213 Life 2, 4, 9, 12, 14, 17, 21, 23, 30, 41, 50, 53, 57, 64, 70, 78, 83, 85–88, 90, 92–98, 101, 112–113, 116–117, 119, 121–122, 124, 127, 129–130, 135, 138, 140, 143, 145, 148–149, 152, 155, 158–159, 170–171, 177–178, 184, 186, 189, 197–199, 208, 210, 212, 220, 225–227, 230 Light 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 28–30, 32–33, 42, 46, 50–51, 54, 59, 62–63, 67, 79, 81, 87–89, 92, 94, 96, 99–103, 105, 109, 113–114, 117, 122, 124–125, 132, 134, 138–140, 158, 175, 177–181, 183–184, 193, 195, 203,209, 213, 215, 219, 223–226, 230, 233 Linguistic, semantic 28–29, 31–34, 41– 42, 44–47, 49, 74, 82, 94, 124–125, 154, 195–196, 203, 217, 220, 222, 226–227, 231–233, 235

262 Literary, narrative 3–7, 15–16, 18–20, 22, 25–28, 30, 38–39, 41, 46–47, 49–50, 52–53, 55, 57–58, 61, 63, 65–67, 70–72, 74–75, 77, 79, 81, 84, 87, 93, 96, 99–101, 103, 105–106, 111, 115–119, 121–123, 125, 127, 129, 133–135, 138–141, 143–144, 146, 148, 150, 153–155, 157–158, 160–161, 163–164, 166, 168–172, 174–175, 177, 180–188, 190–193, 195, 197, 199–200, 202–203, 205– 206, 216–220, 222–231, 233–237 – literarisch 7, 232, 236 – literarkritischen 11, 217 – narrate 18, 63, 73, 76, 79–80, 88, 95, 108, 114, 118, 121, 128, 145–149, 151, 164, 172–174, 176, 178, 181, 186, 189, 191, 193, 197–199, 203– 205, 207 – narration 21, 47, 63, 68, 73, 108, 114, 134–135, 198 – narrational 18, 196 – narratival 11, 65 – Narratologia 74, 224 – Narratological 3, 12, 224, 235 – Narratology 74, 216, 224 – narrator 3, 60–61, 73, 78, 90, 102, 108, 139, 154–155, 157, 159–160, 163–165, 172, 176, 178–181, 185– 187, 200–201 – plot 1, 16, 18, 26–28, 30, 46–47, 52, 58, 66, 71, 79, 81, 100–101, 111, 118, 125, 143, 146–147, 153, 155, 161, 164–165, 174, 186, 192, 195– 196, 200 – storyline 62–64, 72–73, 78, 107–108, 114, 164, 174, 186, 198, 200 Liturgical 3–4, 65, 226, 229 Living 52, 71, 76, 80, 87, 117–118, 125, 135, 137, 139, 145, 148–149, 151, 174, 186, 190, 193, 199–200, 203– 204 Lord 22, 83, 85, 109–110, 127, 157, 166–168, 170, 174, 176, 179, 186, 200, 207, 212, 216–217, 224 Love 15, 51, 78, 98–99, 111, 113, 117– 118, 120, 122, 124–130, 134–135, 138, 140–143, 145, 147–148, 150– 152, 157, 173, 176, 178–179, 181,

Indexes 184–185, 187–188, 190, 192–193, 198–201, 204, 206, 211–212, 222, 228, 235 LXX, Septuagint 61–62, 109, 159, 162 Martha 88, 117, 120, 122, 127, 146, 179, 208, 210, 212, 214 Mary 16, 59–60, 88, 109, 117, 122, 127, 146, 155, 157, 166–170, 172–174, 186, 188, 200, 208–210, 212, 218, 220, 223, 226, 230 Mary Magdalene 26, 157, 167–168, 172–174, 186, 188, 200, 208–209, 212, 223, 226, 232 Mission, missionary, evangelistic 7, 24– 25, 46, 51–52, 55, 76, 86–87, 89, 101, 109, 112, 115–119, 121–123, 128, 136, 140–141, 143, 147, 151, 156–158, 164, 185, 202–203, 207, 225 – Missionsschrift 24, 229 Monologue 30, 46, 48, 50–51, 59, 70, 78, 94, 114, 117–118, 164, 172, 177, 179, 197, 237 Moses 8, 56, 86–87, 92, 95, 98–100, 102, 113, 120, 212, 215, 223, 228 MT, Masoretic Text 162 Nathanael 49, 56–57, 178, 208, 211, 214, 225 Nicodemus 26, 48–53, 65, 69, 71–72, 75, 78, 85, 91, 99, 111, 113, 121, 157–158, 165, 185, 188, 208, 210– 214, 217, 221–222, 225, 231 Omnipotence, omnipotent 89, 110–111, 119, 147, 150, 152, 204 Omniscience, omniscient 30, 47, 52, 66–68, 73, 76, 80–82, 86–89, 98–99, 110, 112–114, 118–119, 123, 128, 136–138, 145, 147–148, 150–151, 155, 157–159, 171, 174, 176, 178– 179, 181, 184–187, 189–190, 192– 193, 197–201, 203–204 Origen 65, 229 Paralytic 85, 91, 101–102, 118–119, 208, 211–212 Peshitta 162

Index of Subjects Peter 15, 21, 26, 32, 35, 37, 46, 49, 56– 57, 74, 86, 117, 128, 130, 139, 146, 148, 155, 157, 159, 161, 167–169, 172, 174, 176, 178–182, 184–185, 187, 190, 193, 201, 204, 208–212, 218–221, 223–225, 227, 229–230, 232, 234–235 Pharisees 36, 53–54, 87–90, 99–102, 104–105, 108, 112–113, 115, 117, 120–121, 123–124, 156, 189, 198, 202, 209–212, 214 Philip 56, 58, 130, 146, 211, 214, 230 Philo 86, 218 Pilate 96, 155–158, 185, 189–190, 210– 212 Pithy 34, 86, 89, 112, 117, 147, 164, 173 Post-Easter 21 Post-resurrection 47, 61–64, 87, 106– 108, 137–138, 144, 146, 149, 151, 169, 184, 191, 199, 204 Pray, prayer 126–127, 129, 140–141, 220 Preamble 30, 46, 50–51, 59, 67, 70, 76, 197 Pre-Easter 174 Pre-resurrection 22, 139, 149, 151, 170, 180 Prophecy 61, 109, 136–138, 144–145, 156, 170–171, 179–180, 199, 213 Reader, audience 1–5, 13, 20, 23–24, 26–30, 34, 38–39, 41, 47, 50–51, 55, 57–60, 62–63, 66–80, 82, 85–91, 94–103, 105–111, 113–125, 127– 128, 130–140, 142–154, 156–160, 162–164, 166, 168, 170–171, 173– 174, 176–178, 180–194, 197–207, 217, 222, 225, 229, 231, 233, 235 – implied audience 203, 233 – implied reader 3, 74, 147, 161, 233 – implizierten Leser 229 – readership 3, 203 Relational 16, 85, 107, 123–124, 127, 130, 134, 136, 140, 145, 147–148, 150–152, 172, 188, 199, 202, 204, 206 Remember, memory 1, 6–7, 21–23, 28, 38, 42, 44, 47, 51, 53, 61–62, 68, 72,

263

84, 90, 101, 106–108, 110, 112–114, 118, 122, 129, 136–137, 144, 146, 148, 150–152, 191, 194–199, 202, 204, 206, 213–214, 216–219, 221, 224, 228, 230–231, 234 – anamnesis 21 – countermemory 23 – Erinnerung 21, 61, 233, 236 – forget 206, 231 – mémoire 21, 61, 77, 237 – mnemonic 62 – mnemo-rhetoric 22, 234 – mnemotechnique 22 – remembrance 21–23, 38, 53, 61–64, 68, 73, 79, 81, 88, 106–108, 114, 122, 124, 128, 135–137, 144, 146, 148–149, 151, 160, 189, 196–199, 204 Reveal, revelation 5–6, 8, 17, 22, 24, 30, 39–40, 54, 58, 60, 74, 81, 86–87, 89, 116, 121, 139, 148, 151, 189, 218, 223–224, 229 Rhetoric, rhetorical 3, 5, 18–19, 23, 26– 29, 41, 47, 50–51, 53, 55, 57–59, 61–63, 68–69, 72–74, 77, 79, 81–82, 89, 91, 96, 99–101, 107–108, 112– 116, 118, 122–124, 129, 135, 139, 142, 144–145, 148–150, 152, 158, 173, 177, 185, 187, 196–201, 221, 229–230, 232–234, 236 – dissuade 115, 123, 189, 202 – persuade 66, 75, 79, 94, 115, 123, 147, 177, 202–203 – persuasive 20, 28–30, 57–58, 73, 79, 122, 125, 130, 150, 158–159, 174, 183, 191, 193, 195–196, 207, 221 – rhetors 22 – strategy 3, 28, 47, 51, 55, 58–59, 61, 63, 68, 73–75, 77, 82, 91, 100, 107– 108, 113–116, 118, 122–124, 139, 144–145, 148, 150, 158, 173–174, 177–178, 181, 183–184, 186–187, 189, 191, 197–202 – unpersuasive 180 Salvation 36, 40, 80, 98–99, 104, 116, 208–210 Samaritans 52, 68, 70, 79, 191, 210

264 Scripture, scriptural 21, 26, 38, 51, 53, 61–64, 72, 95, 97–99, 107, 113, 156, 158–159, 161–164, 166–167, 169, 172, 185–186, 188, 193, 200, 211– 215, 219, 221, 229 Sectarian 147 Sectarian, sectarianism 4, 203, 228, 231 See, sight 1, 4–17, 19–20, 22–25, 27–28, 32, 34–36, 42–43, 46–47, 49, 51–61, 63–65, 67–73, 75–81, 84–91, 93– 101, 103–105, 108–110, 112–114, 116, 118–124, 127–134, 137–138, 140–144, 146, 148–157, 159–181, 184–186, 188, 190–198, 200, 202– 208, 213, 216, 218, 221, 223–225, 230, 232, 235–236 – Anblick 103 – Ausblick 7, 236 – behold 35, 50, 78, 101 – blind, 35, 37, 85, 88, 99–105, 109– 110, 112–113, 116, 118–124, 150, 174, 198, 208–212, 214–215, 226 – Blindheit 99, 226 – call-vision 109, 236 – Eiden 11, 220 – Eidos 221 – eye 1, 8, 35, 59, 75, 98, 100–102, 110, 119–120, 150, 159, 163, 210, 212 – eyesight 35, 88, 100, 103–105, 112– 113, 118, 123–124, 198 – eyewitness 9–11, 19–22, 54, 59, 75, 107, 136, 146, 159–161, 163, 165, 168, 175, 180, 182–183, 186, 189, 205, 207, 217, 221, 226–227, 229, 231 – look 6, 56, 83, 94, 162–163, 165, 173, 175, 186, 200 – not seeing 174, 186, 200 – Sehen 9, 12, 99, 103, 171, 173, 223, 226, 236 – Sehweise 5, 11, 14–15, 20–21, 61, 77, 148, 229 – visible 21, 177 – vision 5–6, 11, 14, 21, 23, 35, 109, 172, 230 – visionary 10, 22, 54–55, 72, 221 – visually 97 – vue 11, 220 Seek 1, 56, 87, 93, 95, 99, 111, 113, 145

Indexes Senses, sensory 6, 12, 16, 42–44, 78, 226 – empirical 1, 11, 53–55, 57, 64, 68, 72, 75, 79, 93, 197 Sheep 88, 117, 119, 122, 127, 180, 187, 210–212 Shepherd 83, 85, 88–89, 112, 116–117, 122, 127, 156, 210, 212 Sign 6–9, 11–12, 15, 24, 26–27, 30, 34, 47–48, 50–53, 57–60, 63–74, 77, 79–82, 85–86, 88–91, 100–103, 106, 108, 110, 112–114, 116, 119–121, 123, 132, 146, 149, 151, 153, 156– 158, 163–164, 166, 171, 173, 176– 178, 183–188, 190–193, 195, 198, 200–201, 203–205, 207–210, 218, 222, 224–225, 235–236 – miracle, 8, 10, 25, 58, 61, 66, 85–86, 90–91, 93, 97, 99–100, 103, 111, 118, 132, 218, 226, 230 – Semeion 3, 7–8, 66, 70, 86, 100–101, 153, 175, 216, 218, 222, 232–234 – Wunder 11, 42, 66, 217, 230 – Wundergeschichten 7, 24, 226, 236 Sin 24, 54, 87–88, 91, 100–101, 103– 105, 113, 120–121, 130, 137, 157, 170 Spirit, Holy 16, 21, 35, 38, 50, 54–56, 78, 96, 104, 109, 128, 133, 143, 159, 170–171, 173, 188, 202, 207–211, 213–214, 218–219, 224, 234–235 – Paraclete 21–22, 62, 120, 125–130, 133–139, 141, 143–146, 149–151, 157, 160, 169, 174, 185, 188, 190– 191, 198–199, 202, 205–206, 223– 224, 233 – pneumatological 16 – Pneumatology 133, 219 Temple 14, 26, 51, 53, 59, 61, 87, 149, 216 Theological 1, 12, 18–20, 23–24, 26, 32–33, 35, 40, 51, 53, 65, 73–74, 79, 89, 106, 110, 116, 120, 125, 135, 150, 153, 157–158, 160–161, 163– 166, 185–186, 195, 200, 205, 207, 216–217, 219–220, 222–225, 228– 229, 231, 233, 235,236

Index of Subjects Thomas 4, 8–9, 11, 21, 26–27, 35, 65, 130, 146, 155, 157, 161–162, 166– 168, 170–174, 176, 184–186, 188, 190, 193, 200, 205, 208, 214, 217– 219, 223, 225–226, 228, 233 Thucydides 75, 228 Truth 16, 18–20, 22, 24, 35, 38, 46, 50, 55, 59–60, 72, 75, 78, 87, 96–98, 100–101, 127–128, 130, 136–137, 141, 144, 146, 156, 159–160, 163– 164, 169, 173, 177, 185, 190, 197, 199, 202, 206, 210–213, 227–228, 233, 235 Truthful, trustworthy 20, 27, 63, 73, 82, 89, 96, 106–108, 114, 160, 164, 175, 182, 185, 191, 197–198, 204–205, 207 – untrustworthy 66, 223 Vulgate 162 Water 52, 71, 82, 85, 87, 117, 159, 212 Wirkungsgeschichte 2 Witness, testimony 1, 9–11, 13, 15, 17– 21, 23, 25, 27–28, 37–38, 44, 48–53, 55–59, 64, 67–68, 75–76, 78–80, 84, 87, 89–90, 92, 95–99, 105–108, 110, 113–114, 118–120, 122–124, 127, 129, 135–137, 143–144, 150, 154– 156, 158–160, 163–165, 168, 170, 174–176, 180–182, 184–187, 189– 201, 203–208, 210, 212–213, 217– 218, 220, 223–224, 226–227, 229, 231, 234–236 – forensic 18–19, 96, 101, 133

265

– – – –

I-Witness 19, 182, 235 lawsuit 16–20, 217, 227, 230, 233 Martyria 17, 161, 218, 234 testify 20, 47, 52–56, 71, 92, 97, 112–113, 122, 129, 136–137, 143– 144, 155–157, 159–161, 163–164, 168–170, 172, 174, 181, 183, 185– 186, 188, 199, 202 – testimonio 22, 224 – trial 154–155, 185 – Zeugnisthema 17, 218 Work 1–3, 5–6, 8, 14–15, 17, 19–21, 26, 28–29, 34, 37, 39, 46–47, 49, 51, 58, 70, 72–73, 76–77, 81, 91–93, 95, 97–103, 107, 110–111, 113–115, 119, 121, 123, 125–129, 132, 136– 137, 139, 141, 143–145, 147, 149, 151, 158, 160, 163–164, 183, 194– 195, 197, 199–200, 202–204, 206, 208–209, 213, 215, 221 – Werke 7, 66, 236 World 18, 23, 28–29, 31–32, 50, 54–55, 72, 74–76, 78, 81, 88–91, 95, 100– 104, 117, 121–123, 126–129, 133– 137, 139–145, 147–148, 151, 156, 160–161, 165, 174, 177,179, 181, 183, 186, 189, 197, 199–200, 207– 215, 217, 225, 228, 231 Worship 6, 11, 13, 21, 25, 36, 103–105, 121, 172, 220 Yahweh 15, 108–110, 158, 162–163, 165, 186, 189, 200 Zechariah 162–163, 165, 186, 200, 228