From Tomb to Text: The Body of Jesus in the Book of John 9780567670557, 9780567670588, 9780567670564

Citation preview

FROM TOMB TO TEXT

FROM TOMB TO TEXT

The Body of Jesus in the Book of John

Christina Petterson

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2017 Paperback edition first published 2018 Copyright © Christina Petterson, 2017 Christina Petterson has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. xi constitute an extension of this copyright page. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-0-56767-055-7 PB: 978-0-56768-255-0 ePDF: 978-0-56767-056-4 ePUB: 978-0-56767-057-1 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Til Bertram

“In one word, it creates a world after its own image.” —Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Manifesto of the Communist Party

C ඈඇඍൾඇඍඌ

Abbreviations Acknowledgements ,ඇඍඋඈൽඎർඍංඈඇ As Such Body Pleromatic Presence and Anachronism Writing and Text Limitations Outline of Chapters

ix xi xiii xiii xvi xviii xx xxii xxv

Chapter 1 7ඁൾ:ඈඋൽൺඇൽ,ඍඌ)අൾඌඁ Graham Ward: Spectre of History Werner Kelber: The Logos and the Oral Presence and Writing Conclusion

 2 6 15 22

Chapter 2 'ඈർൾඍංඌආ3ൺඌඍൺඇൽ3උൾඌൾඇඍ Docetism I: Ernst Käsemann and Marianne Meye Thompson Jesus’ Bodyparts Docetism II: A Question of History Conclusion

 24 28 31 44

Chapter 3 (ආൻඈൽඒංඇ඀ඍඁൾ)අൾඌඁ6੡਍ਁൺඇൽ6ਁ਒ਘ 7KH7H[W Bread of Life: Sarx or 6ǀPD? Body of Christ I Body of Christ II Reading John 6 Conclusion

45  48 53 55 60 69

viii

From Tomb to Text

Chapter 4 3අൾඋඈආൺඍංർ7ංආൾ Resurrection Disjointed Time Cosmological Axis or Apocalyptic Time Christ-Time Pleromatic Presence Conclusion

 72 75 83 89 93 95

Chapter 5 -ൾඌඎඌൺඇൽඁංඌ&ඈඋඉඌൾ 6ǀPD I Authority? The Temple of his Corpse 6ǀPD II

 97 104 107 111

Chapter 6 7ඁൾ0ൾൽංൺඍඈඋ Marin: From Body to Text The Empty Tomb Writing Presence: Chapter 20 and 21 Presence / Closure? Gospel and Genre

 115 118 124 131 133

&ඈඇർඅඎඌංඈඇ 7ඁൾ%ඈඈ඄ඈൿ-ඈඁඇൺඇൽඍඁൾ5ൾංඇඌർඋංඉඍංඈඇඈൿ5ൾൺඅංඍඒ



Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

139 149 153

A ൻ ൻ උൾඏ ං ൺඍ ං ඈ ඇඌ

BCT BETL BIS BZNW CBR DTT FBE HM HTR ITQ JAAR JBL JSNT JSNTSup JTS NovT NovTSup NTS PMLA SBLMS SJT SNTSMS WUNT ZKG ZNW

The Bible and Critical Theory Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblical Interpretation Series Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Currents in Biblical Research Dansk teologisk tidsskrift Forum for bibelsk eksegese Historical Materialism Harvard Theological Review Irish Theological Quarterly Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Publications of the Modern Language Association of America Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

A ർ ඄ ඇ ඈ ඐඅ ൾൽ ඀ ൾආ ൾ ඇඍඌ

This book has been underway for a long time, during which various people have been exposed to the ideas in less than developed forms, and KDYHFRQWULEXWHGJUHDWO\WRWKHLU¿QDOVKDSH For talking ideas through and coming up with suggestions for further questioning or readings I greatly appreciate the time and patience of Kirstin Mertlisch, James Harding, Gillian Townsley, Rebecca Solevaag, Colleen Conway, Giovanni Bazanna, Jorunn Økland, Stefan Nordgaard, 7LOGH+DOYJDDUG/DUV1¡UJDDUGDQG.ULVWLDQ0HMUXS For reading through chapters and papers and providing valuable feedback and constructive criticism, I would like to thank Alan Cadwallader, Lukas Bormann, Kirstin Mertlisch, Robert Myles, George Aichele, Richard +RUVOH\'DYLV+DQNLQV%UXFH:RUWKLQJWRQDQG-HVSHU7DQJ1LHOVHQ)RU reading through the entire manuscript I would like to thank Sean Durbin, 5RODQG%RHUDQG'DYLG&OLQHV Crucial feedback and criticism took place at the Embodiment in Theological Texts workshop generously sponsored by the Graduate program ‘Gender as Category of Knowledge’ at Humboldt University of %HUOLQLQ-XQH7KHSDUWLFLSDQWVZHUH0DULDQQH%MHOODQG.DUW]RZ Anders Martinsen, Rebecca Solevaag, Marion Grau, Gitte Buch-Hansen, 5RODQG%RHUDQG-XOLD6FKRHQ,ZRXOGOLNHWRWKDQN9LROD%HFNPDQQIRU her help in securing this funding, along with Isabelle Windhorst for her KHOSDQGVXSSRUWLQ%HUOLQ For generous access to unpublished material, I would like to thank 0HUHGLWK:DUUHQ Back home, I have given a couple of presentations in the postgraduate doktorklub at the University of Newcastle, and would like to thank Sergey Kozin, Niall McKay, Di Rayson, Tim Stanley and Li Yazhi for their HQJDJHPHQW ZLWK P\ LGHDV )RU EHLQJ WKH RQO\ VWXGHQW WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ my John reading group in autumn 2015, I am greatly indebted to Justene Mason for stimulating exchanges and detailed engagements with this XQZLHOG\WH[W

xii

From Tomb to Text

John’s gospel was the subject of my Master’s thesis at the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Copenhagen, under the diligent eye RI/RQH)DWXPVRPH\HDUVDJR,ZRXOGOLNHWRWKDQNWKH'HSDUWPHQW of Biblical Studies in Copenhagen for nudging me out of the nest, and DOZD\VZHOFRPLQJPHEDFNZLWKRSHQDUPV On a personal note, I would like to thank my family and friends in Australia, and my family and friends in Denmark, and, above all, Roland, for his patience, his support and his willingness to discuss and talk over an HQGOHVVQXPEHURILVVXHVDQGGHWDLOV-RKDQQLQHDQGRWKHUZLVH )LQDOO\,ZRXOGOLNHWRWKDQN6KHI¿HOG3KRHQL[3UHVVHVSHFLDOO\$LOVD Parkin and David Clines for taking the book on, and, when closing shop, ensured that it be published at Bloomsbury T&T Clark under the expertise RI'RPLQLF0DWWRVDQG0LULDP&DQWZHOOZKRP,DOVRZLVKWRWKDQN Newcastle, NSW July 2015

I ඇ ඍ උඈ ൽ ඎർඍ ං ඈ ඇ

$QG WKH:RUGEHFDPHÀHVK²KXPDQÀHVK DW¿UVW WKHQHYHQWXDOO\DQLPDO ÀHVK SDUFKPHQW SURFHVVHG VKHHSVNLQ RU JRDWVNLQ /DWHU VWLOO LW EHFDPH SDSHUSURFHVVHGZRRGSXOSWKHEORRGGUHQFKHGZRRGRID5RPDQFURVV1

As Such ‘Why’, asks Stephen Moore, ‘did the Word become writing, according to John?’ Moore himself responds: ‘For precisely the same reason that the Word performed signs: so that his audience might come to believe, and EHOLHYLQJ³KDYHOLIHLQKLVQDPH´FI (DFKWLPHWKH ERRNLVUHDG-HVXVUHHQDFWVKLVVLJQV7KHERRNH[WHQGV-HVXV¶PLVVLRQ EH\RQGWKHWRPEAs suchWKHERRNLV-HVXV¶ULVHQERG\¶2 7KHµDVVXFK¶LVLPPHQVHO\VLJQL¿FDQWLQWHUPVRILWVTXDOLI\LQJIXQFWLRQ LW LV LQ LWV IXQFWLRQ²LH WKH UHHQDFWPHQW RI KLV VLJQV WKH H[WHQVLRQ RI -HVXV¶PLVVLRQEH\RQGWKHWRPE²WKDWWKHERRNLV-HVXV¶ULVHQERG\ Moore then proceeds to explain the transformation from corpse to book by constructing a narrative, a narrative that is frustrating because it only JLYHV WKH DQVZHUV ZLWKRXW DVNLQJ WKH TXHVWLRQV 0RRUH EHJLQV ZLWK DQ DXJPHQWHG FLWDWLRQ RI -Q  ZKHUH 3HWHU DQG WKH RWKHU GLVFLSOH VHH WKH HPSW\ WRPE 7KH DXJPHQWDWLRQ FRQVLVWV LQ WKH DGGLWLRQ RI ZULWLQJ the linen wrappings and the head-cloth left in the tomb are both covered LQ ZULWLQJ DQG ¿QDOO\ WKH WZR GLVFLSOHV KDG QRW XQGHUVWRRG µWKDW as VFULSWXUHKHPXVWULVHIURPWKHGHDG¶3 The beloved disciple then gathers the linens and eventually shapes them into a codex, and the book begins WRVSHDN4 1௒ 6WHSKHQ ' 0RRUH God’s Gym: Divine Male Bodies of the Bible (London: 5RXWOHGJH S 2௒0RRUHGod’s GymS(PSKDVLVDGGHG 3௒0RRUHGod’s GymS 4௒ , KDYH PHUHO\ VHL]HG XSRQ WKH IHZ SDJHV WKDW LQWHUHVW PH DQG DUH SHUWLQHQW WR WKH DJHQGD RI WKH SUHVHQW ERRN 0RRUH¶V FKDSWHU WR VXPPDUL]H DQ LPSRVVLEO\ VXPPDUL]DEOHWH[WDQDO\VHVWKHVFLHQWL¿FDSSURDFKWRELEOLFDOWH[WVZKLFKDLPVWREH

xiv

From Tomb to Text

The relation between corpse, writing and resurrection constitutes, in Moore’s text, the point of departure for his reading of biblical studies DV GLVVHFWLRQ DQG WKH ELEOLFDO VFKRODU DV D VXUJHRQ5 To this end, the body-cum-book seems to be little more than a metaphor serving a higher SXUSRVH%XW,DPVWLOOVWXFNLQWKHUHODWLRQEHWZHHQFRUSVHZULWLQJDQG resurrection, and what I want to know is this: Who wrote on the linens and what was written on them? The main concern here is not so much why the Word became writing, but rather how :KDW LV WKH SUHFLVH UHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ :RUG FRUSVH DQG ZULWLQJLQ-RKQ¶VERRN",IZHGLVSHQVHZLWK0RRUH¶VTXDOL¿HUWKHQZKDW does it mean to say that the book is Jesus’ risen body? And what are the implications for the relation between reality and representation? It is the aim of this study to address these questions, an aim which requires a number of careful steps and detailed examinations of John’s book at the OHYHORIZULWLQJSURGXFWLRQRIPHDQLQJDQGFRPSRVLWLRQ What I present here is a historical analysis of the book of John, also NQRZQDVWKH)RXUWK*RVSHORUWKH*RVSHORIDFFRUGLQJWR-RKQ7KHUH DUH VHYHUDOUHDVRQV IRU FDOOLQJWKLV JRVSHO D ERRN )LUVW WKHGHVLJQDWLRQ DGKHUHVWRWKHVHOIGHVLJQDWLRQLQDQGWKHREVHUYDWLRQWKDWµ-HVXVGLG many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book (ëÅÌľ¹À¹ÂĕĿ ¶6HFRQGLWVHUYHVDVDUHDG\UHPLQGHUQRWWRIDOO into the trap of treating John as yet another gospel, historical, spiritual or RWKHUZLVH:KLOHWKLVPLJKWVRXQGSDUDGR[LFDOJLYHQWKDW-RKQDIWHUDOO is a gospel, it is nevertheless necessary to suspend its Christian reception LQ RUGHU WR DSSUHFLDWH LWV DWWHPSWV DW DUWLFXODWLQJ WKH SUHVHQFH RI -HVXV By this I mean that what John’s book may be seen as doing, is not necesVDULO\LQOLQHZLWKLWVUROHDVDIRXQGDWLRQDOWH[WRI&KULVWLDQLW\,QRUGHU to understand the former, then, it is necessary to avoid the containment VWUDWHJLHVRIWKHODWWHU$V*HRUJH$LFKHOHKDVZDUQHGXVLQKLVVWXG\RQ the canon and control of meaning, the New Testament canon makes the individual texts part of a larger story and thus ‘reduces or even eliminates WKHUHIHUHQWLDODPELJXLW\WKDWFKDUDFWHUL]HVWKHWH[W¶6 RQHRIGLVWDQFHRYHUDJDLQVWWKHLQWHUQDOL]LQJDSSURDFKRIWKHEHOLHYHU0RRUHVKRZV following Foucault’s accounts of the birth of modern medicine, how biblical criticism as ostensibly distanced from its object of study arose through a concern to relate the SDUWVWRWKHZKROH 5௒6HHWKHUHIHUHQFHVWRWKH)RXUWK*RVSHODV-HVXV¶ULVHQERG\LQWKHFRQWH[WRI anatomical examination in Moore, God’s GymSDQGWKHQWKHGLVFXVVLRQRIWKH )RXUWK*RVSHODVDQH\HSS 6௒ *HRUJH $LFKHOH The Control of Biblical Meaning: Canon as Semiotic Mechanism+DUULVEXUJ3$7ULQLW\3UHVV,QWHUQDWLRQDO S

Introduction

xv

-RKQLVQRH[FHSWLRQWRWKLVWUHDWPHQWLQIDFW,DUJXHWKURXJKRXWWKLV study that John is even more excessively controlled because of the danger RIµ*QRVWLFLVP¶3DXO$QGHUVRQRSHQVKLVVWXG\RQ&KULVWRORJ\LQ-RKQ with a consideration of the attempts by Western Christianity to ‘assimilate’ the Christology of John into its thought and that the Christology of WKH )RXUWK *RVSHO SOD\HG D VLJQL¿FDQW UROH LQ PDQ\ RI WKH NH\ GHEDWHV from the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to the Second Council of 1LFDHD LQ  &(7 However, Anderson’s consideration is more due to the differing christologies in John rather than the threat of succumbing to µ*QRVWLFLVP¶&ORVHUWRWKHGLVFRPIRUWVRIKHUHV\&.%DUUHWWVFUDWFKHV the surface in his article comparing John and the Gospel of Truth from his FROOHFWLRQRIHVVD\VRQ-RKQ:KLOHFRQFOXGLQJWKDWWKHFRQWHQWRI-RKQ is ‘fundamentally biblical and anti-gnostic’, Barrett begins his essay with the following statement: That there exists a relation of some kind between the Fourth Gospel and QRQ&KULVWLDQ *QRVWLFLVP LV VFDUFHO\ RSHQ WR TXHVWLRQ H[DFWO\ ZKDW WKLV relation is, is one of the most disputed problems in current New Testament VFKRODUVKLS ,W LV HYHQ FOHDUHU DQG PRUH FHUWDLQ WKDW WKH )RXUWK *RVSHO whatever its origin may have been, passed quickly into the hands of Christian Gnostics before it was recovered by the orthodox as their most SRZHUIXOZHDSRQLQWKHVWUXJJOHDJDLQVWJQRVWLFKHUHV\8

This reclaiming of John by the orthodox is described by Maurice Wiles in his study on the interpretation of John in patristic exegesis,9 which shows WKHHPHUJHQFHRIWKHXQGHUVWDQGLQJRI-RKQDVµWKHVSLULWXDOJRVSHO¶,WLV thus in the production of John as ‘the spiritual gospel’ that the book of -RKQ¿QGVLWVSODFHDPRQJWKHJRVSHOVRIWKH1HZ7HVWDPHQW 7KHXQGHUVWDQGLQJRI-RKQDVDVSLULWXDOJRVSHOWUHDGVD¿QHOLQH²VR ¿QH WKDW DW WLPHV WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ ZKDW LV DERYH UHIHUUHG WR DV µJQRVWLF¶ DQG µRUWKRGR[¶ EHFRPHV LQYLVLEOH 7KLV LV DSSDUHQW LQ PDQ\ studies of John, where the rebuttal of offensive analyses is expressed in SHUIRUPDWLYHXWWHUDQFHVVXFKDVµ-RKQLV127VD\LQJHWF¶RUµ&KULVWZDV

7௒ 3DXO 1 $QGHUVRQ The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6 7ELQJHQ -&% 0RKU >6LHEHFN@   S  6HH DOVR 7( 3ROODUG Johannine Christology and the Early Church, SNTSMS 13 &DPEULGJH&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV  8௒ &. %DUUHWW Essays on John /RQGRQ 63&.   S  7KH WLWOH RI WKH HVVD\LVµ7KH7KHRORJLFDO9RFDEXODU\RIWKH)RXUWK*RVSHODQGRIWKH*RVSHORI7UXWK¶ 9௒ 0DXULFH ) :LOHV The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church&DPEULGJH&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV 

xvi

From Tomb to Text

really and truly PDQ¶10 Especially Ernst Käsemann’s study on John 17 and its sober analysis of Johannine Christology seems to have offended many exegetical sensibilities,11 and his study has succeeded in bringing out the confessional emotional response of all those who attempt to UHIXWHKLP6XFKUHDFWLRQDU\UHVSRQVHVDUHZRUWKH[DPLQLQJLQWKDWWKH\ REYLRXVO\VKRZWKDWVRPHWKLQJLPSRUWDQWLVDWVWDNHWKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRI ZKLFKFDQQRWEHDUWLFXODWHGIRUVRPHUHDVRQ7KHERG\RI-HVXVLQ-RKQ and questions of historicity of the gospel seem to be particularly sore VSRWV$OOWKHPRUHUHDVRQWRUXE 7KHPDLQLQÀXHQFHVLQWKLVVWXG\DUHWKUHHIROG2QHVWUHDPLVFRQVWLtuted by the formidable work of Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann, DQRWKHU E\ 6WHSKHQ 0RRUH DQG :HUQHU .HOEHU¶V ZRUN RQ -RKQ$ WKLUG LQÀXHQFH LV WKDW RI )UHGULF -DPHVRQ ZKRVH ZRUN RQ OLWHUDU\ DQDO\VLV metacommentary and history has had a momentous impact on the conceptualization of the analyses carried out here, and thus set the scene for the ERRNDVDZKROH2IWKHVHVFKRODUV,DPLQJUHDWDZHWKRXJKZLWKWKHP ,DPQRWDOZD\VLQDJUHHPHQW In the following sections, I will present some of my central categories in order to give you some kind of map of the argument: body, pleromatic SUHVHQFHDQGZULWLQJ Body There are several assumptions which govern most Johannine exegesis IURPWKHRXWVHW,QVXVSHQGLQJWKHFDWHJRU\RIJRVSHOWKH¿UVWVWHSLVWDNHQ WRZDUGVFOHDULQJDSDWKLQWRWKHMXQJOHWKDWLVHDUO\&KULVWLDQLW\%RG\LV DQRWKHUDVVXPSWLRQZKLFKPXVWEHDGGUHVVHG)LUVWRIDOOWKHFRQQHFWLRQ between body and humanity is a problematic one when dealing with DQFLHQWPDWHULDOVDV'DOH0DUWLQKDVVKRZQ12 As is clear from the New Testament texts, the word ÊľÄ¸ covers the thingness of stars and plants,

10௒:)/RIWKRXVHThe Father and the Son/RQGRQ6&0 STXRWHG LQ 7( 3ROODUG Fullness of Humanity: Christ’s Humanness and Ours 6KHI¿HOG $OPRQG3UHVV S(PSKDVLVDGGHG:HVKDOOVHHVHYHUDOH[DPSOHVRIWKH IRUPHULQWKHIROORZLQJSDJHVHVSHFLDOO\LQ&.%DUUHWW¶VZRUN 11௒ (UQVW .lVHPDQQ Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17 7ELQJHQ -&% 0RKU  12௒ 'DOH % 0DUWLQ The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press,   S  6HH DOVR 3DPHOD ( .LQODZ The Christ Is Jesus: Metamorphosis, Possession, and Johannine Christology (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature,  ZKLFKGHVFULEHVDQXPEHURIGLIIHUHQWPRGHOVRIERG\DQGGLYLQHSUHVHQFH

Introduction

xvii

DVZHOODVEHLQJDWHUPIRUVODYHV13 This in itself should warn us of any µSODLQ¶ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ERG\ )XUWKHUPRUH WKH VRFDOOHG JQRVWLF WH[WV have various understandings of the term body,14 which call into question DQ\VLPSOHFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQKXPDQLW\DQGERG\)LQDOO\WKHFRQÀDWLRQ RIµERG\¶DQGµÀHVK¶ÊľÄ¸ and ÊŠÉÆLVDFRPPRQEXWSUREOHPDWLFRQH,Q her classic study on the development of early Christian discourse, Averil &DPHURQ SRLQWHG RXW WKDW WKH WHUP µERG\¶ EHFDPH D KLJKO\ VLJQL¿FDQW PHWDSKRULQHDUO\&KULVWLDQLW\DVWKHHDUO\WKHRORJLDQVVWUXJJOHGWR¿QG DODQJXDJHIRUWKDWZKLFKZDVLQH[SUHVVLEOH15 The use of the language of ÊľÄ¸ in the New Testament shows that there is a theological vocabulary LQGHYHORSPHQWDORQJVLGHDPRUHPXQGDQHXVDJHRIWKHWHUP,WLVWKXV QHFHVVDU\ WR WDNH WKH WHUP VHULRXVO\ DQG DYRLG FRQÀDWLRQ RI ÊľÄ¸ with ÊŠÉÆQRWWRPHQWLRQLGHDVRISRVWHQOLJKWHQPHQWKXPDQLW\(VSHFLDOO\-Q µ$QGWKHZRUGEHFDPHÀHVKDQGOLYHGDPRQJXV¶1569 LVUHJDUGHG DVDQXQWUDQVFHQGDEOHQRQQHJRWLDEOHJXDUDQWHHIRU-HVXVKDYLQJÀHVK KHQFH D ERG\ KHQFH EHLQJ D KXPDQ +RZHYHU WKHUH DUH RWKHU ZD\V RI WUDQVODWLQJWKLVVHQWHQFHQDPHO\µ$QGWKHZRUGEHFDPHÀHVKDQGOLYHGin us¶6XFKDWUDQVODWLRQZRXOGHPSKDVL]HWKHPXWXDOLQGZHOOLQJZKLFKLV such a favourable concept in the book proper, without assuming a human -HVXV16:KLOH,GRQRWJRLQWRDGHWDLOHGH[HJHWLFDODQDO\VLVRIDQG 13௒5REHUW+RUWRQ*XQGU\Soma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology617606&DPEULGJH&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV S 14௒0LFKDHO$:LOOLDPVRethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category3ULQFHWRQ1-3ULQFHWRQ8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV 6HHHVSHFLDOO\ Chapter 6: ‘Hatred of the Body? Or the Perfection of the Human’, which is a detailed H[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHXQGHUVWDQGLQJVRIERG\LQDYDULHW\RIWH[WVNQRZQDVJQRVWLF 15௒$YHULO&DPHURQChristianity and the Rhetoric of Empire—the Development of Christian Discourse%HUNHOH\&$8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD3UHVV SS  16௒%DUUHWWQRWHVLQKLVFRPPHQWDU\WKDWDµëÅ÷ÄėÅGRHVQRWPHDQ>SHUIRUPDWLYH@ that the Word dwelt in our human nature as in a tent, though the Old Syriac rendering (banLQXV PLJKWEHKHOGWRVXJJHVWWKLV¶&.%DUUHWWThe Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK,  S:KLOH%XOWPDQQGRHVQRWFRQVLGHUWKLVLQWHUSUHWDWLRQKHGRHVSURYLGH an interesting parallel in his discussion of ĚżÀÅëÅLQZKHUHKHQRWHVWKDWWKH evangelist speaks of the Word abiding in the hearer, or rather, to be very precise, the YHUVHUHDGV1569 µ LQ@WKHLUWHQWV¶

xviii

From Tomb to Text

LWVWUDQVODWLRQVWKHDQDO\VLVLQWKLVERRNGRHVQRWDVVXPHDVD¿[HG LQFDUQDWLRQDO WH[W 5DWKHU LW UHPDLQV RSHQ WR WKLV DOWHUQDWLYH WUDQVODWLRQ DQGH[DPLQHVKRZRWKHULQVWDQFHVRIERG\DQGÀHVKPD\EHXQGHUVWRRG LQWKLVOLJKW$VWKHDQDO\VLVRI-RKQDQGLWVLQWHUSUHWDWLRQVZLOOVKRZ LQFDUQDWLRQDODVVXPSWLRQVRIFRQVWLWXWHDORQJZLWKWKHÀHVKRI-RKQ 6, the central texts of the humanity of Jesus, as well as those of Eucharist DQG &KULVWRORJ\ )RU WKDW UHDVRQ ÊŠÉÆ could not be passed over in an analysis of the embodiment and body of the Johannine Jesus, showing that ‘body’ was never just body—not only in John itself, but in much of the secondary literature—and one could not discuss body in John without WDONLQJDERXWÀHVK17 Pleromatic Presence and Anachronism As the title indicates, one of the central concepts in this book is the adjective pleromatic, which I use to describe the Johannine understanding RI WLPH DQG SUHVHQFH 7KH YHUE ȾÉŦÑ and the noun ÈÂŢÉÑĸ are not uniquely Johannine, but are used throughout the New Testament texts WR LQGLFDWH IXO¿OPHQW RI 6FULSWXUH DQGRU WKH ZRUG RI *RG ¿OOLQJ ZLWK WKH VSLULW ¿OOLQJ RI WLPH HWF18 The idea of using this term to designate presence came from Werner Kelber’s seminal article on Derrida and

IROORZLQJWKHWUDQVODWLRQLQ3DXO+XEHUW3RLULHUµ7ULPRUSKLF3URWHQQRLD1KF;LLL  and the Johannine Prologue: A Reconsideration’, in The Legacy of John: SecondCentury Reception of the Fourth Gospel HG 7XRPDV 5DVLPXV 176  /HLGHQ %ULOO S,QDQHDUOLHUDUWLFOH-DQ+HOGHUPDQQRWHVWKDWWKLVLVDµFRQVFLRXV UHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ¶ RI -Q  -DQ +HOGHUPDQ µ௘³,Q ,KUHQ =HOWHQ«´ %HPHUNXQJHQ ]X Codex Xiii Nag Hammadi’, in Miscellanea Neotestamentica IHG7%DDUGD$)- .OLMQDQG:&YDQ8QQLN/HLGHQ%ULOO SS3RLULHUVKDUSHQVWKHWRQH DQG DVVHVVHV WKLV UHVHPEODQFH DV KDYLQJ µSROHPLFDO LQWHQWLRQ¶ 3RLULHU µ7ULPRUSKLF 3URWHQQRLD¶S6HHDOVR-RKQ'7XUQHUµ6HWKLDQ*QRVWLFLVP$/LWHUDU\+LVWRU\¶ in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity HG &KDUOHV : +HGULFN DQG 5REHUW+RGJVRQ-U3HDERG\0$+HQGULFNVRQ S 17௒,ZRXOGOLNHWRWKDQNWKHPHPEHURIWKHDXGLHQFHLQWKH,GHRORJ\&XOWXUH and Translation session at the Society of Biblical Literature’s Annual Meeting in %DOWLPRUHZKRVHTXHVWLRQXUJHGPHWRSXUVXHWKLV 18௒,Q-RKQ¶VERRNÈÂŢÉÑĸ is used once to refer to an attribute of Jesus, namely LQ  ZKLFK UHDGV µ)URP KLV IXOOQHVV ëÁ ÌÇı ȾÉŪĸÌÇË ¸ĤÌÇı  ZH KDYH DOO UHFHLYHGJUDFHXSRQJUDFH¶ȾÉŦÑPHDQLQJµIXO¿O¶LVXVHGLQUHODWLRQWR6FULSWXUH -Q WKHZRUGVSRNHQE\,VDLDK-Q WKHZRUGVSRNHQ E\-HVXV-Q WKHODZ 7KHRQO\XQLTXHXVDJHLQ-RKQLVLQUHIHUHQFH WRWKHIXO¿OPHQWRI-HVXV¶ZRUGV

Introduction

xix

-RKQZKHUH.HOEHUUHIHUVWR-RKQDVDVSLULQJWRµSOHURPDWLFSUHVHQFH¶19 7KLVFRQFHSWKDVWKHEHQH¿WRIVWUDGGOLQJERWK1HZ7HVWDPHQWWH[WVDQG VRFDOOHG µJQRVWLF¶ OLWHUDWXUH 6LQFH %XOWPDQQ DQG .lVHPDQQ LW VHHPV that John studies have been paralysed with fear of ‘gnosticism’ and it has become one of the issues of this book to attempt to overcome the divide between gnostic and early christian literature, not so much by claiming LQÀXHQFHV DQG LQWHUGHSHQGHQFLHV EXW E\ DWWHPSWLQJ UHDGLQJV RI -RKQ WKDW KRSHIXOO\  DUH OHVV XQHTXLYRFDOO\ µFKULVWLDQ¶20 and trying to avoid DEVROXWH DQG UHL¿HG FDWHJRULHV VXFK DV FDSLWDOL]HG  *QRVWLF &KULVWLDQ &KULVWRORJ\ (FFOHVLRORJ\ DQG WKH OLNH 7KLV LV RI FRXUVH QRW HDV\ QRU have I escaped thinking in these categories even though I try to avoid the WHUPLQRORJ\%XWDFRQVFLRXVHIIRUWKDVEHHQPDGHWRDQDO\VHDQXPEHURI conceptual features of John without beginning with theological ideologies VKDSHGRYHUWKHFRXUVHRIFHQWXULHV21 By this I hope to contribute to the RQJRLQJ EURDGHQLQJ RI ZKDW ZH WKLQN RI DV µHDUO\ &KULVWLDQLW\¶ 6XFK attentiveness to the production of meaning in John also means that the WZRWLHUHGLURQLFDSSURDFKZLOOEHWUHDWHGZLWKVRPHUHVHUYDWLRQ$V,ZLOO explain in further detail in the various chapters, this pattern has a tendency to lock down an interpretation before it even gets started, functioning as a ZD\RIFRQWDLQLQJFHUWDLQDQDO\VHVDQGH[FOXGLQJRWKHUV$OOLQWKHQDPH RIXSKROGLQJWKHµVSLULWXDO¶QDWXUHRI-RKQ 8VLQJWHUPVOLNHSOHURPDWLFDQGDYRLGLQJUHL¿HGFDWHJRULHVLVUHODWHG WRWKHLVVXHRIDQDFKURQLVP7KHHSLJUDSKIRUWKLVERRNLVDTXRWHIURP The Manifesto of the Communist Party, from the section where Marx and (QJHOVDUHGHVFULELQJWKHERXUJHRLVLHDQGWKHFKDQJHVLWKDVLQÀLFWHGRQ WKH ZRUOG LQ WKH QDPH RI FLYLOL]DWLRQ$IWHU QRWLQJ WKDW WKH ERXUJHRLVLH compels every nation to adopt its mode of production and become bourgeois themselves, comes the sentence I have used to introduce this VWXG\QDPHO\WKDWµLQRQHZRUGLWFUHDWHVDZRUOGDIWHULWVRZQLPDJH¶ As I note in the conclusion, there is a big difference between the industrialization of the world, the socio-economic upheavals that preceded capitalism and have dominated the world since, and the act of rewriting WKHZRUOGWKURXJKDWH[W+RZHYHUDV,DOVRSRLQWRXWWKHLGHRORJ\LVQRW WKDWGLVWDQW 19௒:HUQHU + .HOEHU µ,Q WKH %HJLQQLQJ:HUH WKH:RUGV7KH$SRWKHRVLV DQG Narrative Displacement of the Logos’, JAAR  S 20௒7KLVLVWKXVDµ-RKDQQLQHFRQWULEXWLRQ¶WRWKHZRUNSUHVHQWHGLQ5DVLPXVHG The Legacy of John 21௒$V*LRUJLR$JDPEHQUHPLQGVXVLQ*LRUJLR$JDPEHQThe Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the RomansWUDQV3DWULFLD'DLOH\0HULGLDQ&URVVLQJ $HVWKHWLFV6WDQIRUG&$6WDQIRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV S

xx

From Tomb to Text

In the epilogue to his study on the ‘Gnostic religion’, Hans Jonas examines the connections between Gnosticism, Existentialism and Nihilism,22 and concludes that what is different between a gnostic worldview and that of existentialism is that while the Gnostics may profess a nihilism, it is innercosmic, and is always understood against a metaphysical EDFNJURXQG23 Over against this, modern nihilism and existentialism EHWUD\DUXSWXUHEHWZHHQWKHLQGLYLGXDODQGWRWDOUHDOLW\24 There is then a difference, which informs the individual manifestations of humanity and QDWXUH7KLVLVWKHGLIIHUHQFHWKDW,KDYHVWUXJJOHGWRUHWDLQLQWKHIROORZing chapters, and it comes to the fore most urgently in my arguments with QDUUDWLYHFULWLFLVPRIZKLFK,DPJUHDWO\VXVSLFLRXV0\VXVSLFLRQVDUH WZRIROG¿UVWDV,H[SODLQLQ&KDSWHUEHFDXVHRIQDUUDWLYHFULWLFLVP¶V provenance in the nineteenth century and its promotion of an alienated individualism, and second, because of its valorization of the reader as WKH DEVROXWH KRUL]RQ RI LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ , KDYH WULHG WR ZRUN ZLWKLQ ZKDW Jameson, following Paul Ricoeur, calls a ‘negative hermeneutics’,25 or what Roland Boer calls a ‘narrative of difference’,26 which both emphasize the difference between the present and the time of the cultural SURGXFWVXQGHUH[DPLQDWLRQ 6R WR SXW LW EULHÀ\ ZKDW , DP H[DPLQLQJ LV WKUHHIROG 7KH ¿UVW WZR points concern how John is read over against how John might be read if ZHORRVHQWKHUHLJQVRIWUDGLWLRQ7KH¿QDODVSHFWFRQFHUQVWKHLPSOLFDWLRQVRIWKHVHUHDGLQJV,QRWKHUZRUGVLWFRQVLGHUVZKDWSULFHZHKDYH SDLGLQWKHHIIRUWVWRGRPHVWLFDWHWKLVERRNRI-RKQ Writing and Text The understanding of writing is an important one in the argument of this ERRNDQGLVDWWKHVDPHWLPHLWVPRVWYDJXHFRQFHSW7KHUHDVRQIRUWKLVLV WKDW,KRYHUEHWZHHQ'HUULGDDQG.HOEHU2QJ¿QGLQJXVHIXOWKLQJVLQERWK positions, while agreeing with neither: Derrida because he is ahistorical, DQG.HOEHU2QJEHFDXVHWKH\DUHQRWKLVWRULFDOHQRXJK:ULWLQJDQGWH[W LV RQH RI WKRVH SODFHV ZKHUH , ¿QG P\VHOI FRQIURQWHG E\ SRVWVWUXFWXUDOLVWLGHRORJ\DQGWHUPLQRORJ\DQGLWVLQWHQWLRQDOVOLSSHU\QDWXUH,DOVR 22௒ +DQV -RQDV The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of ChristianityQGHG%RVWRQ0$%HDFRQ SS 23௒-RQDVThe Gnostic ReligionS 24௒-RQDVThe Gnostic ReligionS 25௒)UHGULF-DPHVRQµ0HWDFRPPHQWDU\¶PMLA S 26௒5RODQG%RHUThe Sacred Economy of Ancient Israel, Library of Ancient Israel /RXLVYLOOH.JHQGHUHG-HZLVK@ERG\ZKLFKLVDEVHQWing and gives place to a discursive body, which can never be present because of, following Derrida, the supplementary nature of writing and its constant GHIHUUDO RI IXOOQHVV RI PHDQLQJ ,QWHUHVWLQJO\ ZKLOH PHGLDWLRQ KDV EHHQ relevant throughout, it is only in this section on the resurrected body that ZHHQFRXQWHUWKHWHUP7KLVVXJJHVWVWKDWWKHWHUPLWVHOIKDVDSDUWLFXODU function, not only to present the particular nature of the discursive body as mediated, but also to facilitate the move or transition from one context to another: ‘Mediation, the dissemination of messages, the narration of stories, the communication in one context being transposed and reported in another—these constitute the poetics of the New Testament itself, the OHWWHUDO :RUG RI *RG ZKLFK VXSSOHPHQWV WKH LQFDUQDWH :RUG RI *RG¶17 The New Testament, the letteral Word of God, is thus the context in which WKHFRPPXQLFDWLRQLVUHSRUWHGDQGLVDVKLIWIURPWKHSUHYLRXVFRQWH[W, ZLOOUHWXUQWRWKLVLQ&KDSWHULQWKHGLVFXVVLRQRI/RXLV0DULQ¶VDQDO\VLV )LQDOO\ZHUHDFKWKHDVFHQVLRQZKLFKLVµWKH¿QDOGLVSODFHPHQWRIWKH JHQGHUHG-HZ¶18 On the basis of Colossians, Ward asserts that the Church LV QRZ WKH ERG\ RI &KULVW7KH FRQWLQXRXV GLVSODFHPHQW RI WKH ERG\ RI Jesus Christ means that the body is constantly ‘transposing and expanding its identity’ meaning that the history of the Church’s body is equally ‘a 15௒:DUGµ%RGLHV¶SS 16௒:DUGµ%RGLHV¶S 17௒:DUGµ%RGLHV¶S 18௒:DUGµ%RGLHV¶S



The Word and Its Flesh

5

KLVWRU\RIWUDQVSRVHGDQGGHIHUUHGLGHQWLWLHV¶:LWKLQWKHERG\RI&KULVW all bodies are situated, permeable, transcorporeal, transpositional: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither PDOHQRUIHPDOHIRU\HDUHDOORQHLQ&KULVW¶19 The theological issue that frames this ascension theology and the displacement of ‘the gendered Jew’ is the question of whether a male VDYLRXUFDQVDYHZRPHQ:DUGWDNHVSDUWLFXODUH[FHSWLRQWRWKLVTXHVWLRQ and claims that whoever poses such questions (and others examining WKHVH[XDOLW\RI&KULVW DUHQRWRQO\ZRUNLQJLQH[WHQVLRQRIQLQHWHHQWK century quests for the historical Jesus, but altogether fail to understand the QDWXUHRIWKHERG\RI&KULVW20 Furthermore, it is ‘a human attempt to give &KULVWLDQLW\DQHPSLULFDOO\YHUL¿DEOHIRXQGDWLRQ¶21 Ward’s agenda is theological—insularly so—and within this agenda WKH ELEOLFDO WH[WV EHFRPH WKH PHDQV WR DQ HQG )URP WKDW SRLQW RI YLHZ it may seem unnecessarily pedantic to point out that in John neither the WUDQV¿JXUDWLRQWKHHXFKDULVWLFVXSSHUQRUWKHDVFHQVLRQWDNHSODFH0DUN ODFNVWKHUHVXUUHFWLRQDQGWKHDVFHQVLRQDQG0DWWKHZWKHDVFHQVLRQ)URP our point of view, this is nevertheless important (and we shall return to this LQ&KDSWHU LQWKDWLQVHSDUDWLQJWKHVHVFHQHVIURPWKHWH[WVLQZKLFKWKH\ occur, and then subsuming them under some vague understanding of ‘the *RVSHOVJHQHUDOO\¶:DUGLVUHPRYLQJDJLYHQVFHQHIURPLWVVSHFL¿FFRQWH[W thus abstracting and objectifying it as an extra-textual event,QVSLWHRIKLV HPSKDVLV RQ WKH VWRULHV VWRU\WHOOLQJ DQG QDUUDWLYH SUHIDFLQJ WKHVH ¿YH instances of assumptions or displacements with the incarnation—which of course is only present in John—indicates a linear historical sensibility or ‘reality’ to which he and the narratives are referring—what I will call the µ-HVXVJUDLQ¶22 This becomes particularly evident in the sequence of the GLVSODFHPHQWV>,QFDUQDWLRQ@²WUDQV¿JXUDWLRQ²(XFKDULVW²FUXFL¿[LRQ² UHVXUUHFWLRQ²DVFHQVLRQ DVZHOODVZLWKVWDWHPHQWVVXFKDVµWKLV¿VVXULQJ 19௒ 7KH ELEOLFDO UHIHUHQFH JLYHQ WR WKLV YHUVH LV 3KLO  ZKLFK RI FRXUVH LV VSHFWDFXODUO\LQFRUUHFW7KHFRUUHFWUHIHUHQFHLV*DO 20௒:DUGµ%RGLHV¶SS 21௒ :DUG µ%RGLHV¶ S  +H DOVR UHJDUGV WKH PHWDSK\VLFV LQKHUHQW LQ VXFK TXHVWLRQVDVEHLQJDQWL&KULVWLDQ 22௒$VDQH[DPSOHVHH:HUQHU.HOEHU¶VFODLPWKDWµWKHSUHVXSSRVLWLRQRI-RKQ¶V JRVSHODVRIDOOQDUUDWLYHJRVSHOVLVWKDWGLYLQLW\ZDVLQFDUQDWHGLQDSHUVRQ:KLOH alive this person was of course manifest, both visibly and audibly, to those who saw and heard him¶:+.HOEHUµ7KH$XWKRULW\RIWKH:RUGLQ6W-RKQ¶V*RVSHO Charismatic Speech, Narrative Text, Logocentric Metaphysics’, Oral Tradition 2  SSHPSKDVLVDGGHG 7KLVLVDVRPHZKDWVZHHSLQJFODLPZKLFK LQGLFDWHV.HOEHU¶VSUHVXSSRVLWLRQVPRUHWKDQWKRVHRIWKHERRNRI-RKQ

6

From Tomb to Text

>RIWKHVHOI@DQGWKHKLVWRULFDOHYHQWVZKLFKPDNHLWSRVVLEOHHWF¶23 So ZKLOH KH LV QRW DWWHPSWLQJ µWR JLYH &KULVWLDQLW\ DQ HPSLULFDOO\ YHUL¿DEOH foundation’, he nevertheless assumesVXFKDIRXQGDWLRQ+HLVDVZHVKDOO VHHQRWWKHRQO\RQH This assumption of reference to an earthly Jesus is something I will be WU\LQJP\KDUGHVWWRDYRLGWDNLQJRQ$VPHQWLRQHGLQWKHLQWURGXFWLRQ one of the central concepts of this book is pleromatic presence, and my argument is that the book of John constitutes the presence of Christ, to the eclipseRIWKHHDUWKO\-HVXV7KLVLVQRWRQO\µORJLFDOO\¶VRLQFRUUHVSRQGHQFHZLWKWKHSRVWJORUL¿FDWLRQSHUVSHFWLYHRIWKHERRNEXWDOVRLQ a sense, I will argue, ‘phenomenologically’, as the way in which Christ is SUHVHQW LQ WKH FRPPXQLW\ 0\ DQDO\VLV WKXV DWWHPSWV WR UHDG -RKQ¶V ERRNZLWKRXW-HVXVDVKLVWRULFDODQGRUV\QRSWLFFRQVWUXFW DVDQDEVROXWH KRUL]RQ )ROORZLQJ 6WHSKHQ ' 0RRUH DQG 3DXO GH 0DQ P\ DLP LV WR interrogate older readings of John and show, through close readings, how WKH\ZHUHQRWFORVHHQRXJK24 Werner Kelber: The Logos and the Oral Pleromatic presence is a term which I have borrowed from Werner .HOEHU¶V DQDO\VLV RI -RKQ DQG WH[WXDOLW\ :KLOH .HOEHU XVHV WKH ZRUG critically to show John up as the logocentric scoundrel he is, and to refute Ernst Käsemann’s dictum that ‘the prasentia Christi is at the FHQWUHRI>-RKQ¶V@SURFODPDWLRQ¶25 I use the term positively, in complete DJUHHPHQW ZLWK .lVHPDQQ¶V REVHUYDWLRQ , DP WKXV VRPHZKDW XQIDLUO\ using Kelber’s analysis against himself, using his hard work to refute the SUHVXSSRVLWLRQVIURPZKLFKKHSURFHHGV Kelber’s issue with Käsemann’s prasentia Christi is that it constitutes what he regards as an onto-theological reading, also detectable in 5XGROSK%XOWPDQQ%XUWRQ0DFNDQG)UDQN.HUPRGH7KLVUHDGLQJWKXV Kelber, is based on ‘a phenomenology which regards the “Word of God” DV UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKDW RI ZKLFK LW VSHDNV RU UDWKHU ZULWHV«SRVWXODW>LQJ@ something of an oral purity for Scripture and does not take into account WKHWKHRORJLFDOLPSOLFDWLRQVRIWKH³:RUG¶V´WH[WXDOL]DWLRQ¶26 This quote

23௒:DUGµ%RGLHV¶S 24௒ 6WHSKHQ ' 0RRUH Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge1HZ+DYHQWKHJRVSHOV@ZHPD\QRZLQKDELWLWDQGOLYHDPRQJLWVGXDOLWLHV¶ Fredric Jameson, Representing Capital: A Commentary of Volume One/RQGRQ9HUVR  S,Q-DPHVRQ¶VWH[WWKHPHGLDWRULVRIFRXUVHPRQH\QRWWH[WV 79௒ &KULVWLQD YRQ %UDXQ Nicht Ich. Logik, Lüge, Libido (Berlin: Aufbau, 2009 >@ 1R(QJOLVKWUDQVODWLRQLVDYDLODEOH 80௒,QWKH*HUPDQWH[W/RJRVLVPDVFXOLQHGHU/RJRV ZKLOH/LHGLH/JH LV IHPLQLQH

20

From Tomb to Text

WKH LQDGHTXDF\ RI KXPDQV :LWKLQ WKLV ZRUOGYLHZ WKH PDQ V\PEROL]HV the mortal human and the woman symbolizes nature, the eternal renewing FRQFHSW 7KH projecting social structure, on the other hand, denotes liberation from dependency, repression of mortality and conquest of QDWXUH&HQWUDOWRRXUFRQFHUQLVYRQ%UDXQ¶VDUJXPHQWWKDWWKHSURMHFWLYH ZRUOGYLHZ LV FRQQHFWHG WR ZULWLQJ DQG DEVWUDFWLRQ $QG VR IURP WKH beginning of writing she argues for a gradual replacement of the mirroring ZRUOGYLHZZLWKWKHSURMHFWLRQLVW81 With writing, then, the projective notion originated, and with it, the DEVWUDFWLRQRIWKLQNLQJIURPUHDOLW\$VDQDEVWUDFWHGUHDOLW\LWDGYRFDWHV D VXSUDVHQVXDO UHDOLW\ ZKLFK LV QRW H[SRVHG WR WUDQVLWRULQHVV µ:ULWWHQ signs survive, even when whoever set them down, has been dead for a ORQJWLPH¶,IDKXPDQEHLQJLWVHOILVZLOOLQJWREHFRPHDV\PEROZULWLQJ DOVRJLYHVKRSHWKDWKXPDQEHLQJVFDQEHFRPHLPPRUWDO82 Writing, she argues, replacesUHDOLW\ This process escalated heavily with the advent of the ‘religions of WKH ERRN¶ DQG LW LV LQ WKLV FRQWH[W WKDW VKH EULQJV LQ -RKQ 9RQ %UDXQ argues that the incarnation of the Logos, the embodiment of the spirit, is notDUHXQLWLQJRIVSLULWDQGERG\5DWKHUWKHZRUGEHFRPLQJÀHVKLVDQ indicator of matter which is completely subsumed under the Logos, thus FRPSOHWLQJWKHVXEMXJDWLRQRIPDWWHUWRVSLULW7KHPDWWHULQTXHVWLRQLV as John puts it, created by the Logos (‘without him not one thing came LQWREHLQJ¶ $IWHUVSLULWDQGPDWWHUKDYHEHHQVHSDUDWHGLQWKHSURFHVVRI abstraction, the spirit/God/Logos creates its own matter, conforming to its RZQORJLFDQGVWUXFWXUHVLQZKLFK/RJRV*RGVSLULWWKHQUHDSSHDUV2QO\ the introduction of writing made possible such an idea of the power of the VSLULWRYHUPDWWHU 9RQ %UDXQ¶V DQDO\VLV RI WKH UROH RI ZULWLQJ LQ :HVWHUQ FXOWXUH LV DQ implicit psychoanalytical analysis of that culture and the transition from WKHPLUURUVWDJHWRWKHV\PEROLFVWDJH7KHWZRZRUOGYLHZVDUH/DFDQ¶V two stages of self-constitution, the imaginary order, or mirror stage, and WKHV\PEROLFRUGHU83 To understand the full effect of this abstraction, we need to set aside the radical individualization of history and society that such an analysis presupposes and furthers,84 and instead focus on the VWUXJJOHEHWZHHQVSLULWDQGPDWWHU 81௒%UDXQNicht IchS 82௒%UDXQNicht IchS 83௒$QWKRQ\(OOLRWWPsychoanalytic Theory: An IntroductionQGHG'XUKDP 1&'XNH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV SS 84௒,QWKHPolitical Unconscious, Fredric Jameson’s criticizes Northrop Frye for EUHDNLQJ µWKH ¿JXUDO DQG SROLWLFDO PRPHQWXP¶ RI KLV RZQ DOOHJRULFDO PHWKRG E\



The Word and Its Flesh

21

Here it might be useful to draw in Stephen Moore’s analysis of the Samaritan Woman, where he argues that the hierarchical opposition in John, which the text urges us to take on, is undermined in the course of the narrative only to collapse fully in the death scene, where satiating Jesus’ physical thirst is made the necessary precondition for the Spirit to come LQWREHLQJWKH6SLULWWKDWZLOOVDWLDWHWKHVSLULWXDOWKLUVWRIWKHEHOLHYHU85 This confounding of the two spheres is particularly pertinent in Jesus, whose body, Moore notes, is a site of paradox in the gospel, because it GLVVROYHVµWKHSDUWLWLRQEHWZHHQKHDYHQDQGHDUWKVSLULWDQGPDWWHU¿JXUH DQGOHWWHU¶ An important point in von Braun’s narrative, which resonates with Moore’s analysis, is that spirit needs the matter to realize itself7KHPRUH matter is seen as an opposition to the spirit, the more it is required for UHYHODWLRQ 6SLULW KDV QR RWKHU PRGH RI H[SUHVVLRQ WKDQ PDWWHU DQG LV WKHUHIRUH DW WKH VDPH WLPH PDVWHU DQG VODYH RI PDWWHU86 However, von Braun has an extra twist, namely that this dependency on matter leads to the re-materialization of the Logos, which follows the shedding of the body (Entleibung  :KLOH*UHHNSKLORVRSK\HVSHFLDOO\$ULVWRWOHKDVSOD\HGDVLJQL¿FDQW part in the de-materialization of Logos and the presentation of an ideal which is male and void of body,87 Christianity has played a crucial part in the re-materialization of the Logos, with the incarnation—the word PDGH ÀHVK$ JRRG H[DPSOH RI WKLV LV WKH SURFHVV RI PLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJ in John, where the opponents are connected with earthly understandings, or as Bultmann puts it, Á¸ÌÛ ÊŠÉÁ¸ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH ÀHVK 88 while the revelation of Jesus is utterly dependent on these misunderstandings, as Moore shows in his article and as I will show in Chapter 3 in the GLVFXVVLRQRIEUHDGDQGÀHVK One could say that von Braun’s analysis simply is an abstracted and VHFXODUL]HG YHUVLRQ RI WKH SRVWUHVXUUHFWLRQ SHUVSHFWLYH ,Q DQ\ FDVH LW helped me see the level of spirit as the absolute beginning point of analysis, especially in John, which draws attention to the presence of glory and the

reprivatizing ‘the collective content of the image’ in the ‘purely individual terms of the LVRODWHGERG\DQGWKHPHUHO\SHUVRQDOHFVWDV\¶-DPHVRQThe Political Unconscious, S5HGXFLQJWKHFXOWXUDOKLVWRU\RIWKH:HVWHUQZRUOGWRWKHLQGLYLGXDOSV\FKHDV YRQ%UDXQGRHVLVVLPLODUO\ODPHQWDEOH 85௒0RRUHµ,PSXULWLHV¶SS 86௒%UDXQNicht IchS 87௒%UDXQNicht IchS 88௒6HHIRUH[DPSOH%XOWPDQQThe Gospel of JohnS

22

From Tomb to Text

production of its matter ëÅÒÉÏĉ:KLOH,KDYHPRYHGEH\RQGYRQ%UDXQ in the analyses proper, I want to acknowledge my debts here, in that Nicht IchJRWPHWKLQNLQJDERXWZULWLQJERRNDQGERG\ Conclusion This chapter has approached John and Jesus through a couple of poststrucWXUDOLVW DQDO\VHV ZKLFK , DP LQGHEWHG WR DV ZHOO DV FULWLFDO RI :DUG¶V analysis was helpful in bringing attention to the assumptions of a ‘real -HVXV¶WKDWLQIRUPVHYHQSRVWVWUXFWXUDOLVWZRUN)ROORZLQJRQIURPWKDW I moved on to a detailed engagement with Werner Kelber’s work and his analysis of orality and writing, and what this means for an understanding RI SUHVHQFH )LQDOO\ , RXWOLQHG P\ RZQ IUDPHZRUN IRU WKH IROORZLQJ analysis, which may be summed up as follows: I see the book of John QRW DV ZULWLQJ XVXUSLQJ RUDOLW\ .HOEHU  EXW DV D FRVPLF SOHURPDWLF SRVWJORUL¿FDWLRQ SHQHWUDWLQJ SUHVHQFH ZKLFK LV PDQLIHVWHG LQ WKH ERRN 6RZKHUH.HOEHUZRXOGVD\WKDWµ+LVHQWU\LQWRWKHÀHVKLVGUDPDWLFDOO\ H[HFXWHG LQ WKH ERG\ RI WKH WH[W¶ , ZRXOG VD\ µWKH ERG\ LV WKH ERRN¶ Where Moore would say that the material order (as something within WKHQDUUDWLYH LVWKHµQHFHVVDU\SUHFRQGLWLRQ¶IRUWKH6SLULWWRFRPHLQWR EHLQJ , ZLOO DUJXH WKDW WKH PDWHULDO PDQLIHVWDWLRQ WKH ZULWWHQ ERRN  LV WKHQHFHVVDU\SUHFRQGLWLRQRI-HVXV¶FRPLQJLQWREHLQJ,QRZWXUQWRWKH historical, religious and textual phenomenon of John on which I will focus LQWKHIROORZLQJ¿YHFKDSWHUV

Chapter 2 D ඈർൾඍංඌආ , P ൺ ඌ ඍ ൺ ඇ ൽ P උൾඌൾඇඍ

,Q KLV DQDO\VLV RI -Q  5XGROI 6FKQDFNHQEXUJ VKRZV VRPH discomfort with the theological implications of the verses, where Jesus UHIXVHV WKH IRRG EURXJKW WR KLP E\ WKH GLVFLSOHV )RU 6FKQDFNHQEXUJ µWKLVGRHVQRWDI¿UP-HVXV¶VXSHULRULW\WRHDUWKO\FRQGLWLRQVPXFKOHVVD Gnostic contempt for the material’, and he adds in a footnote: Contrast the attitude of Thomas in Acts of Thomas: ‘And as they dined and drank, the Apostle tasted nothing, so that they that were about him said unto him: wherefore art thou come here, neither eating nor drinking? But he answered them saying: “I am come here for somewhat greater than food and GULQNDQGWKDW,PD\IXO¿OWKH.LQJ¶VZLOO´௘¶«7KH-RKDQQLQH-HVXVPHUHO\ UHVLVWV WKH XUJLQJ RI KLV GLVFLSOHV E\ PDNLQJ D SRVLWLYH DI¿UPDWLRQ DERXW the ‘food’ which he has to ‘eat’, and this food is of a completely different QDWXUH1

,QKHUH[SRVLWLRQRI-RKQ'RURWK\$/HHIHLJQVFRQFHUQDQGDVNV What kind of human being is this who, tired and thirsty after a long journey DQGLQWKHKHDWRIWKHGD\ GRHVQRWGULQNRIWKHZDWHULQWKHZHOODQG who, though in need of food, can be nourished solely by the spiritual food of GRLQJWKHIDWKHU¶VZLOO ",V-RKQJXLOW\RIDµQDwYHGRFHWLVP¶KHUH"2

/HH¶V TXHVWLRQLV SHUKDSV  D SHULSKUDVWLFTXRWHRI (UQVW .lVHPDQQ¶V questions regarding the nature of Jesus in the book of John, which have dominated any discussion of Christology in Johannine studies since their 1௒ 5XGROI 6FKQDFNHQEXUJ The Gospel According to St John YRO  /RQGRQ %XUQV 2DWHV S7KHTXRWHLVIURPQ 2௒ +HU UHVSRQVH LV WKDW WKLV LV D PLVJXLGHG TXHVWLRQ LQ WKDW ZKDW PDWWHUV IRU WKH HYDQJHOLVW LV WKH OLWHUDU\ DQG WKHRORJLFDO VLJQL¿FDQFH RI -HVXV¶ SK\VLFDO QHHGV 'RURWK\$ /HH The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning-6176XS6KHI¿HOG6KHI¿HOG$FDGHPLF SS

24

From Tomb to Text

DUWLFXODWLRQLQ7KLVEULHIUHIHUHQFHWR6FKQDFNHQEXUJ¶VGLVFRPIRUWLV an indicator of what confronts scholars dealing with Jesus’ body in John, a SUREOHPZKLFKQRRQHKDVHPSKDVL]HGDVZHOODV.lVHPDQQ7KHSUHVHQW chapter begins with Käsemann’s interpretation of John and the efforts of RQHRIKLVPRVWSHUVLVWHQWRSSRQHQWV0DULDQQH0H\H7KRPSVRQ:HWKXV EHJLQZLWKWKHTXHVWLRQRI'RFHWLVP3 Docetism I: Ernst Käsemann and Marianne Meye Thompson ,QZKDWVHQVHLVKHÀHVKZKRZDONVRQWKHZDWHUDQGWKURXJKFORVHGGRRUV who cannot be captured by his enemies, who at the well of Samaria is tired and desires a drink, yet has no need of drink and has food different from that which his disciples seek? He cannot be deceived by men, because he NQRZV WKHLU LQQHUPRVW WKRXJKWV HYHQ EHIRUH WKH\ VSHDN +H GHEDWHV ZLWK WKHPIURPWKHYDQWDJHSRLQWRIWKHLQ¿QLWHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQKHDYHQDQG HDUWK+HKDVQHHGQHLWKHURIWKHZLWQHVVRI0RVHVQRURIWKH%DSWLVW+H dissociates himself from the Jews, as if they were not his own people, and KHPHHWVKLVPRWKHUDVWKHRQHZKRLVKHU/RUG+HSHUPLWV/D]DUXVWROLH in the grave for four days in order that the miracle of his resurrection may EHPRUHLPSUHVVLYH$QGLQWKHHQGWKH-RKDQQLQH&KULVWJRHVYLFWRULRXVO\ WRKLVGHDWKRIKLVRZQDFFRUG4

No discussion of Docetism and John’s Gospel is complete without UHIHUHQFH WR WKH DERYH TXRWH IURP (UQVW .lVHPDQQ¶V VWXG\ RQ -RKQ  This is the quote which leads to his conclusion which saw the Christology RI-RKQDVDQH[SUHVVLRQRIQDwYHXQUHÀHFWHGSUHGRFHWLFVHQVLELOLWLHVD FRQFOXVLRQZKLFKKDVVSDZQHGPDQ\DWWHPSWVWRUHIXWHLW In the introduction to her analysis of the humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, Marianne Meye Thompson notes that Käsemann’s study is LUULWDWLQJEHFDXVHµLWRIWHQ¿QGVDWHQGHUVSRWDQGUXEVPHUFLOHVVO\DJDLQVW LW¶5 7KLV VHHPV WR EH VRPHZKDW RI DQ XQGHUVWDWHPHQW -XGJLQJ E\ WKH reaction to Käsemann’s position and the desperate attempts to prove him wrong, Käsemann’s study is more akin to a festering wound, which cannot KHDO ,WV PRVW UHFHQW PDQLIHVWDWLRQ LV LQ 8UEDQ & YRQ :DKOGH¶V UHFHQW 3௒$QHDUO\YHUVLRQRIWKLVFKDSWHUZDVSUHVHQWHGDWWKHLQWHUQDWLRQDOPHHWLQJRI ($%6 LQ9LHQQD LQ  , ZRXOG OLNH WR WKDQN WKH DWWHQGHHV RI WKH VHPLQDU IRU D VWLPXODWLQJDQGWKRXJKWSURYRNLQJGLVFXVVLRQ 4௒.lVHPDQQJesu letzter WilleS 5௒ 0DULDQQH 0H\H 7KRPSVRQ The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel 3KLODGHOSKLD)RUWUHVV S



Docetism, Past and Present

25

exploration of John, Gnosticism, and Docetism, which devotes an entire chapter to the charge of Docetism in John, and begins by responding to WKH DERYH TXRWH DQG WKHQ VRPH  SRLQW E\ SRLQW²ZLWK OLWWOH VXFFHVV LQ LWVIHUYHQWHQGHDYRXU)RUH[DPSOHYRQ:DKOGHWDNHVJUHDWH[FHSWLRQWR Käsemann’s juxtaposition of he ‘who walks on water’ and ‘through closed doors’ because this groups the post-resurrection body with material from WKHPLQLVWU\DQGµGLVWRUW>V@WKHSRUWUD\DORIWKH*RVSHO¶6 While Käsemann emphasized the post-resurrection perspective of the author of John, von Wahlde argues from a different premise, namely one which regards the JRVSHO¶VFKURQRORJ\DVREMHFWLYHKLVWRULFDOIDFW7 Thompson’s study is indeed one of the most comprehensive attempts WR FRXQWHU .lVHPDQQ¶V DUJXPHQW ,Q KHU Auseinandersetzung with Käsemann, Thompson insists that the gospel ‘unhesitatingly places Jesus within the material, human sphere, where his sign and death effect life and VDOYDWLRQ¶8 Further, she states that the Gospel ‘does not set out to prove WKDW-HVXVZDVWUXO\KXPDQRUWKDWKHSRVVHVVHGDUHDOERG\RIÀHVKDQG blood, instead this is exactly what the gospel assumes¶9 Thompson’s particular concern is that Käsemann takes John 17 as a SRLQWRIGHSDUWXUH10 While Käsemann claims that he is focusing on what is uniquely Johannine, Thompson criticizes him for overlooking aspects of Jesus’ humanity which are also uniquely Johannine,11 thus presenting µD VNHZHG &KULVWRORJ\¶ $QRWKHU LVVXH ZKLFK 7KRPSVRQ WDNHV XS LV .lVHPDQQ¶VGH¿QLWLRQRIKXPDQLW\ZKLFKVKHVHHVDVH[WUDQHRXVWRWKH JRVSHOLWVHOIDQGUHVWVRQDVXEMHFWLYHGH¿QLWLRQ)XUWKHUPRUHVKHLQFOXGHV

6௒ 8& YRQ :DKOGH Gnosticism, Docetism, and the Judaisms of the First Century: The Search for the Wider Context of the Johannine Literature and Why It Matters/RQGRQ%ORRPVEXU\7 7&ODUN S 7௒,QDVVHVVLQJYRQ:DKOGH¶VFULWLFLVPVRI.lVHPDQQZHGRZHOOWRNHHSLQPLQG Günther Bornkamm’s warning that ‘the very comprehensive picture of Johannine theology sketched in Käsemann’s book should restrain any reviewer from criticizing his clearly outlined theses simply on the basis of particular statements occurring KHUH RU WKHUH LQ WKH *RVSHO¶ *QWKHU %RUQNDPP µ7RZDUGV WKH ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI John’s Gospel: A Discussion of The Testament of Jesus by Ernst Käsemann’, in The Interpretation of JohnHG-RKQ$VKWRQ3KLODGHOSKLD)RUWUHVV>@ S 8௒7KRPSVRQThe Humanity of JesusS(PSKDVLVDGGHG 9௒7KRPSVRQThe Humanity of JesusS(PSKDVLVDGGHG 10௒7KLVLVDOVRDSRLQWRIFULWLFLVPLQ6WHSKHQ66PDOOH\John: Evangelist and Interpreter([HWHU3DWHUQRVWHU S 11௒7KRPSVRQPHQWLRQV-HVXV¶SDUHQWVDQGEURWKHUVKLVZHDULQHVVDQGZDQWIRU GULQNLQFKKHKDVIULHQGVFK KHLVPRYHGE\WKHGHDWKRIDIULHQGFK  Thompson, The Humanity of JesusS

26

From Tomb to Text

Käsemann’s points that Jesus is never really exposed to the suffering of this world, and that he is always on the side of God, never on the side of KXPDQLW\7KHVHWKUHHSRLQWVWKXV7KRPSVRQDGGXSWRWKHFRQFOXVLRQ that Käsemann is actually answering the question of whether John portrays ‘a fully sympathetic Jesus’ rather than whether John portrays ‘a IXOO\KXPDQ-HVXV¶12 While I will have reason and occasion to present my own engagement with the docetic question below, I want to point out that Käsemann’s analysis is much more sophisticated than what he is given credit for in 7KRPSVRQ¶V UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ 2QH RI WKH LPSRUWDQW LWHPV RQ .lVHPDQQ¶V agenda is the indictment of the historical-critical exegetical practice of his time, which he accuses of domesticating John’s gospel by forcing it into the categories of time and space, thereby ignoring or dismissing the radical edge of both historical critical exegesis as well as that of John’s JRVSHO.lVHPDQQ¶VRZQH[DPLQDWLRQDWWHPSWVWRVKRZKRZWKDWZKLFK is uniquely Johannine has been repressed or domesticated within contemSRUDU\H[HJHVLV,QWKHOLQHVSUHFHGLQJWKHDERYHTXRWHKHQRWHVWKDWWKH VWDWHPHQWLQ-QDµ7KHZRUGEHFDPHÀHVK¶KDVEHHQRYHUO\HPSKDsized by historical critical exegesis in order to force the text to follow a more traditional line of interpretation, namely ‘the possibility of writing WKHHDUWKO\VWRU\RI-HVXV¶13 Käsemann, on the other hand, as Thompson also points out, preferred to emphasize the confession that follows this VWDWHPHQWQDPHO\µ:HEHKHOGKLVJORU\¶ :KDW.lVHPDQQZDQWVWRHPSKDVL]HE\WDNLQJFKDVKLVSRLQWRI departure is the disjointed time in John: ‘The one who speaks here is, in WKHODVWDQDO\VLVQRWWKHRQHZKRLVDERXWWRGLH¶14 This disjointed time, which Käsemann calls post-Easter Christology, is the baseline of John’s text and the emphasis which John gives this perspective has consequences IRUKLV¿JXUHRI-HVXVµ7KHpraesentia Christi is the centre of his proclamation’—a statement, which as we saw in the last chapter, aggravated .HOEHU15 Käsemann does not deny ‘features of the lowliness of the earthly Jesus in the Fourth Gospel’—what Thompson sees as related to Jesus’ humanity—rather he questions their importance:

12௒7KRPSVRQThe Humanity of JesusS 13௒.lVHPDQQJesu letzter WilleS7KLVLVZKDWLVFDOOHGWKHIDPRXVGHEDWH EHWZHHQ .lVHPDQQ DQG 5XGROI %XOWPDQQ DQG WKHLU GLYHUWLQJ HPSKDVHV LQ  %XOWPDQQEHORQJHGWRWKHIUDFWLRQSXVKLQJDDVWKHPRVWVLJQL¿FDQW 14௒.lVHPDQQJesu letzter WilleS 15௒.lVHPDQQJesu letzter WilleS



Docetism, Past and Present

27

do they characterize John’s Christology in such a manner that through them the ‘true man’ of later incarnational theology becomes believable? Or do not those features of his lowliness rather represent the absolute minimum of the costume designed for the one who dwelt for a little while among men, appearing to be one of them, yet without himself being subjected to earthly conditions?16

An extension of this argument may be found in Kasper Bro Larsen’s investigation into whether the question of Docetism emerges ‘from certain FRQGLWLRQVRIQDUUDWLYHRUJDQL]DWLRQLQWKH*RVSHOGLVFRXUVH¶17 Following a semiotic approach, Larsen argues that John’s emphasis on the cognitive aspect of the narrative (namely Jesus’ pre-existence and Jesus’ omnisFLHQFH KDVUHVXOWHGLQDUHGXFWLRQRIWKHQDUUDWLYH¶VSUDJPDWLFGLPHQVLRQ bringing about what Larsen calls ‘a glow of seeming’ or ‘a touch of ³LUUHDOLW\´௘¶18 This means that the epistemological evaluation of the events overshadows the events themselves, and that the result, namely ‘narrative 'RFHWLVP¶DULVHVIURPWKHHFRQRP\RINQRZOHGJHLQWKHJRVSHOQDUUDWLYH So while both Käsemann and Larsen see some form of Docetism as D UHVXOW RI WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI WKH DXWKRU .lVHPDQQ  RU WKH QDUUDWLYH /DUVHQ  7KRPSVRQ¶V H\H VHHPV WR EH VHW RQ WKH KLVWRU\ RI -HVXV RQ SUHFLVHO\WKDWVWRU\RIÀHVKZKLFK.lVHPDQQUHSXGLDWHG19 Based on an ‘open-ended’ notion of humanity, which is placed in RSSRVLWLRQ WR .lVHPDQQ¶V µULJLG GH¿QLWLRQ¶ 7KRPSVRQ ODQGV RQ WKH IROORZLQJGH¿QLWLRQZKLFKWKHQSURYLGHVWKHRXWOLQHRIKHUVWXG\ At the very least, to be human means to be differentiated from animals on WKH RQH KDQG DQG *RG RQ WKH RWKHU DFFRUGLQJO\ FHUWDLQ HOHPHQWV²ELUWK family, life activities, death—constitute the outline of what we expect to be WROGDERXWDQ\KXPDQEHLQJ20 16௒.lVHPDQQJesu letzter WilleS(PSKDVLVDGGHG 17௒ .DVSHU %UR /DUVHQ µ1DUUDWLYH 'RFHWLVP &KULVWRORJ\ DQG 6WRU\WHOOLQJ LQ the Gospel of John’, in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology HG 5LFKDUG %DXFNKDPDQG&DUO0RVVHU*UDQG5DSLGV(HUGPDQV SS 18௒/DUVHQµ1DUUDWLYH'RFHWLVP¶SS  Käsemann was of course also interested in history, but for him it was the history of the community, which is the focus of his second chapter in the study on Jn 7KRPSVRQLQVLVWVWKDWWKHVXEMHFWRIKHULQYHVWLJDWLRQLVQRWWKHµKLVWRULFDO-HVXV¶ and that ‘we are not inquiring into the historical veracity of or the tradition behind the *RVSHO¶VSRUWUDLWRI-HVXVRURIWKH*RVSHOLWVHOI¶7KRPSVRQThe Humanity of Jesus, S,ZLOOHODERUDWHRQWKLVODWHULQWKLVFKDSWHUEXWIRUQRZDUJXHWKDW7KRPSVRQ¶V LQYHVWLJDWLRQGRHVLQIDFWDVVXPHRULQVLVWRQDQHDUWKO\RUKLVWRULFDO-HVXV 20௒7KRPSVRQThe Humanity of JesusS

28

From Tomb to Text

These categories of humanity are then seen to correspond to Jesus’ human RULJLQV ÀHVK VLJQV DQG KLV GHDWK:KLOH VXFK D GH¿QLWLRQ RI KXPDQLW\ may be ‘translated’ into the language and thought of John, they can hardly EHXVHGWRSURYHWKHKXPDQLW\RIDQ\RQHDV7KRPSVRQKHUVHOIQRWHV EXW rather assumeDKXPDQLW\DQGWKXV¿QGDFRPIRUWDEOHSRVLWLRQVRPHZKHUH LQWKHFLUFXODUFRQIHVVLRQRIKHUDUJXPHQW,QGHHG7KRPSVRQFODLPVWKDW ‘these essential “moments” of a person’s life constitute categories by which the totality of that life can be investigated’, and concludes that ‘we KDYH HQGHDYRXUHG WR DOORZ WKH *RVSHO WR GH¿QH -HVXV¶ KXPDQLW\ RQ LWV RZQWHUPVHWF¶21 However, as Käsemann and many others have pointed out, the totality of the life of Jesus in John voluminously transcends these FDWHJRULHV22 The unacknowledged point of departure for Thompson, then, seems not to be Jesus in John, but Jesus the human in history, who constiWXWHVWKHWHPSODWHIURPZKLFKWKHJRVSHOLVUHDG Jesus’ Bodyparts There are many reasons why Thompson’s argument leaves me unperVXDGHG7KHPRVWLPSRUWDQWUHDVRQLVWKHPDWWHURI-HVXV¶ERG\DQGWKH TXHVWLRQRIZKDWDFWXDOO\FRQVWLWXWHV-HVXV¶ERG\LQ-RKQ)URPDFXUVRU\ look at the use of ÊľÄ¸ in John and the Synoptics, it does look like the VHPDQWLF¿HOGKDVEHHQQDUURZHGTXLWHVLJQL¿FDQWO\LQ-RKQ Matthew writes of the body of everyday life and people, for example WKDWLWLVEHWWHUWRORVHDQH\HWKDQKDYHWKHZKROHERG\FRQGHPQHG   WKH H\H LV WKH ODPS RI WKH ERG\   QRW WR FRQFHUQ RQHVHOI DERXWFORWKLQJWKHERG\ DQGQRWWREHDIUDLGRIWKHRQHVZLWKWKH SRZHUWRNLOOWKHERG\EXWQRWWKHVRXO 7KHQZHKDYH-HVXV¶ERG\ WKUHHIROGWKHERG\ZKLFKLVDQRLQWHG WKHERG\ZKLFKLVJLYHQLQ WKHODVWVXSSHU DQGWKHERG\RI-HVXVIRUEXULDO )LQDOO\ there are other bodies, namely the bodies of saints that were raised when WKHWRPEVRSHQHGLQWKHPRPHQWRI-HVXV¶GHDWK  ,Q0DUNWKHUHDUHRQO\IRXULQVWDQFHV2QHQRQ-HVXVUHODWHGQDPHO\ WKHZRPDQZKRIHOWLQKHUERG\WKDWVKHZDVKHDOHGIURPKHUEORRGÀRZ  DQGWKHQWKHVDPHWKUHHIROGVWUXFWXUHDVLQ0DWWKHZDQRLQWPHQW  WKHERG\JLYHQ DQGWKHERG\UHTXHVWHGIRUEXULDO 

21௒7KRPSVRQThe Humanity of JesusSS 22௒2QWKHODVWSDJH7KRPSVRQGRHVFRQFOXGHWKDW-HVXVLVQRWOLPLWHGRUGH¿QHG by his humanity, and that ‘his uniqueness or unOLNHQHVVGRHVQRWHIIDFHKLVKXPDQLW\¶ Thompson, The Humanity of JesusS(PSKDVLVLQRULJLQDO



Docetism, Past and Present

29

Luke has some of the same instances as Matthew, the everyday ones RIWKHEHOLHYHUV )XUWKHUPRUH/XNHLQFOXGHVWKH ERG\LQWKHODVWVXSSHU DQGWKHERG\UHTXHVWHGIRUEXULDO  EXWODFNVWKHDQRLQWHGERG\+RZHYHULQDGGLWLRQ/XNHKDVDQXPEHU of unique instances of ÊľÄ¸ ,Q  ZH KHDU WKH VD\LQJ µ:KHUH WKH FRUSVHLVWKHUHWKHYXOWXUHVZLOOJDWKHU¶ ZKLFKLVLQFRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK WKH &RPLQJ RI WKH .LQJGRP GLVFRXUVH $OVR /XNH FRQWDLQV WZR UHIHUHQFHV WR WKH PLVVLQJ ERG\ RQH LQ WKH QDUUDWLYHLWVHOI   ZKHUH WKHZRPHQGRQRW¿QGWKHERG\LQWKHJUDYHDQGVHFRQGLQWKHUHWHOOLQJ RIWKLVHYHQWRQWKHURDGWR(PPDXV  Turning to John with these occurrences in mind, there are three chapters in which the word ÊľÄ¸DSSHDUVWKHWHPSOHVFHQH ZKHUH the mediator notes that Jesus was speaking of the temple of his ÊľÄ¸ FKDIWHUWKHFUXFL¿[LRQZKHUHÊľÄ¸Ì¸ are hanging on the crosses,23 as well as the pericope where Josef of Arimathea claims Jesus’ ÊľÄ¸ PHQWLRQHGWLPHV DQG¿QDOO\LQFKZKHUH0DU\VHHVWKHWZRDQJHOV where the ÊľÄ¸RI-HVXVKDGODLQ24 The ÊľÄ¸ of the Johannine Jesus, then, LVFRQQHFWHGZLWKGHDWK -RKQ¶V-HVXVDOVRKDVDYDULHW\RIERG\SDUWV¿QJHU 25IHHW    26 VSLULW    27 PRXWK  28 head  29OHJV VLGH KDQGVDQGVLGH 30 An LPSRUWDQWIHDWXUHRIWKHVHLQVWDQFHVLVWKDWDSDUWIURPWKH¿QJHUGUDZLQJLQ WKHGLUWLQFKKLVIHHWZKLFKZHUHDQRLQWHGLQFKDQGWKHPRYLQJRI KLVVSLULWLQFKVDQGWKHUHIHUHQFHVWRERG\SDUWVDOOFOXVWHUDURXQG 23௒:KLOH-DPLH&ODUNH6ROHVFRUUHFWO\QRWHVWKDW-RKQPHQWLRQVÊľÄ¸ 6 times, WKHREVHUYDWLRQWKDWµLQ)>RXUWK@*>RVSHO@WKHZRUGsoma relates only to the body of -HVXV¶LVLQFRUUHFW-DPLH&ODUN6ROHVµ௘³,:LOO5DLVH>:KRP"@8SRQWKH/DVW'D\´ Anthropology as a Feature of Johannine Eschatology’, in New Currents Through John: A Global PerspectiveHG)UDQFLVFR/R]DGDDQG7RP7KDWFKHU$WODQWD*$ 6RFLHW\RI%LEOLFDO/LWHUDWXUH S 24௒7KHUHLVDSRLQWWRXVLQJWKH*UHHNZRUGLQSODFHRIERG\QDPHO\WRWU\WR UHVLVW VOLSSLQJ LQWR WKH FRPIRUWV RI WZHQW\¿UVWFHQWXU\ VHPDQWLFV ZKHQ WKLQNLQJ about ÊľÄ¸ 25௒0N 26௒0W0N/N KDQGVDQGIHHW  27௒0W0N/N 28௒/N 29௒0W0N/N 30௒7REHVXUHPDQ\RIWKHRWKHUVLQWKHJRVSHOKDYHERG\SDUWVWKHEOLQGPDQLQ FKKDVH\HV/D]DUXVKDVKDQGVIHHWDQGDIDFH0DU\KDVKDLUWKHGLVFLSOHVKDYH IHHW7KRPDVKDV¿QJHUVDQG3HWHUKDVKDQGV %XWQRWHYHQ/D]DUXVKDVDÊľÄ¸

30

From Tomb to Text

WKH WULDO FUXFL¿[LRQ DQG UHVXUUHFWLRQ VFHQHV LQ WKH WH[W$ JODQFH DW WKH Synoptic parallels shows that there are body parts on display in the resurUHFWLRQQDUUDWLYHV0W/N DQGWKHVSLULWLV\LHOGHGLQ0W DQG/NEXWQRWWRWKHH[WHQWRI-RKQ¶VGHSLFWLRQRI-HVXVRQ WKHFURVVZKLFKLQFOXGHVVSLULWPRXWKKHDGOHJVDQGVLGH This emphatic display of body parts, as well as the excessive emphasis on ÊŠÉÆ and ¸đĸ LQ FK 31 speaks of a general emphasis on physical IHDWXUHVRI-HVXVLQ-RKQ:KLOHVXFKDQHPSKDVLVFRXOGEHVHHQWRDVVXPH WKHKXPDQLW\RI-HVXVLQVXSSRUWRI7KRPSVRQ LWLVIROORZLQJWKHµSRVW resurrection perspective’ of the book, a fabrication of an earthly body of -HVXV7KHERRNRI-RKQIXQFWLRQVDVWKDWZKLFKXQL¿HVWKHSDUWVRI-HVXV LQWR VRPH NLQG RI XQL¿HG ZKROH ZKLFK LV JHQHUDOO\ DVVXPHG WR EH KLV ERG\ Because the fact of the matter is that Jesus does not have a ‘body’ in -RKQ+HKDVERG\SDUWVDQGDFRUSVH32 While this to some may seem as tiresome exegetical manoeuvring that eclipses the bigger questions, I argue that it is necessary to take the occurrence/non-occurrence of a concept VHULRXVO\ )LUVW DV WKH GLVFXVVLRQV RYHU 'RFHWLVP LQGLFDWH WKH ERG\ RI -HVXVLVDPDWWHURIVRPHXUJHQF\LIQRWDGRZQULJKWSUREOHP$QGSODFLQJ PRVWRIWKHERG\WHUPVDURXQGWKHWULDOFUXFL¿[LRQDQGUHVXUUHFWLRQLQWKH QDUUDWLYHVXJJHVWVWKDWWKLVLVWKHSDUWLFXODUORFXVRIWKDWSUREOHP6HFRQG the very nature of the genre of the gospels as life–death–resurrection narratives means that they necessarily must engage with the question of the ERG\LQDZD\GLIIHUHQWIURPVD\WKHDXWKRUWRWKHHSLVWOHWRWKH+HEUHZV Furthermore, the role of Jesus’ body in early Christian belief means that the body is a privileged node/unit/symbol/concept as noted by Averil &DPHURQ33 Finally, since the text is all we have to access its context, it is crucial that we pay attention to the slightest detail in order to avoid pseudoKLVWRULFDOFRQMHFWXUHV34:KLFKEULQJVXVEDFNWRWKHTXHVWLRQRI'RFHWLVP 31௒$FKDSWHUZLWKZKLFK7KRPSVRQKDVELJSUREOHPV,ZLOODGGUHVVWKLVLQPRUH GHWDLOLQ&KDSWHU 32௒7KHUHDUHDOOXVLRQVWR-HVXV¶SUHVHQFHWKURXJKYDULRXVDFWLRQV)RUH[DPSOH ZDONLQJSDVW PDNLQJDZKLSDQGRYHUWXUQLQJWDEOHV JHWWLQJWLUHG WKLUVW\   VSLWWLQJ PL[LQJ DQG VSUHDGLQJ   ZDVKLQJ IHHW GLSSLQJ EUHDG ±   EUHDWKLQJ   DQG WDNLQJ EUHDG DQG ¿VK   :KLOH WKHVH E\ themselves could be seen as assuming a body, their importance, when placed in conWH[WGLPLQLVKHV 33௒&DPHURQChristianity and the Rhetoric of EmpireS 34௒ 7KLV PHDQV WKDW , GR QRW VHH ERG\ SDUWV DV V\QHFGRWDO QRU GR , VXEVFULEH WR -HQQLIHU *ODQF\¶V QRWLRQ RI ERGLO\ KDELWXV 6HH -HQQLIHU $ *ODQF\ Corporal Knowledge: Early Christian Bodies2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV 



Docetism, Past and Present

31

Docetism II: A Question of History In her monograph on Èżıĸ and Philo in John, Gitte Buch-Hansen SRVLWV WKDW 'RFHWLVP LV EDVHG RQ D ERG\VRXO GXDOLVP35 I agree that the concerns over Docetism more often than not are expressed in terms of WKH RSSRVLWLRQ EHWZHHQ ERG\ DQG VSLULW +RZHYHU WKH PRUDOO\ RXWUDJHG reaction to charges of Docetism and the extensive ammunition used to refute these charges in the last 60 years of scholarship raises the question whether it actually is a case of body and soul, or rather a question about KLVWRULFLW\ LWVHOI36 Digging deeper into the discussions over Docetism shows that the understandings of Docetism in its contemporary usage KDV OLWWOH LQ FRPPRQ ZLWK ZKDW ZDV UHJDUGHG DV GRFHWLF LQ WKH ¿UVW FHQWXULHVRIRXUFRPPRQHUD0RGHUQXVDJHRI'RFHWLVPWHQGVWRSODFH the term as an umbrella term encompassing everything in opposition to DQ LQFDUQDWLRQDO &KULVWRORJ\37 Thus the term can be used in contemSRUDU\H[HJHWLFDOGHEDWHVDV$.0$GDPVSRLQWVRXWLQKLVDUWLFOHRQ historical criticism and Docetism, where the term is used to charge one’s FRQWHPSRUDU\RSSRQHQWVZLWKDQLQVXI¿FLHQWO\KLVWRULFDO-HVXV38 Also in this vein, Buch-Hansen’s analysis shows how German Protestant exegesis has upheld the construct of Docetism and how ‘ideas of naive docetism, UHDOGRFHWLVPSUHJQRVWLFLVP*QRVWLFLVPFDSLWDOL]HG HWFFRQVWLWXWHWKH imagined other or outside that safeguards and upholds a reading of the )RXUWK*RVSHOWKDWPDUJLQDOL]HVWKH-RKDQQLQHVSLULW¶39 And she notes that &+'RGG¶VLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRI-RKQLVLQGDQJHURIODSVLQJLQWR'RFHWLVP because of its distinction between occurrences sub specie aeternitatis and ZKDWKDSSHQVLQWKHKLVWRULFDOVSKHUH40 Ancient uses and understandings of Docetism, however, are much more confounding, to say the least, and UHVLVWGH¿QLWLRQ41

35௒%XFK+DQVHQ‘It Is the Spirit That Gives Life’S 36௒7KHUHDUHVWXGLHVWKDWVHHWKHLVVXHRI'RFHWLVPLQWKHHDUO\&KXUFKDVRQHRI KLVWRULFLW\(J0LUFHD(OLDGHDQG:LOODUG57UDVNµ6XUYLYDOVDQG&DPRXÀDJHVRI Myths’, Diogenes S 37௒1RUEHUW%UR[µ'RNHWLVPXV²(LQH3UREOHPDQ]HLJH¶ZKG  S 38௒ $.0 $GDP µ'RFHWLVP .lVHPDQQ DQG &KULVWRORJ\ :K\ +LVWRULFDO Criticism Can’t Protect Christological Orthodoxy’, SJT SQ 39௒%XFK+DQVHQ‘It Is the Spirit That Gives Life¶S 40௒%XFK+DQVHQ‘It Is the Spirit That Gives Life¶S 41௒%XWIRUDJRRGGLVFXVVLRQRIWKHDWWHPSWVVHH$GDPµ'RFHWLVP.lVHPDQQ DQG&KULVWRORJ\¶SS

32

From Tomb to Text

Buch-Hansen’s engagements with Docetism centre solely on its manifestations in twentieth-century German exegesis, and its function as a FRUUHFWLYHWRXQRUWKRGR[LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV+RZHYHULWLVLQWHUHVWLQJWRQRWH the shift in the understanding of Docetism from its ancient meanings to WKH FRQWHPSRUDU\ FRQ¿JXUDWLRQV PHQWLRQHG DERYH EHFDXVH WKH GLIIHUHQFHDULVHVRXWRIGLIIHULQJXQGHUVWDQGLQJVRIPDWWHUDQGWKXVRIERG\ As mentioned above, Buch-Hansen sees docetism as based on a body/ soul dualism, which she then argues is deconstructed in Philo’s discourse on Èżıĸ42 %XFK+DQVHQ¶VDUJXPHQWLVDFRPSOH[RQHEXWLQDQRYHUVLPSOL¿HGZD\ may be characterized as using Philo’s fusing of platonic and stoic elements such as »¼ŧ̼ɸ ºšÅ¼ÊÀË, ÁÉÜÊÀË and ÒÅŠ¹ÜÊÀË to transcend a distinction between spirit and matter, so characteristic of Platonism, post-Cartesian PHWDSK\VLFVDQG*HUPDQ3URWHVWDQWH[HJHVLV2IVSHFLDOLPSRUWDQFHQRWHV Buch-Hansen, ‘is Philo’s idea of the “translation” (ÒÅŠ¹ÜÊÀË  LQ SODFH of death, grounded in the Stoic idea of ÒŸÊÌÇÀϼţÑÊÀË, which implies a transformation of the whole bodily being into the heavenly pneumatic PRGHRIEHLQJ¶43 She continues, ‘When applied to the ÒÅŠ¹ÜÊÀË of Christ, WKH SUREOHPV LQKHUHQW LQ WKH GRFHWLF FKDUJH DUH GLVVROYHG DQG VROYHG¶44 However, Buch-Hansen’s body of Jesus sounds very close to what Pamela Kinlaw terms the blend between the metamorphosis and the possession PRGHO ZKLFK VKRZV XS DPRQJ RWKHUV LQ 9DOHQWLQLXV¶ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI -HVXV¶SQHXPDWLFERG\45 This of course presents us with a paradox, namely that one of the usual suspects of ancient Docetism provides the solution to WKHLVVXHVSRVHGE\PRGHUQ'RFHWLVP Returning to the shift in understanding of body and matter, Buch-Hansen’s study has helped show how modern opponents of Docetism operate with D¿[HGXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIERG\DQGPDWWHU:KLOHWKHGHEDWHVLQWKH¿UVW centuries centred on what kind of body Jesus had,46 this is simply assumed LQFRQWHPSRUDU\GHEDWHV7KXVWKHGHEDWHVRIPDWWHUDQGQDWXUHRIPDWWHU

42௒%XFK+DQVHQ‘It Is the Spirit That Gives Life¶S 43௒%XFK+DQVHQ‘It Is the Spirit That Gives Life¶S 44௒%XFK+DQVHQ‘It Is the Spirit That Gives Life¶S 45௒ 6HH .LQODZ The Christ Is Jesus S  .LQODZ¶V FKDSWHU RQ WKH -RKDQQLQH (SLVWOHVFRQWDLQVDKHOSIXOVXPPDU\RIDQFLHQWGRFHWLVPVDQGWKHLUSURSRQHQWV 46௒6HHWKHDERYHPHQWLRQHGVXPPDU\LQ.LQODZDQGDOVR%UR[¶VDUWLFOH%UR[ argues that docetic Christology was one among several ways of negotiating the aporia between the Hellenistic/Gnostic dualism of spirit and matter and the Christian idea RILQFDUQDWLRQDQGWKHDUULYDORIDGLYLQHVDYLRXULQWKLVZRUOG%UR[µ'RNHWLVPXV¶ S



Docetism, Past and Present

33

have been displaced onto questions of historicity, and to what extent this HDUWKO\-HVXVLVKLVWRULFDORUKXPDQHQRXJK,WLVWKXVDVVXPHGWKDWWKHUH LVDQREMHFWLYH¿JXUHRI-HVXVZKLFKWKHWH[WVUHSUHVHQWLQDPRUHRUOHVV KXPDQZD\+RZHYHULIDV,ZLOODUJXHWKHERRNFRQVWLWXWHVWKHSUHVHQFH of Jesus, then the question cannot be asked this way, because the objective reality of Jesus is not an issue—the text itself constitutes his absolute SUHVHQFH The questions posed, and the way the questions are answered are, of course, all reliant on our own presuppositions, one of which is the underVWDQGLQJ DQG UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI +,67255RPDQ&DWKROLF@VDFUDPHQWDOLVPZKLFKMDUUHGDJDLQVWWKHRWKHUZLVHSXUH >3URWHVWDQW@HPSKDVLVRQIDLWKDVWKHFRQGLWLRQRIVDOYDWLRQ18 He solved this

13௒ %DUUHWW The Gospel According to St John S  'RGG Interpretation, SS7KXVDOVR/HHZKRVHHVWKHPDLQPHDQLQJDVFKULVWRORJLFDOZLWKHXFKDULVWLFRYHUWRQHVSymbolic Narratives, S 14௒+DUULOOµ&DQQLEDOLVWLF/DQJXDJH¶ 15௒-DPHVRQµ0HWDFRPPHQWDU\¶6HH6LHEHFN@  Ashton, John, Understanding the Fourth Gospel2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV  $WWULGJH +DUROG : The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress,   ———‘Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL SS Auerbach, Erich, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature WUDQV :LOODUG57UDVN3ULQFHWRQ1-3ULQFHWRQ8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV>@  %DQNV5REHUW-Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting6XUU\+LOOV16:$Q]HD  %DUUHWW&KDUOHV.Essays on John/RQGRQ63&.  ———The Gospel according to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text/RQGRQ63&.  %DUXV$UPDQGµ-RKQ±$1DUUDWLYH5HDGLQJ¶LQ/R]DGDDQG7KDWFKHUHGV New Currents Through JohnSS Bauer, Walter, and Frederick William Danker, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament, and Other Early Christian Literature UG HG &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR3UHVV  %D]DQQD*LRYDQQL%µ1HR0DU[LVP/DQJXDJH,GHRORJ\DQGWKH1HZ7HVWDPHQW¶BCT  SS %HO¿RUH(OL]DEHWKµ1DUUDWRORJLFDO3ORWVDQG$ULVWRWOH¶V0\WKRV¶Arethusa  SS Benjamin, Walter, IlluminationsWUDQV+DUU\=RKQ/RQGRQ)RQWDQD  Benveniste, Emile, ‘The Nature of the Linguistic Sign’, in Critical Theory Since 1965, HG+D]DUG$GDPVDQG/HUR\6HDUOH7DOODKDVVHH)/)ORULGD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV  SS

140

From Tomb to Text

Beutler, Johannes, ‘The Use of “Scripture” in the Gospel of John’, in Alan Culpepper DQG & %ODFN HGV  Exploring John: In Honour of D. Moody Smith (Philadelphia: :HVWPLQVWHU-RKQ.QR[ SS Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Friedrich Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch*|WWLQJHQ9DQGHQKRHFN 5XSUHFKW  Boer, Roland, In the Vale of Tears: On Marxism and TheologyYRO+0/HLGHQ %ULOO  ———Jameson and Jeroboam6HPHLD6WXGLHV$WODQWD*$6FKRODUV3UHVV  ———Marxist Criticism of the Hebrew BibleQGHG/RQGRQ%ORRPVEXU\7 7&ODUN   ———The Sacred Economy of Ancient Israel, Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: :HVWPLQVWHU-RKQ.QR[  Boer, Roland, and Christina Petterson, Idols of Nations: Biblical Myth at the Origins of Capitalism0LQQHDSROLV)RUWUHVV  Bornkamm, Günther, ‘Towards the Interpretation of John’s Gospel: A Discussion of the Testament of Jesus by Ernst Käsemann’, in The Interpretation of JohnHG-RKQ$VKWRQ 0LQQHDSROLV)RUWUHVV>@ SS Boyarin, Daniel, ‘The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John’, HTR  SS %UDGVKDZ3DXO)Eucharistic Origins/RQGRQ63&.  Braun, Christina von, Nicht Ich. Logik, Lüge, Libido%HUOLQ$XIEDX>@  %URZQ5D\PRQG(The Gospel according to John I–XII/RQGRQ&KDSPDQ  ———The Gospel according to John XIII–XXI /RQGRQ&KDSPDQ  Brox, Norbert, ‘Doketismus—Eine Problemanzeige’, ZKG SS Buch-Hansen, Gitte, ‘It Is the Spirit That Gives Life’: A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in John’s Gospel%=1:%HUOLQGH*UX\WHU  Bultmann, Rudolf, ‘Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandäischen und manichäischen 4XHOOHQIUGDV9HUVWlQGQLVGHV-RKDQQHVHYDQJHOLXPV¶ZNW  SS ———The Gospel of John: A Commentary WUDQV *HRUJH 5 %HDVOH\0XUUD\ 2[IRUG %ODFNZHOO  Busse, Ulrich, Das Johannesevangelium: Bildlichkeit, Diskurs und Ritual. Mit Einer Bibliographie über den Zeitraum 1986–1998, BETL 157 (Leuven: Leuven University 3UHVV  Cameron, Averil, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse%HUNHOH\&$8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD3UHVV  &DUSHQWHU-RVHSK(The Johannine Writings: A Study of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel/RQGRQ&RQVWDEOH  Chadwick, Henry, The Early Church1HZ:KRP"@ 8S RQ WKH /DVW 'D\´ $QWKURSRORJ\ DV D )HDWXUH RI -RKDQQLQH (VFKDWRORJ\¶ LQ /R]DGD DQG 7KDWFKHU HGV New Currents Through JohnSS &OLYD]&ODLUHµ7KH1HZ7HVWDPHQWDWWKH7LPHRIWKH(J\SWLDQ3DS\UL5HÀHFWLRQV%DVHG RQ 3 3 DQG 3 3 $PK E 3 %RG ;,9;9 DQG 36,  ¶ LQ Reading New Testament Papyri in Context HG &ODLUH &OLYD] DQG -HDQ =XPVWHLQ ZLWK -HQQ\ Read-Heimerdinger and Julie Paik, BETL /HXYHQ3HHWHUV SS

Bibliography

141

———‘Reading Luke–Acts in Alexandria in the Second Century: From Clement to the Shadow of Apollos’, in Reading Acts in the Second CenturyHG5XEHQ5'XSHUWXLV DQG7RGG&3HQQHU/RQGRQ$FXPHQ SS &ROOLQV-RKQ-µ,QWURGXFWLRQ7RZDUGVWKH0RUSKRORJ\RID*HQUH¶Semeia  SS &RORH 0DU\ / Dwelling in the Household of God: Johannine Ecclesiology and Spirituality&ROOHJHYLOOH01/LWXUJLFDO3UHVV  Coptic Gnostic Library Project, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco, &$+DUSHU 5RZ  Counet, Patrick Chatelion, John, a Postmodern Gospel: Introduction to Deconstructive Exegesis Applied to the Fourth Gospel%,6/HLGHQ%ULOO  Crossan, John Dominic, ‘A Form of Absence: The Markan Creation of Gospel’, Semeia  SS &XOSHSSHU 5 $ODQ Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design 3KLODGHOSKLD)RUWUHVV  ²²²HGCritical Readings of John 6/HLGHQ%ULOO  Curtius, Ernst Robert, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (London: Routledge,   'DZHV*UHJRU\:The Body in Question: Metaphor and Meaning in the Interpretation of Ephesians 5:21-33%,6/HLGHQ%ULOO  Dawson, David, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria %HUNHOH\&$8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD3UHVV  GH6WH&URL[*(0The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests,WKDFD13DXO6LHEHFN@ SS Gaventa, Beverly Roberts, ‘The Archive of Excess: John 21 and the Problem of Narrative Closure’, in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith HG $ODQ &XOSHSSHU DQG & &OLIWRQ %ODFN /RXLVYLOOH .