Contents

Acknowledgements

vii

1

Rhetoric,

Jesus,

and

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel:

An

Introduction

1

1

Previous

Scholarship

and

Present

Contribution

2

2

Methodology

and

the

Authorial

Audience

17

3

Outline

of

the

Study

20

2

Evangelist

and

Protagonist:

Narrator,

Narrative,

and

Person

in

Mediterranean

Antiquity

22

1

Hearing

the

Evangelist’s

Voice:

Narrator

and

Narrative

in

Mediterranean

Antiquity

and

the

Fourth

Gospel

23

2

Introducing

the

Protagonist:

Characterization

in

Mediterranean

Antiquity

and

the

Johannine

Prologue

39

3

Summary

and

Conclusions

75

3

Speaking

Scripture:

The

Evangelist’s

Voice

Mediated

through

the

Discourses

of

Jesus

78

1

Jesus

and

a

True

Israelite

(Jn

1.43-51)

81

2

Jesus

and

the

Bronze

Serpent

(Jn

3.1-21)

86

3

Greater

than

Jacob

(Jn

4.1-42)

93

4

Testimony

of

the

Scriptures

(Jn

5.1-47)

97

5

Bread

from

Heaven

(Jn

6.1-71)

104

6

At

the

Feast

of

Tabernacles

(Jn

7.1-52;

8.12-59)

112

7

At

the

Feast

of

Dedication

(Jn

10.22-39)

120

8

The

Farewell

Discourse

(Jn

13.1–17.26)

124

9

Summary

and

Conclusions

131

4

Reflecting

Scripture:

The

Evangelist’s

Voice

Mediated

outside

the

Discourses

of

Jesus

133

1

The

Testimony

of

John

the

Baptist

(Jn

1.19-42)

134

2

In

the

Temple

(Jn

2.13-25)

140

3

The

Testimony

of

the

Man

Born

Blind

(Jn

9.1-41)

147

4

Welcoming

and

Rejecting

the

King

(Jn

12.12-50)

154

5

The

Crucifixion

of

the

Lamb

(Jn

19.17-37)

163

6

The

New

Creation

(Jn

20.1-30)

172

7

Summary

and

Conclusions

178

Acknowledgements

This

book

is

the

culmination

of

a

journey

guided

by

many

people:

facul-

ty,

family,

and

friends.

I

would

first

like

to

thank

the

faculty

whose

pas-

sion

for

biblical

studies

sparked

my

own

interest

and

whose

scholarship

drove

me

forward

in

pursuit

of

excellence.

It

was

in

the

undergraduate

classes

of

Dr

Kenneth

Schenck

and

Dr

Dave

Smith

that

I

first

became

inspired

to

pursue

my

PhD.

At

Duke

University

Divinity

School

I

had

the

privilege

of

studying

under

Dr

Richard

B.

Hays

and

Dr

Joel

Marcus,

who

encouraged

me

to

continue

improving

my

work

and

to

believe

in

myself.

In

particular,

it

was

Dr

Hays’

Old

Testament

in

the

New

Testament

seminar

that

drew

me

to

explore

the

use

of

Israel’s

Scriptures

in

the

Gospel

of

John,

and

his

continued

support

throughout

this

project

has

been

dear

to

me.

Completing

my

PhD

at

Baylor

University,

I

had

the

honour

of

learning

from

a

wonderful

group

of

scholars

who

have

taken

the

time

to

help

me

enter

into

the

scholarly

guild

without

losing

sight

of

my

faith

by

modelling

academic

and

spiritual

integrity.

I

would

like

to

thank

Dr

Charles

H.

Talbert

for

his

wisdom

and

guidance

throughout

my

career

at

Baylor.

His

probing

questions

and

high

expectations

con-

stantly

keep

me

seeking

to

improve

my

scholarship,

while

his

encour-

agement

and

sense

of

humour

have

helped

me

not

to

become

weary

in

my

pursuit.

I

also

am

grateful

to

Dr

Mikeal

C.

Parsons,

whose

seminar

on

characterization

during

my

first

semester

at

Baylor

provided

the

set-

ting

and

foundation

for

this

present

study.

It

is

thanks

to

his

continued

support,

careful

eye,

and

patient

endurance

of

my

many

emails

that

this

project

comes

to

completion.

Thanks

also

go

to

Dr

Lidija

Novakovic

for

her

perceptive

questions

and

astute

observations

and

to

Dr

William

H.

Bellinger,

whose

Old

Testament

specialization

keeps

me

attuned

to

the

larger

tradition

in

which

the

New

Testament

is

grounded.

Finally,

I

want

to

thank

Dr

Jeffrey

Hamilton

whose

Roman

history

class

opened

my

eyes

to

a

variety

of

new

texts

to

explore,

allowing

me

to

broaden

my

literary

horizons

and

test

my

ideas

in

extra-biblical

waters.

I

would

also

like

to

thank

the

faculty

and

staff

at

United

Theological

Seminary

for

their

support.

Special

thanks

to

Casey

Irwin

for

her

careful

compilation

of

the

indexes

and

to

Dr

David

F.

Watson

for

his

willingness

to

share

Casey’s

hours

for

this

project.

The

greatest

thanks,

however,

must

be

given

to

my

family

for

their

unwavering

encouragement

and

sacrifice.

To

my

parents

and

my

sister,

thank

you

for

listening

to

my

joys

and

frustrations

over

the

phone

and

helping

me

to

continue

onward.

To

my

husband,

Scott,

thank

you

for

Chapter

1

Rhetoric,

Jesus,

and

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel:

An

Introduction

Although

fewer

explicit

quotations

appear

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

than

in

Matthew

and

Luke,

Scripture

nevertheless

forms

the

foundational

narrative

on

which

the

Fourth

Gospel

is

built.

1

As

with

other

studies

on

Scripture

in

the

New

Testament,

studies

on

the

Gospel

of

John’s

use

of

Scripture

have

generally

centred

on

questions

of

the

evangelist’s

Vorlage

–

be

it

lxx

(or

OG),

a

Hebrew

text,

or

a

Targumaic

counterpart

–

and

how

his

theology

has

subsequently

shaped

his

quotations.

2

Even

in

the

wake

of

R.

Alan

Culpepper’s

inauguration

of

large-scale

narrative

critical

studies

of

the

Gospel,

3

and

Richard

B.

Hays’

introduction

of

the

literary

phenomenon

of

intertextuality

to

New

Testament

scholarship

in

general,

4

scholars

continue

to

focus

on

quotation

forms

and

debates

on

the

historical

and

theological

function

of

Scripture

in

John’s

Gospel

1

Commenting

on

the

pervasiveness

of

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel,

Paul

Miller

contends,

‘John

quotes

Scripture

relatively

infrequently.

However,

none

of

the

other

evangelists

has

assimilated

the

overall

sweep

of

the

biblical

story

as

completely

as

John’

(‘“They

Saw

His

Glory

and

Spoke

of

Him”:

The

Gospel

of

John

and

the

Old

Testament’,

in

Hearing

the

Old

Testament

in

the

New

Testament

[ed.

Stanley

E.

Porter;

Grand

Rapids,

MI:

Eerdmans,

2006],

pp.

127–51

[132]).

2

See,

for

example,

Edwin

D.

Freed,

Old

Testament

Quotations

in

the

Gospel

of

John

(NovTSup

11;

Leiden:

Brill,

1965);

Günter

Reim,

Studien

zum

alttestamentlichen

hintergrund

des

Johannesevangeliums

(SNTSMS

22;

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

Press,

1974);

Maarten

J.

J.

Menken,

Old

Testament

Quotations

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

(CBET

15;

Kampen:

Pharos,

1996);

A.

T.

Hanson,

The

Prophetic

Gospel:

A

Study

of

John

and

the

Old

Testament

(Edinburgh:

T&T

Clark,

1991);

Bruce

G.

Schuchard,

Scripture

within

Scripture:

The

Interrelationship

of

Form

and

Function

in

the

Explicit

Old

Testament

Quotations

in

the

Gospel

of

John

(SBLDS

133;

Atlanta,

GA:

SBL,

1992);

Margaret

Daly-Denton,

David

in

the

Fourth

Gospel:

The

Johannine

Reception

of

the

Psalms

(AGJU

47;

Leiden:

Brill,

2000).

3

R.

Alan

Culpepper,

Anatomy

of

the

Fourth

Gospel:

A

Study

in

Literary

Design

(Philadelphia,

PA:

Fortress,

1983).

4

Richard

B.

Hays,

Echoes

of

Scripture

in

the

Letters

of

Paul

(New

Haven,

CT:

Yale

University

Press,

1989).

See

also,

idem,

The

Conversion

of

Imagination:

Paul

as

Interpreter

of

Israel’s

Scripture

(Grand

Rapids,

MI:

Eerdmans,

2005);

Richard

B.

Hays,

Stefan

Alkier,

and

Leroy

A.

Huizenga,

eds,

Reading

the

Bible

Intertextually

(Waco,

TX:

Baylor

University

Press,

2008).

rather

than

on

its

literary

and

rhetorical

roles.

Thus,

while

scholars

are

quick

to

affirm

the

christological

import

of

Scripture

in

John,

they

have

yet

to

explore

in

detail

just

how

these

scriptural

appeals

contribute

to

the

rhetoric

of

the

Gospel

or

its

characterization

of

Jesus.

These

facts

are

made

even

more

striking

in

light

of

Jesus’

frequent

quotations

and

allu-

sions

to

Scripture

in

his

own

words

and

actions,

along

with

those

made

by

other

characters

and

the

narrator

in

response

to

Jesus.

The

present

study

aims

to

address

this

gap

in

Johannine

scholarship

in

particular,

while

also

offering

a

new

way

of

reading

the

use

of

Scripture

in

New

Testament

narratives

in

general

through

the

use

of

literary-rhetorical

criticism.

It

will

examine

the

evangelist’s

use

of

Scripture

in

light

of

progym-

nasmata

,

rhetorical

handbooks,

and

comparative

literature

from

the

Gospel’s

milieu

in

order

to

determine

its

impact

on

the

characterization

of

Jesus

presented.

As

a

recognized

source

of

authority,

Scripture

works

with

the

evangelist’s

rhetoric

to

persuade

his

audience

of

the

accuracy

of

his

portrayal

of

Jesus.

In

this

way,

Scripture

functions

as

a

key

part

of

the

evangelist’s

characterization,

appearing

in

common

rhetorical

topoi

and

techniques,

to

persuade

the

Gospel

audience

of

the

truthfulness

of

this

narrative

and

of

its

presentation

of

Jesus.

1.

Previous

Scholarship

and

Present

Contribution

The

main

goal

of

this

study

is

to

examine

how

Scripture

contributes

to

the

Gospel’s

characterization

of

Jesus

in

light

of

ancient

rhetorical

techniques.

As

a

result,

the

present

project

intersects

with

three

areas

of

Johannine

scholarship:

rhetorical

criticism;

characterization

studies;

and

the

Fourth

Gospel’s

use

of

Scripture.

In

the

following

section

a

brief

history

of

research

will

be

offered

for

each

of

these

areas,

beginning

with

past

scholarship

on

the

use

of

ancient

rhetoric

in

the

Fourth

Gospel,

followed

by

studies

on

its

methods

of

characterization,

especially

as

they

pertain

to

Jesus,

and

finally

moving

to

discuss

previous

work

on

the

Gospel’s

use

of

Scripture.

At

the

end

of

each

section,

the

place

of

the

present

study

and

the

contributions

it

aims

to

make

to

the

current

scholarly

discussion

will

be

given.

a.

Ancient

rhetoric

and

the

Fourth

Gospel

Ancient

rhetorical

analyses

of

the

New

Testament

have

abounded

in

recent

decades,

spurred

on

by

classicist,

George

A.

Kennedy’s

pre-

liminary

foray

into

the

discussion.

5

While

Kennedy

was

not

the

first

to

5

George

A.

Kennedy,

New

Testament

Interpretation

through

Rhetorical

Criticism

(Studies

in

Religion;

Chapel

Hill,

NC:

University

of

North

Carolina

Press,

1984).

See

the

recent

overview

of

Kennedy’s

impact

on

rhetorical

studies

in

the

New

Testament

in

Words

Well

Spoken:

George

Kennedy’s

Rhetoric

of

the

New

Testament

(ed.

C.

Clifton

Black

and

Characterizing

Jesus

2

approach

the

New

Testament

from

a

rhetorical

angle,

his

introductory

work

laid

a

clear

methodological

foundation

for

other

scholars

to

follow.

Complementing

previous

studies

on

genres

used

in

the

ancient

world

as

well

as

common

literary

motifs

and

expectations,

Kennedy’s

enumera-

tion

of

ancient

rhetorical

practices

offered

New

Testament

scholars

a

greater

understanding

of

literary

expectations

in

Mediterranean

antiquity.

According

to

Kennedy,

using

what

he

calls

‘classical

rhetoric’

to

study

the

New

Testament

is

necessary

because

of

the

pervasive

influence

of

persuasive

speech

in

the

ancient

world.

He

writes:

What

we

mean

by

classical

rhetorical

theory

is

this

structured

system

which

describes

the

universal

phenomenon

of

rhetoric

in

Greek

terms

.

Before

rheto-

ric

was

conceptualized

the

Greeks

practiced

it

and

learned

it

by

imitation

with

little

conscious

effort.

Though

the

Jews

of

the

pre-Christian

era

seem

never

to

have

conceptualized

rhetoric

to

any

significant

degree,

the

impor-

tance

of

speech

among

them

is

everywhere

evident

in

the

Old

Testament,

and

undoubtedly

they

learned

its

techniques

by

imitation.

In

understanding

how

their

rhetoric

worked

we

have

little

choice

but

to

employ

the

concepts

and

terms

of

the

Greeks

.

6

Kennedy

emphasized

that

approaching

the

New

Testament

in

this

manner

did

not

necessarily

imply

rhetorical

training

on

the

part

of

New

Testament

writers.

Nevertheless,

he

argued

that

these

authors

were

saturated

in

a

Graeco-Roman

culture

and,

as

a

result,

would

have

been

exposed

to

common

rhetorical

practices

in

their

daily

lives.

7

Because

these

authors

were

influenced

by

ancient

rhetoric,

therefore,

scholars

benefit

from

the

knowledge

of

classical

rhetorical

theory,

which

equips

them

to

hear

the

New

Testament

more

like

its

original

audiences

would

have.

The

impact

of

rhetorical

criticism

has

been

most

felt

in

the

realm

of

Pauline

studies,

as

interpreters

approach

the

rhetorical

logic

and

arrangement

of

various

epistles.

8

Although

some

studies

have

been

conducted,

signifi-

cantly

less

attention

has

been

given

to

New

Testament

narratives,

including

the

Gospels.

Noting

the

relative

absence

of

such

studies,

C.

Clifton

Black

has

recently

observed

that

there

is

much

more

to

be

gained

from

rhetorical

approaches

to

the

Gospels.

9

Black

suggests

that

the

real

obstacle

to

rhetorical

Duane

F.

Watson;

Studies

in

Rhetoric

and

Religion

8;

Waco,

TX:

Baylor

University

Press,

2008).

6

Kennedy,

New

Testament

,

p.

11;

emphasis

added.

7

Kennedy,

New

Testament

,

pp.

9–10.

8

Cf.

Hans

Dieter

Betz,

Galatians

(Hermeneia;

Philadelphia,

PA:

Fortress,

1979);

Stanley

Kent

Stowers,

The

Diatribe

and

Paul’s

Letter

to

the

Romans

(Chico,

CA:

Scholars,

1981);

Mark

D.

Nanos,

ed.,

The

Galatians

Debate:

Contemporary

Issues

in

Rhetorical

and

Historical

Interpretation

(Peabody,

MA:

Hendrickson,

2002);

Kennedy,

New

Testament

,

pp.

86–96,

141–56.

9

C.

Clifton

Black,

‘Kennedy

and

the

Gospels:

An

Ambiguous

Legacy,

A

Promising

Bequest’,

in

Words

Well

Spoken:

George

Kennedy’s

Rhetoric

of

the

New

Testament

(ed.

Rhetoric,

Jesus,

and

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

3

4

Characterizing

Jesus

analysis

could

be

the

narrative

nature

of

the

Gospels

themselves.

Indeed,

although

Kennedy

himself

offers

analyses

of

several

discourses

in

the

Gospels

and

observations

on

the

overall

rhetoric

of

the

narratives,

Dennis

L.

Stamps

questions

the

legitimacy

of

such

an

undertaking.

10

For

Stamps,

Kennedy

has

not

provided

enough

proof

to

substantiate

his

claim

that

the

Gospels,

while

narratives,

are

structured

around

oratory.

According

to

Stamps,

therefore,

using

rhetorical

categories

is

questionable

when

approaching

any

of

the

Gospels,

but

it

is

the

most

problematic

for

the

Gospel

of

John

since

‘Kennedy’s

discussion

of

the

rhetoric

of

John’s

gospel

is

the

least

clear

and

least

precise

of

any

of

his

discussions

of

the

four

gospels.’

11

Black,

however,

is

not

as

willing

as

Stamps

to

discount

the

possibility

of

the

evangelist’s

inten-

tional

use

of

rhetoric

in

the

Gospel

of

John,

particularly

in

the

discourses.

Instead,

Black

notes

that

while

there

are

a

number

of

discourses

open

to

rhetorical

analysis

within

the

Fourth

Gospel,

Kennedy’s

method

does

not

provide

a

way

to

understand

the

larger

narrative

structure

in

which

the

discourses

are

embedded.

12

Black’s

observations

explain

why

the

rhetorical

studies

that

do

exist

on

John

often

centre

on

the

rhetoric

of

Jesus’

discourses.

As

Black

notes,

Jesus’

extended

and

elevated

discourses

are

a

hallmark

of

the

Gospel,

distinguishing

it

from

the

Synoptics

whose

Jesus

repeatedly

offers

brief

maxims

and

parables.

13

The

presence

of

these

discourses

provides

scholars

with

the

perfect

starting

place

for

rhetorical

analysis.

Kennedy,

Black,

and

John

Carlson

Stube

have

offered

rhetorical

investigations

of

the

farewell

discourse,

all

three

highlighting

the

epideictic

nature

of

the

discourse

and

its

elevated

style.

14

Other

scholars,

such

as

Andrew

T.

Lincoln

and

Harold

W.

Attridge,

have

used

rhetoric

to

explore

the

juridical

nature

of

many

of

Jesus’

C.

Clifton

Black

and

Duane

F.

Watson;

Studies

in

Rhetoric

and

Religion

8;

Waco,

TX:

Baylor

University

Press,

2008),

pp.

63–80

(68).

10

Dennis

L.

Stamps,

‘The

Johannine

Writings’,

in

Handbook

of

Classical

Rhetoric

in

the

Hellenistic

Period

330

B.C.–A.D.

400

(ed.

Stanley

E.

Porter;

Leiden:

Brill,

1997),

pp.

609–32

(617).

Stamps

cites

Burton

L.

Mack

(

Rhetoric

and

the

New

Testament

[GBS;

Minneapolis:

Fortress,

1990],

p.

88)

in

support

of

his

claim

that

the

Gospel

writer

does

not

use

‘classical

rhetorical

argumentation’.

Mack,

however,

only

suggests

that

the

evangelist

works

against

the

normal

patterns

of

rhetorical

argumentation

to

convince

his

already

sympathetic

audience,

not

that

he

does

not

employ

rhetoric.

Indeed,

by

subverting

classical

argumentation

the

evangelist

illustrates

awareness

of

the

rhetorical

expectations

shared

by

him

and

his

audience.

11

Stamps,

‘Johannine

Writings’,

p.

618.

12

Black,

‘Kennedy

and

the

Gospels’,

p.

71.

13

C.

Clifton

Black,

‘“The

Words

that

You

Gave

Me

I

Have

Given

to

Them”:

The

Grandeur

of

Johannine

Rhetoric’,

in

Exploring

the

Gospel

of

John:

In

Honor

of

D.

Moody

Smith

(ed.

R.

Alan

Culpepper

and

C.

Clifton

Black;

Louisville,

KY:

Westminster

John

Knox,

1996),

pp.

220–39

(220);

see

Kennedy

(New

Testament,

pp.

108–109)

who

also

notes

the

similarity

between

Johannine

rhetoric

and

sublime

style.

14

Kennedy,

New

Testament

,

pp.

73–85;

Black,

‘“Words

that

You

Gave”’,

pp.

220–

39;

John

Carlson

Stube,

A

Graeco-Roman

Rhetorical

Reading

of

the

Farewell

Discourse

(LNTS

309;

London:

T&T

Clark,

2006).

5

Rhetoric,

Jesus,

and

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

speeches.

15

The

foundational

work

of

these

scholars

is

helpful

in

challenging

the

tendency

of

some

to

dismiss

rhetoric

from

the

study

of

the

Fourth

Gospel

and

encouraging

further

analyses

to

be

performed.

One

area

that

merits

this

attention

is

the

narrative

structure

that

Black

points

to

as

being

potentially

troublesome

for

rhetorical

studies

of

the

Gospels.

As

this

study

will

demonstrate,

rhetoric

is

present

in

the

way

in

which

a

narrative

is

constructed;

furthermore,

rhetorical

handbooks

and

progymnasmata

,

along

with

comparative

literature,

offer

a

variety

of

guide-

lines

and

examples

illustrating

this

rhetoric.

For

biographical

narratives,

such

as

the

Fourth

Gospel,

a

key

part

of

this

rhetoric

appears

in

the

ways

in

which

authors

presented

their

subjects.

Using

common

topoi

and

techniques,

ancient

authors

crafted

characters

meant

to

be

persuasive

for

their

audiences,

often

encouraging

either

the

imitation

of

their

protagonist’s

virtues

or

the

avoidance

of

his

vices.

The

Fourth

Gospel

is

no

exception.

It

uses

these

topoi

,

one

of

which

is

Jesus’

speech,

to

create

a

convincing

portrait

of

its

hero.

Moreover,

investigation

into

the

Fourth

Gospel’s

rhetorical

characterization

of

Jesus

also

provides

a

way

to

approach

its

scriptural

appeals.

The

use

of

Scripture,

while

mentioned

in

previous

studies

on

the

rhetoric

of

Jesus’

discourses,

has

not

received

extended

attention

even

though

it

is

a

prominent

feature

of

Jesus’

speeches

and

the

narrative

surrounding

them.

The

present

study

will

begin

to

address

both

of

these

issues

by

using

ancient

rhetoric

to

explore

how

Scripture

functions

in

the

Gospel’s

characterization

of

Jesus.

Before

doing

so,

however,

it

is

necessary

to

discuss

how

such

a

project

fits

into

the

current

state

of

research

on

the

characterization

of

Jesus

and

the

use

of

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel.

b.

The

characterization

of

Jesus

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

Characterization

studies

in

the

New

Testament

have

their

roots

in

nar-

rative

criticism.

A

term

created

by

David

Rhoads,

‘narrative

criticism’

refers

to

the

incorporation

of

modern

literary

critical

methods

to

the

study

of

New

Testament

narratives,

with

a

special

emphasis

on

the

Gospels.

16

Narrative

critics

turned

their

attention

away

from

purely

historical

critical

approaches

that

sought

meaning

in

authorial

intent

15

Andrew

T.

Lincoln,

Truth

on

Trial:

The

Lawsuit

Motif

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

(Peabody,

MA:

Hendrickson,

2000);

Harold

W.

Attridge,

‘Argumentation

in

John

5’,

in

Rhetorical

Argumentation

in

Biblical

Texts:

Essays

from

the

Lund

2000

Conference

(ed.

Anders

Eriksson,

Thomas

H.

Olbricht,

and

Walter

Übelacker;

Emory

Studies

in

Early

Christianity

8;

Harrisburg,

PA:

Trinity

Press

International,

2002),

pp.

188–99;

cf.

Mack,

Rhetoric,

pp.

87–88.

Also

see

the

recent

publication

by

George

L.

Parsenios

(

Rhetoric

and

Drama

in

the

Johannine

Lawsuit

Motif

[WUNT

258;

Tübingen:

Mohr

Siebeck,

2010])

who

also

discusses

the

juridical

emphasis

of

John’s

rhetoric.

Unfortunately,

Parsenios’

work

came

out

too

recently

to

allow

for

in-depth

engagement

in

this

study.

16

Petri

Merenlahti

and

Raimo

Hakola,

‘Reconceiving

Narrative

Criticism’,

in

Characterization

in

the

Gospels:

Reconceiving

Narrative

Criticism

(ed.

David

Rhoads

and

Kari

Syreeni;

London:

T&T

Clark,

1999),

pp.

13–48

(17).

and

compositional

reconstructions

towards

analyses

of

the

final

form

of

New

Testament

narratives.

These

critics

argue

that

in

their

final

form

the

Gospels

are

unified

and

intentional,

and

thus

do

not

need

to

be

atomized

by

redaction

critics

in

order

to

reconstruct

a

hypothetical

world

behind

the

text.

Narrative

critics

claim

that

meaning

derives

from

the

final

form

of

the

text

itself,

which

invites

the

reader

into

its

coherent

story

world.

Although

nuances

to

narrative

criticism

have

emerged

–

particularly

in

the

acknowledgement

of

the

role

of

the

reader

in

constructing

mean-

ing

–

the

basic

tenets

of

narrative

criticism

remain

dominant

in

literary

studies.

In

particular,

the

emphasis

on

unity

and

final

form

continues

to

allow

narrative

critics

to

explore

a

variety

of

narrative

elements,

such

as

narrators,

settings,

narrative

time,

plot,

and

characters.

17

While

Rhoads

focused

his

work

on

the

Gospel

of

Mark,

R.

Alan

Culpepper

introduced

narrative

criticism

to

Johannine

studies

in

his

Anatomy

of

the

Fourth

Gospel

.

Culpepper’s

thoughts

on

characterization,

especially

of

Jesus,

are

the

most

significant

for

this

study.

According

to

Culpepper,

characterization

is

‘the

art

and

techniques

by

which

an

author

fashions

a

convincing

portrait

of

a

person

within

a

more

or

less

unified

piece

of

writing’.

18

He

includes

comments

from

Aristotle

on

characterization,

but

opts

for

contemporary

literary

critical

methods,

arguing

that

they

offer

more

information

on

understanding

‘how

characters

are

shaped

and

how

they

function’

than

does

ancient

rhetoric.

19

Literary

critics

offer

categories

of

characters,

including:

autonomous

beings

vs

plot

functionaries;

flat

vs

round;

static

vs

developing;

and

the

protagonist

vs

intermediate

and

background

characters.

20

With

Jesus

as

the

obvious

protagonist

of

the

Fourth

Gospel,

17

For

more

information

on

narrative

criticism,

see:

Mark

Alan

Powell,

What

is

Narrative

Criticism?

(GBS;

Minneapolis,

MN:

Fortress,

1990);

David

Rhoads,

Joanna

Dewey,

and

Donald

Michie,

Mark

as

Story:

An

Introduction

to

the

Narrative

of

a

Gospel

(2nd

edn;

Minneapolis,

MN:

Fortress,

1999),

esp.

pp.

1–7;

Culpepper,

Anatomy

,

pp.

3–11.

18

Culpepper,

Anatomy

,

p.

105.

19

Culpepper,

Anatomy

,

p.

101.

20

Cornelius

Bennema

has

recently

challenged

the

tendency

for

scholars

to

classify

other

characters

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

with

these

categories,

urging

instead

for

them

to

recognize

that

both

ancient

and

modern

characters

have

individuality

and

personality

(‘A

Theory

of

Character

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

with

Reference

to

Ancient

and

Modern

Literature’,

BibInt

17

[2009]:

pp.

375–421;

idem,

Encountering

Jesus:

Character

Studies

in

the

Gospel

of

John

[Colorado

Springs,

CO:

Paternoster,

2009]).

He

suggests

that

while

a

character’s

action

(i.e.

response

to

Jesus

in

John)

is

‘typical’,

the

character

herself

is

not

necessarily

so.

Bennema’s

extensive

work

on

developing

a

theory

of

character

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

is

commendable,

as

is

his

desire

to

incorporate

knowledge

gained

from

con-

sulting

ancient

literature.

Nevertheless,

Bennema

does

not

discuss

characterization

tech-

niques

and

topoi

from

Graeco-Roman

rhetoric,

but

rather

relies

on

categories

provided

by

contemporary

literary

criticism.

While

these

categories

have

correspondences

to

some

topoi

,

they

overlook

others

as

well

as

ancient

systems

of

classification.

For

example,

in

light

of

rhetorical

practices

of

characterization

laid

out

in

rhetorical

handbooks,

progym-

nasmata

,

and

ancient

literature

one

must

be

careful

not

to

divorce

action

and

speech

from

Characterizing

Jesus

6

Culpepper

argues

that

he

alone

has

the

potential

to

be

an

autonomous

being,

but

that

he

nevertheless

remains

flat

and

static

throughout

the

narrative

even

as

others

change

as

a

result

of

their

interaction

with

him.

Moreover,

Jesus’

character

is

revealed

fully

by

the

evangelist

in

the

course

of

his

narrative,

more

fully

than

could

be

known

by

those

who

encountered

his

historical

person.

According

to

Culpepper,

by

carefully

crafting

his

descriptions

of

Jesus,

the

words

and

actions

of

Jesus,

and

the

reactions

he

engenders,

the

narrator

aims

to

offer

his

readers

a

‘convincing’

portrait.

21

With

these

parameters

in

place,

Culpepper

offers

a

brief

description

of

Jesus’

character

in

the

Fourth

Gospel.

He

observes

that

Jesus

is

in

some

shape

or

form

present

throughout

time

–

both

prior

to

the

narrative

and

after

its

conclusion

–

stressing

his

omnipresence.

He

also

underscores

the

importance

of

Jesus’

unity

with

the

Father

that

undergirds

Jesus’

comments

and

actions,

even

as

they

are

misunderstood

by

those

around

him.

For

Culpepper,

Jesus’

unity

with

the

Father

explains

his

rather

otherworldliness

in

the

Gospel,

his

lack

of

emotion,

and

rejection

by

others

even

as

it

stresses

his

divinity.

In

all

this,

Culpepper

emphasizes

the

importance

of

the

narrative

introduction

of

Jesus

in

the

Gospel’s

prologue,

setting

up

the

reader

so

that

they

can

‘see

that

all

Jesus

does

and

says

points

to

his

identity

as

the

divine

logos

’.

22

Culpepper’s

approach

towards

characterization

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

has

been

echoed

by

subsequent

Johannine

scholars.

23

Noticeably

absent

in

this

approach

towards

characterization

and

its

emphasis

on

contemporary

literary

methods,

however,

is

an

examination

into

the

role

of

Scripture

and

the

insight

ancient

rhetorical

practices

can

provide.

Turning

to

the

former

issue

first,

Judith

Lieu

has

also

noted

the

lack

of

attention

among

scholars

one’s

character

too

sharply

(cf.

Quint.,

Inst

.

11.1.30;

Plut.,

Alex

.

1.2).

As

the

next

chapter

will

demonstrate,

while

a

character

may

exhibit

personality

traits

as

an

individual,

they

behave

in

a

consistent

manner

that

reflects

their

primary

traits

(i.e.

‘ruling

passion’,

Rhet

.

Her

.

4.51.65).

It

is

these

typical

traits

that

pave

the

way

for

the

ancients

to

use

characters

from

history

and

legend

as

‘types’

and

ethical

examples

for

their

own

audiences

to

emulate

or

avoid

even

if

they

can

also

acknowledge

the

individual

personalities

of

certain

historical

and

legendary

figures.

21

Culpepper

concludes

that

‘the

writer’s

basic

means

of

characterization

are

few

but

highly

supple.

Characters

are

fashioned

by

what

the

narrator

says

about

them,

particularly

when

introducing

them,

what

they

say,

what

they

do,

and

how

other

characters

react

to

them’

(

Anatomy

,

p.

106).

22

Culpepper,

Anatomy

,

p.

107.

23

Cf.

Jeffrey

Lloyd

Staley,

The

Print’s

First

Kiss:

A

Rhetorical

Investigation

of

the

Implied

Reader

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

(SBLDS

82;

Atlanta,

GA:

SBL,

1988),

pp.

47–48;

Norman

R.

Petersen,

The

Gospel

of

John

and

the

Sociology

of

Light:

Language

and

Characterization

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

(Valley

Forge,

PA:

Trinity

Press

International,

1993);

Mark

W.

G.

Stibbe,

John

as

Storyteller:

Narrative

Criticism

and

the

Fourth

Gospel

(Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

Press,

1992);

idem,

John’s

Gospel

(New

Testament

Readings;

London:

Routledge,

1994),

pp.

5–31;

Colleen

M.

Conway,

Men

and

Women

in

the

Fourth

Gospel:

Gender

and

Johannine

Characterization

(SBLDS

167;

Atlanta,

GA:

Scholars,

1999).

Rhetoric,

Jesus,

and

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

7

to

how

Scripture

is

used

by

figures

in

the

Fourth

Gospel.

24

She

offers

a

preliminary

analysis,

briefly

exploring

how

the

narrator,

Jesus,

and

his

opponents

incorporate

Scripture

in

the

Gospel

to

encourage

further

study.

Unlike

the

Synoptics,

Lieu

finds

that

John

is

much

more

subtle

in

its

appeals

to

Scripture,

choosing

to

create

a

consistent

backdrop

for

the

narrative

rather

than

creating

a

pervasive

pattern

of

fulfilment.

Looking

at

Jesus

specifically,

Lieu

highlights

how

Scripture

reinforces

Jesus’

omniscience

and

provides

a

context

discernible

to

the

narrator

and

the

Gospel

audience

rather

than

to

those

Jesus

meets

during

his

ministry.

Instead

of

pressing

the

fulfilment

of

specific

and

repeated

Scripture

passages

in

Jesus’

individual

actions,

the

narrator

encourages

his

audience

to

‘trust’

in

Jesus

and

only

then

to

discover

how

his

life

intertwines

with

the

scriptural

narrative

they

know.

25

The

promising

findings

of

Lieu’s

initial

investigation

illustrate

that

there

is

much

more

to

learn

concerning

how

Scripture

is

used

by

characters

in

the

Fourth

Gospel.

Specifically,

her

work

can

be

aided

by

rhetorical

analyses

into

how

intertexts

were

used

in

the

ancient

world

and

especially

how

they

were

employed

in

the

process

of

creating

persuasive

characters.

This

aspect

returns

to

the

latter

observation

on

what

is

missing

from

predominant

characterization

studies

in

John

noted

previously:

no

attention

is

given

to

ancient

rhetorical

practices

of

characterization.

In

spite

of

Culpepper’s

conclusion

to

the

contrary,

rhetorical

handbooks

and

progymnasmata

do

contain

a

great

deal

of

information

on

ways

in

which

ancient

authors

and

orators

constructed

characters

in

a

variety

of

genres.

As

mentioned

above,

these

ancient

resources

offer

lists

of

standard

topoi

to

be

included

concerning

a

character,

along

with

several

common

rhetorical

techniques

used

to

illus-

trate

them.

Rather

than

forcing

modern

categories

back

on

ancient

readers,

the

guidelines

laid

out

in

the

handbooks

and

progymnasmata

offer

insight

into

how

ancient

audiences

expected

to

encounter

characters

in

literature

and,

therefore,

into

the

rhetorical

effects

of

characterization.

A

few

New

Testament

scholars

have

now

begun

to

realize

the

values

of

topoi

lists

in

reading

the

Gospels

since,

like

other

ancient

bioi

,

the

Gospels

utilize

common

topoi

in

their

characterizations

of

Jesus.

26

In

a

recent

analysis

of

the

Fourth

Gospel,

Jerome

H.

Neyrey

argues

that

the

evangelist

displays

awareness

of

standard

encomiastic

topoi

including

origins,

education,

deeds

of

the

soul,

noble

death,

and

comparison

in

its

portrait

of

Jesus.

27

According

to

Neyrey,

the

evangelist

incorporates

these

topoi

to

create

two

contrasting

pictures

of

Jesus

–

a

negative

portrait

made

by

the

‘outsiders’

who

reject

24

Judith

Lieu,

‘Narrative

Analysis

and

Scripture

in

John’,

in

The

Old

Testament

in

the

New

Testament:

Essays

in

Honor

of

J.

L.

North

(ed.

Steve

Moyise;

JSNTSup

189;

Sheffield:

Sheffield

Academic,

2000),

pp.

144–63.

25

Lieu,

‘Narrative

Analysis’,

pp.

161–62.

26

Michael

W.

Martin,

‘Progymnastic

Topic

Lists:

A

Compositional

Template

for

Luke

and

Other

Bioi?’,

NTS

54

(2008),

pp.

18–41.

27

Jerome

H.

Neyrey,

‘Encomium

versus

Vituperation:

Contrasting

Portraits

of

Jesus

in

the

Fourth

Gospel’,

JBL

126

(2007),

pp.

529–52.

Characterizing

Jesus

8

Jesus,

and

a

positive

portrait

made

by

the

‘insiders’

who

agree

with

the

evangelist

on

Jesus’

true

identity.

Neyrey’s

analysis,

while

brief,

provides

an

excellent

starting

point

for

the

more

detailed

study

performed

in

this

monograph.

In

the

course

of

this

study,

Neyrey’s

topoi

list

will

be

nuanced

to

reflect

more

closely

the

lists

offered

in

the

handbooks

and

progymnasmata

,

and

additional

topoi

used

by

the

evangelist

will

be

included.

Also,

instead

of

positing

two

conflicting

portraits

of

Jesus,

this

study

will

highlight

the

contrast

made

between

the

Gospel

audience

who

is

temporally

removed

from

the

narrative,

and

the

characters

in

the

text

that

interact

with

Jesus

face

to

face.

Finally,

while

Neyrey

mentions

the

role

of

Scripture

in

the

heading

of

‘comparison’,

this

study

will

demonstrate

that

the

rhetoric

of

Scripture

is

much

more

pervasive

and

should

not

be

limited

to

just

one

topos

.

The

previous

work

of

these

scholars

leaves

a

niche

for

the

present

project.

Building

on

the

work

of

narrative

critics,

this

study

emphasizes

the

final

form

of

the

Gospel

in

order

to

discuss

Jesus’

characterization.

Instead

of

investigating

the

entirety

of

Jesus’

characterization,

however,

this

study

will

continue

the

path

of

Lieu’s

investigation

by

focusing

on

how

Scripture

contributes

to

the

Fourth

Gospel’s

portrayal

of

Jesus.

As

a

result,

analysis

of

the

Gospel

will

be

limited

to

passages

containing

explicit

citations

and

otherwise

clear

incorporation

of

Scripture,

such

as

references

to

specific

figures

from

scriptural

traditions.

Moreover,

rather

than

employing

modern

categories

for

characterization

as

Culpepper

and

others

suggest,

this

project

will

continue

in

the

direction

of

Neyrey’s

analysis

by

consulting

rhetorical

handbooks

and

progymnasmata

.

It

will

demonstrate

in

further

detail

the

extensive

use

of

topoi

by

the

evangelist

in

his

characterization

of

Jesus,

adding

more

categories

to

Neyrey’s

earlier

work.

In

addition,

it

will

highlight

the

rhetorical

techniques

used

to

illustrate

the

topoi

employed,

synkrisis

,

ekphrasis

,

and

prosopopoiia

receiving

the

most

attention.

Consulting

ancient

rhetorical

practices

to

understand

how

Scripture

functions

in

the

Fourth

Gospel’s

characterization

of

Jesus

not

only

offers

a

new

way

forward

into

the

study

of

the

Gospel

of

John,

but

as

the

next

section

will

demonstrate,

such

an

approach

also

opens

up

new

avenues

of

research

for

the

use

of

Scripture

in

the

rest

of

the

New

Testament.

c.

The

use

of

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

Research

into

the

Fourth

Gospel’s

use

of

Scripture

largely

focuses

on

the

evangelist’s

quotation

and

theological

manipulation

of

texts

and

tradi-

tions.

More

specifically,

however,

scholars

have

employed

three

basic,

and

overlapping,

lenses

through

which

to

view

the

use

of

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

and

the

New

Testament

in

general.

These

three

include:

(1)

the

lens

of

Jewish

exegetical

techniques

or

methods

of

interpreta-

tion;

(2)

the

lens

of

modern

literary

criticism,

especially

through

Julia

Kristeva’s

concept

of

‘intertextuality’;

and

(3)

the

lens

of

Graeco-Roman

rhetoric,

although

this

final

category

has

been

almost

exclusively

limited

to

the

study

of

the

Pauline

epistles.

Rhetoric,

Jesus,

and

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

9

The

majority

of

research

on

the

use

of

Israel’s

Scriptures

in

the

New

Testament

examines

correspondences

between

the

practices

of

the

early

Jesus

followers

and

the

techniques

of

Jewish

exegetes.

The

strength

of

such

an

approach

is

its

acknowledgement

of

the

fact

that

these

early

believers

were

Jewish,

and

as

such,

encountered

Scripture

in

the

multi-faceted

Jewish

environs

of

their

milieu.

In

a

manner

similar

to

other

authors

from

Middle

Judaism,

New

Testament

authors

appeal

to

the

authority

of

Israel’s

Scriptures

in

order

to

bolster

their

rhetoric.

Thus,

even

noting

the

consistent

employment

of

Scripture

alone

reveals

the

indebtedness

of

New

Testament

authors

to

developing

Jewish

traditions

and

warrants

exploration

into

connections

between

contemporaneous

Jewish

practices

and

the

New

Testament

writings.

As

a

result,

scholars

have

compared

New

Testament

citations

of

Scripture

to

the

documents

discovered

at

Qumran

and

later

rabbinic

works.

Focusing

on

the

practice

of

pesher

at

Qumran,

Daniel

Patte

suggests

that

New

Testament

authors

display

similar

emphases

on

eschatology

and

specific

fulfilment

of

Scripture

passages.

28

For

this

reason,

Patte

suggests

that

rather

than

looking

for

one

particular

method

of

scriptural

incorporation

in

the

New

Testament,

scholars

should

see

pesher

as

exemplifying

the

general

typological

mindset

of

Second

Temple

Judaism.

This

fact,

for

example,

can

act

as

one

avenue

to

understanding

occasional

tendencies

towards

proof-texting

among

New

Testament

authors

by

providing

a

precedent

among

Jewish

interpretive

techniques

for

scriptural

appeals

that

might

otherwise

appear

unwarranted.

Patte’s

attention

to

pesher

is

echoed

in

the

work

of

other

scholars,

including

Martin

Hengel,

Donald

Juel,

and

Richard

Longenecker.

29

Yet,

many

of

these

scholars

also

leave

room

for

connections

28

Daniel

Patte,

Early

Jewish

Hermeneutic

in

Palestine

(SBLDS

22;

Missoula,

MT:

Scholars

Press,

1975),

pp.

161–67,

321–23.

See

also

the

earlier

work

of

Barnabas

Lindars

(

New

Testament

Apologetic:

The

Doctrinal

Significance

of

the

Old

Testament

Quotations

[London:

SCM

Press,

1961])

who

associates

C.

H.

Dodd’s

famous

work

on

testimonia

with

practices

at

Qumran,

specifically

pesher

,

which

he

ties

closely

to

Johannine

uses

of

Scripture

(pp.

15–16).

Such

interpretations

fit

well

with

Leonhard

Goppelt’s

earlier

emphasis

on

the

eschatological

element

in

Jewish

typological

interpretation

(

Typos:

The

Typological

Interpretation

of

the

Old

Testament

in

the

New

[trans.

Donald

H.

Madvig;

Grand

Rapids,

MI:

Eerdmans,

1982],

pp.

32–41,

56–58).

29

Martin

Hengel,

‘The

Old

Testament

in

the

Fourth

Gospel’,

in

The

Gospels

and

the

Scriptures

of

Israel

(ed.

Craig

A.

Evans

and

W.

Richard

Stegner;

JSNTSup

104;

SSEJC

3;

Sheffield:

Sheffield

Academic,

1994),

pp.

380–95;

Donald

Juel,

Messianic

Exegesis:

Christological

Interpretation

of

the

Old

Testament

in

Early

Christianity

(Philadelphia,

PA:

Fortress,

1992),

pp.

49–57;

Richard

N.

Longenecker,

Biblical

Exegesis

in

the

Apostolic

Period

(2nd

edn;

Grand

Rapids,

MI:

Eerdmans,

1999),

pp.

xxvii,

80–87,

191–92;

E.

Earle

Ellis,

Old

Testament

in

Early

Christianity:

Canon

and

Interpretation

in

the

Light

of

Modern

Research

(Grand

Rapids,

MI:

Baker,

1992),

p.

77;

Craig

A.

Evans,

‘From

Prophecy

to

Testament:

An

Introduction’,

in

From

Prophecy

to

Testament:

The

Function

of

the

Old

Testament

in

the

New

(ed.

Craig

A.

Evans;

Peabody,

MA:

Hendrickson,

2004),

pp.

1–22;

James

L.

Kugel

and

Rowan

A.

Greer,

Early

Biblical

Interpretation

(Library

of

Early

Christianity;

Philadelphia,

PA:

Westminster

Press,

1986),

pp.

127–28;

Lawrence

Characterizing

Jesus

10

between

New

Testament

uses

of

Scripture

and

additional

rabbinic

methods.

Chief

among

such

studies

in

Johannine

spheres

is

the

work

of

Peder

Borgen,

who

first

proposed

a

detailed

analysis

of

John

6

in

light

of

Philo

and

synagogue

midrash

practices

in

1965.

30

Borgen’s

work

yielded

surprising

correspondences

in

John’s

careful

incorporation

and

expansion

of

Pentateuchal

and

Prophetic

traditions

in

John

6

and

the

works

of

Philo

and

other

midrashim

.

As

a

result,

Borgen’s

conclusions

fuelled

those

proposing

a

primarily

Jewish,

rather

than

Hellenistic,

background

for

the

Gospel.

Moreover,

Borgen’s

findings

encouraged

subsequent

analyses

into

the

relationship

between

the

New

Testament

and

more

technical

Jewish

practices,

including

the

rabbinic

middoth

.

31

Subsequent

scholarship

uncovered

traces

of

these

middoth

,

such

as

gezera

shewa

and

qal-walhomer

,

in

the

way

various

passages

in

the

Pauline

epistles

and

Gospels

appeal

to

Scripture.

32

Convinced

by

these

studies,

many

Johannine

scholars

largely

assume

the

reliance

of

the

Gospel

writer

on

Jewish

exegetical

practices

alone,

even

if

they

allow

room

for

christological

emphases

and

expansion.

A.

T.

Hanson

is

representative

of

this

group

when

he

writes,

‘Obviously

John

is

well

acquainted

with

the

methods

of

Jewish

exegesis

of

Scripture

and

uses

them

himself.

But

this

is

hardly

surprising.

After

all,

New

Testament

writers

had

no

other

starting

place

when

they

set

out

on

the

enterprise

of

reinter-

preting

Scripture

in

a

christocentric

sense.’

33

While

portions

of

Hanson’s

above

comment

might

be

true,

questions

arise

over

just

exactly

how

far

this

methodology

alone

can

take

scholars

Schiffman,

‘Biblical

Exegesis

in

the

Passion

Narratives

and

the

Dead

Sea

Scrolls’,

in

Biblical

Interpretation

in

Judaism

and

Christianity

(ed.

Isaac

Kalimi

and

Peter

J.

Haas;

LHBOTS

439;

London:

T&T

Clark,

2006),

pp.

117–31.

30

Peder

Borgen,

Bread

from

Heaven:

An

Exegetical

Study

of

the

Concept

of

Manna

in

the

Gospel

of

John

and

the

Writings

of

Philo

(NovTSup10;

Leiden,

Brill:

1965);

see

also

idem,

‘John

6:

Tradition,

Interpretation

and

Composition’,

in

Critical

Readings

of

John

6

(ed.

R.

Alan

Culpepper;

BIS

22;

Leiden:

Brill,

1997),

pp.

95–114;

idem,

‘The

Scriptures

and

the

Words

and

Works

of

Jesus’,

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),

pp.

39–58.

31

For

a

list

of

the

middoth

and

history

on

their

usage,

see

David

Instone-Brewer,

Techniques

and

Assumptions

in

Jewish

Exegesis

before

70

C.E.

(TSAJ

30;

Tübingen:

Mohr

Siebeck,

1992).

32

Examples

of

such

studies

include:

Frédéric

Manns,

‘Exégèse

Rabbanique

et

Exégèse

Johannique’,

RevBib

92

(1985),

pp.

525–38;

Ellis,

Old

Testament

in

Early

Christianity;

Timothy

H.

Lim,

Holy

Scripture

in

the

Qumran

Commentaries

and

Pauline

Letters

(Oxford:

Clarendon,

1997);

Mogens

Müller,

‘The

New

Testament

Reception

of

the

Old

Testament’,

in

The

New

Testament

as

Reception

(ed.

Mogens

Müller

and

Henrik

Tronier;

JSNTSup

230;

Copenhagen

International

Seminar

11;

Sheffield:

Sheffield

Academic,

2002),

pp.

1–14;

Reimund

Bieringer

et

al.,

eds,

The

New

Testament

and

Rabbinic

Literature

(JSJSup

136;

Leiden:

Brill,

2010).

33

A.

T.

Hanson,

‘John’s

Use

of

Scripture’,

in

The

Gospels

and

the

Scriptures

of

Israel

(ed.

Craig

A.

Evans

and

W.

Richard

Stegner;

JSNTSup

104;

SSEJC

3;

Sheffield:

Sheffield

Academic,

1994),

p.

360;

emphasis

added.

Rhetoric,

Jesus,

and

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

11

when

definitions

of

midrash

and

debates

over

the

use

of

the

middoth

in

the

first

centuries

of

the

common

era

remain

unsettled.

Indeed,

that

‘John’

had

‘no

other

starting

point’

than

Jewish

techniques

for

his

exegesis

is

a

limited

observation

so

long

as

scholars

are

unclear

as

to

what

exactly

‘Jewish’

techniques

are

and

how

they

fit

in

the

larger

Graeco-Roman

environment.

Highlighting

the

potential

imprecision

of

terms

such

as

‘

midrash

’

and

‘typology’,

as

well

as

the

dichotomy

between

Jewish

and

Graeco-Roman

interpretation

that

these

terms

can

imply,

Richard

B.

Hays

suggests

turning

again

to

contemporary

literary

criticism

as

an

avenue

for

more

in-depth

analysis

of

the

use

of

Scripture

in

the

New

Testament.

34

In

addition

to

calling

for

a

more

nuanced

usage

of

midrash

and

typology,

Hays

uses

Julia

Kristeva’s

theory

of

‘intertextuality’

35

along

with

the

work

of

John

Hollander

to

provide

scholars

with

a

new

sensi-

bility

with

which

to

study

Scripture

in

the

New

Testament.

Summarizing

Kristeva’s

term,

Stefan

Alkier

explains

‘intertextuality’

as

the

recognition

that

‘every

text

is

written

and

read

in

relation

to

that

which

is

already

written

and

read’.

36

In

other

words,

no

text

exists

in

a

vacuum;

instead,

a

text

is

only

understood

in

the

context

in

which

it

was

written

and

in

which

it

is

read.

As

a

result,

intertextual

approaches

are

consist-

ently

reader-oriented

and

polyvalent.

For,

while

an

author

may

include

intentional

quotations

and

allusions

to

various

intertexts,

she

may

have

inserted

many

unintentional

connections

as

well

that

are

only

discovered

by

different

readers.

In

the

end,

therefore,

it

is

not

the

author

who

controls

which

intertexts

are

deciphered,

or

even

necessarily

the

text

itself

which

contains

the

additional

intertexts,

but

rather

the

individual

reader

who

interacts

with

and

hears

the

correspondences

between

texts.

The

theory

of

intertextuality

has

potential

for

New

Testament

scholars

because

like

other

literary

critical

approaches,

it

offers

another

option

than

purely

historical

critical

approaches.

While

intertextual

studies

are

interested

in

the

historical

context

and

are

aided

by

understanding

the

Jewish

exegetical

practices

of

the

ancient

world,

they

need

not

rely

solely

on

techniques

to

suggest

that

implied

authors

and

readers

would

be

well-versed

enough

with

Scripture

in

order

to

decipher

a

variety

of

quotations,

allusions,

and

echoes.

Nevertheless,

Hays

acknowledges

the

inherent

problem

of

too

much

subjectivity

in

this

reader-oriented

approach

and

responds

by

placing

parameters

on

the

viability

of

echoes.

These

parameters

take

the

form

of

seven

‘tests’,

which

include:

the

availability

of

the

intertext;

its

volume;

recurrence;

thematic

coherence;

the

historical

plausibility

of

the

interpre-

tation;

its

connection

to

the

history

of

interpretation;

and

the

satisfaction

34

Hays,

Echoes

,

pp.

11–14.

35

Cf.

Julia

Kristeva,

‘Word,

Dialogue,

and

Novel’,

in

The

Kristeva

Reader

(ed.

Toril

Moi;

New

York:

Columbia

University

Press,

1986),

pp.

34–61,

esp.

35–37.

36

Stefan

Alkier,

‘Intertextuality

and

the

Semiotics

of

Biblical

Texts’,

in

Reading

the

Bible

Intertextually

(ed.

Richard

B.

Hays,

Stefan

Alkier,

and

Leroy

A.

Huizenga;

Waco,

TX:

Baylor

University

Press,

2008),

pp.

3–22

(4).

Characterizing

Jesus

12

rendered

by

the

interpretation.

37

Even

with

these

guidelines,

however,

Hays

admits

that

intertextual

readings

only

offer

‘shades

of

certainty’,

giving

surety

for

interpretations

that

score

high,

but

being

unable

to

account

for

other

readings

that

appear

quite

probable

in

spite

of

the

fact

that

they

score

very

low.

38

Following

Hays’

guidelines,

or

at

least

the

general

idea

of

intertextu-

ality,

scholars

highlight

the

impact

that

even

latent

echoes

can

have

on

one’s

reading

rather

than

just

focusing

on

explicit

citations.

The

bulk

of

research

remains

geared

towards

discovering

the

impact

intertextual

links

have

on

particular

passages

and

works,

along

with

hypotheses

concerning

the

use

of

Scripture

by

various

authors,

including

the

Fourth

Evangelist.

39

In

spite

of

the

numerous

gains

made

by

the

theory

of

intertextuality,

however,

this

approach

also

has

limitations

in

practice.

The

criticism

most

often

levelled

is

that

intertextuality,

like

midrash

and

typology

before

it,

can

be

vague

and

imprecise.

40

Even

with

Hays’

seven

tests

or

additional

proposed

categories

for

intertextual

interpretations,

questions

remain

concerning

exactly

when

a

reading

becomes

too

complex

or

ideologically

motivated.

41

Moreover,

so

much

attention

is

given

to

the

possibility

of

various

intertextual

echoes

through

close

textual

comparisons

that

additional

narrative

and

rhetorical

aspects

of

the

allusions

are

often

ignored.

Instead,

intertextual

readings

have

successfully

alerted

scholars

to

the

pervasiveness

of

intertextual

links,

leaving

room

for

others

to

investigate

possible

rhetorical

functions

of

scriptural

appeals

and

the

role

of

Scripture

in

characterization.

37

Hays,

Echoes

,

pp.

29–32.

38

Hays,

Echoes

,

pp.

32–33.

39

See,

for

example,

Steve

Moyise

and

Maarten

J.

J.

Menken,

eds,

Isaiah

in

the

New

Testament

(New

Testament

and

the

Scriptures

of

Israel;

London:

T&T

Clark,

2005);

Hays,

Conversion

;

Hays,

Alkier,

and

Huizenga,

Reading

the

Bible

Intertextually

;

J.

Ross

Wagner,

C.

Kavin

Rowe,

and

A.

Katherine

Grieb,

eds,

The

Word

Leaps

the

Gap:

Essays

on

Scripture

and

Theology

in

Honor

of

Richard

B.

Hays

(Grand

Rapids,

MI:

Eerdmans,

2008);

Diana

M.

Swancutt,

‘Hungers

Assuaged

by

the

Bread

from

Heaven:

“Eating

Jesus”

as

Isaian

Call

to

Belief:

The

Confluence

of

Isaiah

55

and

Psalm

78(77)

in

John

6.22–71’,

in

Early

Christian

Interpretation

of

the

Scriptures

of

Israel

(ed.

Craig

A.

Evans

and

James

A.

Sanders;

JSNTSup

148;

SSEJC

5;

Sheffield:

Sheffield

Academic,

1997),

pp.

218–51;

Steve

Moyise,

Evoking

Scripture:

Seeing

the

Old

Testament

in

the

New

(London:

T&T

Clark,

2008).

40

Cf.

Stanley

E.

Porter,

‘The

Use

of

the

Old

Testament

in

the

New

Testament:

A

Brief

Comment

on

Method

and

Terminology’,

in

Early

Christian

Interpretation

of

the

Scriptures

of

Israel

(ed.

Craig

A.

Evans

and

James

A.

Sanders;

JSNTSup

148;

SSEJC

5;

Sheffield:

Sheffield

Academic,

1997),

pp.

70–96

(80–88).

41

Steven

Moyise

suggests

three

categories

under

the

‘umbrella’

term

of

‘intertextual-

ity’:

(1)

intertextual

echo;

(2)

dialogic

intertextuality;

and

(3)

postmodern

intertextuality

(‘Intertextuality

and

the

Study

of

the

Old

Testament

in

the

New

Testament’,

in

The

Old

Testament

in

the

New

Testament:

Essays

in

Honor

of

J.

L.

Noth

[ed.

Steve

Moyise;

JSNTSup

189;

Sheffield:

Sheffield

Academic,

2000],

pp.

14–41).

Stefan

Alkier

offers

the

categories

of

production-oriented,

reception-oriented,

and

experimental

perspectives

(‘Intertextuality’,

pp.

9–11).

Rhetoric,

Jesus,

and

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

13

Graeco-Roman

rhetoric

can

build

on

both

approaches

mentioned

above

by

highlighting

additional

methods

of

interpretation

from

Mediterranean

antiquity

and

shedding

light

on

Scripture’s

narrative

and

rhetorical

functions.

In

a

manner

similar

to

the

study

of

Jewish

exegetical

practices,

Graeco-Roman

rhetoric

offers

insight

into

basic

expectations

governing

both

authors

and

audiences

in

the

ancient

world.

Yet,

aside

from

Christopher

Stanley’s

examination

of

quotation

practices

in

the

letters

of

Paul,

the

function

of

rhetoric

in

the

use

of

intertexts

remains

an

area

largely

untouched

by

New

Testament

scholars.

42

Stanley’s

work

provides

a

way

to

begin

looking

at

Graeco-Roman

rhetoric

and

the

use

of

Scripture

in

the

New

Testament

because

he

recognizes

the

need

to

examine

the

rhetorical

effects

that

quotations

in

particular

have

on

audiences.

He

does

not

use

rhetorical

handbooks

exhaustively,

nor

does

he

employ

the

progymnasmata

to

aid

in

his

discussion.

Indeed,

in

spite

of

his

rhetorical

emphasis,

Stanley

repeats

the

general

consensus

that

the

ancient

handbooks,

like

modern

works

on

rhetorical

theory,

have

little

to

say

concerning

quotations.

43

Nevertheless,

other

scholars

have

acknowledged

the

potential

that

Graeco-Roman

rhetorical

techniques

have

for

the

study

of

Scripture

in

the

New

Testament.

Noting

the

overriding

focus

on

Jewish

exegetical

practices

in

this

field,

and

in

spite

of

his

reservations

concerning

rhetorical

studies

of

the

Gospels,

Stamps

urges

scholars

to

move

towards

an

appre-

ciation

of

Graeco-Roman

techniques.

In

his

brief

survey,

Stamps

notes

the

prevalence

of

incorporating

authoritative

traditions

for

persuasion

in

the

works

of

Aristotle,

Quintilian,

and

Cicero.

44

Taking

into

consideration

Martin

Hengel’s

work

on

the

connections

between

Judaism

and

Hellenism,

Stamps

writes

that

it

is

‘arguable

that

rhetoric

was

a

“universal”

influence

upon

communication

conventions

in

the

Greco-Roman

world,

including

Palestine’.

45

Already

in

1949

David

Daube

noted

similarities

between

Hillel’s

middoth

and

Graeco-Roman

rhetorical

practices.

46

Daube’s

own

observations

were

later

supported

by

Saul

Liebermann,

who

suggested

42

Christopher

D.

Stanley,

Arguing

with

Scripture

;

idem,

Paul

and

the

Language

of

Scripture:

Citation

Technique

in

the

Pauline

Epistles

and

Contemporary

Literature

(SNTSMS

69;

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

Press,

1992).

43

Stanley

points

to

the

discussion

of

‘ancient

witness’

and

maxims

in

Aristotle

and

Quintilian,

but

concludes:

‘This

is

as

far

as

the

ancient

sources

take

us’

(‘The

Rhetoric

of

Quotations:

An

Essay

on

Method’,

in

Early

Christian

Interpretation

of

the

Scriptures

of

Israel:

Investigations

and

Proposals

[ed.

Craig

A.

Evans

and

James

A.

Sanders;

JSNTSup

148;

SSEJC

5;

Sheffield:

Sheffield

Academic,

1994],

pp.

44–58

[45

n.

1]).

Cf.

Stanley,

Arguing

with

Scripture

,

12;

Alkier,

‘Intertextuality’,

pp.

9–10.

44

Dennis

L.

Stamps,

‘Use

of

the

Old

Testament

in

the

New

Testament

as

a

Rhetorical

Device:

A

Methodological

Proposal’,

in

Hearing

the

Old

Testament

in

the

New

Testament

(ed.

Stanley

E.

Porter;

Grand

Rapids,

MI:

Eerdmans,

2006),

pp.

26–33.

45

Stamps,

‘Use

of

the

Old

Testament’,

p.

25.

46

David

Daube,

‘Rabbinic

Methods

of

Interpretation

and

Hellenistic

Rhetoric’,

HUCA

22

(1949),

pp.

239–64

(251,

259).

Characterizing

Jesus

14

that

the

rules

of

gezera

shewa

and

qal-walhomer

in

particular

should

be

recognized

as

synkrisis

augmented

to

fit

a

Jewish

milieu.

47

While

Daube

and

Liebermann’s

conclusions

were

sought

under

the

umbrella

of

Religionsgeschichte

,

their

insightful

findings

remain

significant

for

those

using

more

literary

approaches.

In

fact,

other

scholars

who

emphasize

the

importance

of

Jewish

exegetical

techniques

in

the

study

of

the

use

of

Scripture

in

the

New

Testament

have

also

noted

their

relationship

to

the

larger

Graeco-Roman

world.

Donald

Juel,

for

example,

comments

that

although

scholars

must

recognize

that

New

Testament

authors

practised

‘Jewish

scriptural

interpretation’,

they

also

need

to

realize

that

these

authors

did

so

‘as

practiced,

of

course,

in

the

Hellenized

world’.

48

Thus,

the

connections

between

specific

Jewish

techniques

and

their

Graeco-Roman

rhetorical

counterparts,

especially

with

gezera

shewa

and

qal-walhomer

,

should

be

acknowledged.

49

Pushing

the

discussion

farther

than

Juel,

Philip

Alexander

concludes

that

‘the

real

analogies

to

the

middot

are

to

be

found

in

the

rhetorical

handbooks’

since

‘the

way

in

which

the

Rabbis

develop

their

arguments

is

not

fundamentally

alien

to

the

Graeco-Roman

world

in

which

they

lived’.

50

Although

addressing

a

time

after

the

composition

of

the

Fourth

Gospel,

Alexander’s

comments

are

still

relevant

because

they

are

in

service

of

his

overall

argument

that

Jewish

hermeneutics

are

a

part

of

the

larger

Graeco-Roman

world.

In

other

words,

because

Jewish

writers

and

interpreters

functioned

in

a

Graeco-Roman

environment,

they

were

neces-

sarily

affected

by

the

practices

of

this

environment,

including

its

rhetorical

conventions.

Thus,

learning

more

about

Graeco-Roman

rhetoric

can

not

only

help

us

in

understanding

more

about

Jewish

interpretation

practices

in

general,

but

also

provide

insight

into

their

rhetorical

goals

and

possible

effects

on

their

audiences.

47

Saul

Liebermann,

Hellenism

in

Jewish

Palestine:

Studies

in

the

Literary

Transmission,

Beliefs

and

Manners

of

Palestine

in

the

I

Century

B.C.E–IV

Century

C.E.

(TS

18;

New

York,

NY:

Jewish

Theological

Seminary

of

America,

1962),

pp.

59–61.

48

Donald

Juel,

‘Interpreting

Israel’s

Scriptures

in

the

New

Testament’,

in

The

Ancient

Period

(vol.

1

of

A

History

of

Biblical

Interpretation

;

ed.

Alan

J.

Hauser

and

Dian

F.

Watson;

Grand

Rapids,

MI:

Eerdmans,

2003),

pp.

283–303

(285).

E.

Earle

Ellis

likewise

comments

that

even

when

New

Testament

authors

use

Scripture

in

ways

compa-

rable

to

Jewish

practices,

their

interpretations

‘often

reflect

adapted

forms

of

the

common

usage

of

the

Greco-Roman

world’

(

Old

Testament

in

Early

Christianity

,

p.

79).

See

also

Frances

M.

Young,

Biblical

Exegesis

and

the

Formation

of

Christian

Culture

(Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

Press,

1997),

pp.

91–94.

49

Juel,

‘Interpreting

Israel’s

Scriptures’,

p.

291.

50

Philip

Alexander,

‘Quid

Athenis

et

Hierosolymis?

Rabbinic

Midrash

and

Hermeneutics

in

the

Graeco-Roman

World’,

in

A

Tribute

to

Geza

Vermes:

Essays

on

Jewish

and

Christian

Literature

and

History

(ed.

Philip

R.

Davies

and

Richard

T.

White;

JSOTSup

100;

Sheffield:

Sheffield

Academic,

1990),

pp.

101–24

(115,

117);

also

see

Burton

L.

Vitosky,

‘Midrash,

Christian

Exegesis,

and

Hellenistic

Hermeneutic’,

in

Current

Trends

in

the

Study

of

Midrash

(ed.

Carol

Bakhos;

JSJSup

106;

Leiden:

Brill,

2006),

pp.

111–31

(121–25).

Rhetoric,

Jesus,

and

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

15

As

this

study

will

demonstrate,

exploring

Graeco-Roman

rhetoric

and

literature

when

studying

the

use

of

Scripture

in

the

New

Testament

is

promising

for

the

very

reason

that

many

scholars

have

shied

away

from

it

in

the

past:

namely,

because

there

are

no

step-by-step

instructions

on

the

use

of

intertexts

in

rhetorical

handbooks.

Instead

of

offering

comprehensive

instruc-

tions,

Graeco-Roman

education

and

rhetoric

are

built

on

the

assumption

of

mimesis

or

imitation.

This

practice

encourages

students

to

pattern

their

own

work

on

that

of

paradigmatic

figures

from

the

past

–

such

as

Homer,

Plato,

Euripides,

Thucydides,

and

Demosthenes

–

thus

forcing

them

to

memorize

these

works

and

establishing

a

foundation

for

their

incorporation

in

their

own

works.

51

It

is

from

this

knowledge

of

past

masters

that

rheto-

ricians

expect

their

students

to

pull

when

they

then

offer

guidance

on

the

use

of

more

specific

techniques,

such

as

comparisons,

analogous

examples,

and

testimony.

Even

without

comprehensive

guidelines,

therefore,

ancient

authors

ubiquitously

incorporate

intertexts

to

corroborate

their

arguments,

including

their

characterizations.

In

light

of

these

conclusions,

a

closer

inves-

tigation

into

the

function

of

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel’s

characterization

of

Jesus

through

the

lens

of

Graeco-Roman

rhetoric

is

warranted,

even

as

one

acknowledges

the

very

Jewishness

of

the

evangelist’s

traditions

utilized

for

his

presentation.

d.

Summary

Overall,

this

study

will

extend

research

in

three

areas

of

Johannine

scholarship.

It

will

further

studies

on

the

Gospel’s

use

of

ancient

rhetoric

by

looking

at

how

rhetoric

functions

in

the

overall

construction

of

the

narrative.

This

emphasis

on

rhetoric

also

contributes

to

previous

schol-

arship

on

the

Gospel’s

characterization

of

Jesus

and

its

use

of

Scripture.

It

will

expand

Neyrey’s

initial

work

on

the

use

of

encomiastic

topoi

and

also

examine

common

rhetorical

techniques

employed

to

illustrate

these

topoi

.

The

topoi

and

techniques

investigated

will

be

limited

to

those

that

include

clear

references

to

Scripture,

highlighting

Scripture’s

rhetorical

role

in

the

characterization

of

Jesus

offered

in

each

passage

and

in

the

Gospel

as

a

whole.

As

a

result,

this

study

will

illustrate

both

the

thoroughly

rhetorical

nature

of

the

Gospel

as

well

as

the

crucial

role

51

See

Fred

W.

Householder

Jr’s

work

Literary

Quotation

and

Allusion

in

Lucian

(Morningside

Heights,

NY:

King’s

Crown

Press,

1941),

pp.

56–64

for

a

helpful

break-

down

of

ancient

authors

who

were

commonly

cited

as

examples

for

students

to

follow

in

various

rhetorical

handbooks

and

progymnasmata

.

The

pervasiveness

of

Homeric

quotations

and

rewritten

Scripture

in

Mediterranean

antiquity

has

long

been

acknowl-

edged

by

scholars.

Cf.

Christopher

D.

Stanley,

‘The

Social

Environment

of

“Free”

Biblical

Quotations

in

the

New

Testament’,

in

Early

Christian

Interpretation

of

the

Scriptures

of

Israel

(ed.

Craig

A.

Evans

and

James

A.

Sanders;

JSNTSup

148;

SSEJC

5;

Sheffield:

Sheffield

Academic,

1994),

pp.18–27

(21–23);

Ronald

F.

Hock,

‘Homer

in

Greco-Roman

Education’,

in

Mimesis

and

Intertextuality

in

Antiquity

and

Christianity

(ed.

Dennis

R.

MacDonald;

SAC;

Harrisburg,

PA:

Trinity

Press

International,

2001),

pp.

56–77.

Characterizing

Jesus

16

Scripture

plays

in

its

rhetoric.

Such

an

approach

aims

to

hear

the

Gospel

in

a

manner

similar

to

its

ancient

auditors

and,

therefore,

gain

a

glimpse

into

how

the

scriptural

narrative

influenced

their

understanding

of

Jesus

and

of

themselves

as

his

followers.

2.

Methodology

and

the

Authorial

Audience

The

method

employed

in

this

study

is

best

described

as

literary-rhetorical

criticism.

Rhetorical

handbooks

–

those

of

Aristotle,

Cicero,

and

Quintilian

being

the

most

emphasized

–

and

a

variety

of

progymnasmata

will

be

consulted.

The

similarities

in

practices

described

in

these

works

illustrate

the

pervasiveness

of

techniques

before,

during,

and

after

the

composition

of

the

Fourth

Gospel.

Again,

while

these

books

say

little

explicitly

about

the

incorporation

of

intertexts,

they

are

written

on

the

presupposition

of

mimesis

and

incorporate

examples

of

techniques

from

other

sources.

In

addition,

there

are

particular

exercises

that

encourage

the

inclusion

of

intertexts

–

be

they

quotations

or

more

subtle

allusions.

Stanley

and

Stamps

have

previously

noted

the

use

of

quotations

and

intertexts

in

the

practices

of

testimony

(e.g.

Aristotle’s

‘ancient

witnesses’)

and

examples.

52

Fuller

examination

of

these

practices

and

how

they

relate

to

scriptural

appeals

will

be

given

throughout

this

project,

particularly

in

light

of

the

evangelist’s

identification

of

Scripture

as

a

‘witness’

on

Jesus’

behalf

(Jn

5.39-45).

Other

techniques,

however,

also

lend

themselves

to

intertextual

explo-

ration.

Since

the

specific

focus

of

this

project

is

on

the

how

Scripture

contributes

to

the

Fourth

Gospel’s

characterization

of

Jesus,

rhetorical

practices

of

characterization

present

in

rhetorical

handbooks,

progym-

nasmata

,

and

exemplified

in

the

literature

of

Mediterranean

antiquity

will

be

outlined

in

detail,

thereby

adding

to

Neyrey’s

earlier

work.

As

mentioned

above,

these

topoi

are

illustrated

in

the

course

of

ancient

narratives

by

means

of

various

rhetorical

techniques.

Several

of

these

techniques

invite

intertextual,

or

in

the

case

of

the

Fourth

Gospel,

scrip-

tural,

references

as

a

means

of

supporting

the

topoi

they

illustrate.

Those

of

ekphrasis

,

synkrisis

,

and

prosopopoiia

are

explored

most

prominently

in

this

study,

with

the

citation

practice

of

paraphrasis

close

behind.

These

rhetorical

techniques

and

their

connection

to

the

Fourth

Gospel

will

be

further

defined

in

chapter

2.

The

emphasis

on

rhetoric

also

reveals

the

present

study’s

focus

on

the

overall

effect

of

the

Fourth

Gospel’s

characterization

of

Jesus

on

the

audience

hearing

this

narrative.

This

attention

to

the

audience

also

displays

connections

to

modern

literary

criticism,

specifically

on

the

practice

of

audience

criticism.

Building

on

the

work

of

H.

R.

Jauss,

52

Cf.

Stanley,

‘Rhetoric

of

Quotations’,

p.

45

n.

1;

Stamps,

‘Use

of

the

Old

Testament’,

pp.

26–32.

Rhetoric,

Jesus,

and

Scripture

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

17

Peter

Rabbinowitz,

and

Gian

Biagio

Conte,

this

project

approaches

the

Gospel

in

its

final

form

and

attempts

to

read

it

in

light

of

its

authorial

audience.

53

The

authorial

audience,

much

like

the

‘implied

reader’

of

narrative

criticism,

is

a

construct

rather

than

an

actual,

known

audience.

This

construction

is

based

on

the

historical

and

cultural

context

of

the

time

period

and

location

of

the

text,

even

if

specifics

concerning

an

author

and/or

audience

are

unknown.

As

such,

audience

criticism

aims

to

discover

the

most

likely

meanings

derived

from

a

text,

rather

than

searching

for

a

singular,

original

meaning.

According

to

Rabbinowitz,

there

are

four

audiences

present

when

a

text

is

read

or

heard:

the

actual

audience;

the

authorial

audience;

the

narrative

audience;

and

the

ideal

narrative

audience.

While

all

these

audiences

are

present,

and

while

it

is

possible

to

encounter

a

text

as

a

part

of

any

one

of

these

audiences,

Rabbinowitz

argues

that

the

actual

audience

must

bridge

the

cultural,

historical,

and

temporal

gap

in

order

to

become

as

near

as

possible

to

the

authorial

audience

in

order

to

understand

the

meaning

of

a

text.

This

transformation

occurs

when

the

actual

audience

investigates

the

historical

and

cultural

background

of

a

work

and

suspends

their

belief

to

follow

even

the

most

fantastic

of

arguments.

Thus,

one

needs

both

synchronic

analyses

that

follow

the

argument

of

a

text

in

its

final

form

and

diachronic

research

concerning

the

historical

and

social

context

of

a

written

work

in

order

to

comprehend

it.

Without

this

transformation,

Rabbinowitz

contends,

contemporary

readers

can

come

up

with

wild

and

even

‘perverse’

interpretations

of

a

text.

54

As

Charles

H.

Talbert

explains,

this

approach

operates

on

the

guiding

principle

that

meaning

emerges

from

the

shared

cultural

reper-

toire

between

an

author

and

the

intended

audience.

Making

use

of

‘background

information

and

presuppositions

that

make

communication

possible’

in

their

time

period,

authors

craft

works

meant

to

create

certain

effects

on

their

audiences.

55

Even

though

it

is

not

possible

to

recon-

struct

with

absolute

certainty

what

the

original

meanings

were

meant

to

be,

rhetorical

criticism

offers

one

avenue

into

expectations

governing

literature

and

persuasion

available

to

both

authors

and

audiences

in

the

Mediterranean

world.

In

fact,

rhetorical

handbooks

repeatedly

instruct

their

readers

to

take

into

account

the

audiences

who

will

receive

their

53

H.

R.

Jauss,

Aesthetic

Experience

and

Literary

Hermeneutics

(Minneapolis:

University

of

Minnesota

Press,

1982);

Peter

Rabbinowitz,

‘Truth

in

Fiction:

A

Reexamination

of

Audiences’,

Critical

Inquiry

4

(1977),

pp.

121–41;

idem,

‘Whirl

with-

out

End:

Audience

Oriented

Criticism’,

in

Contemporary

Literary

Theory

(ed.

G.

Douglas

Atkins

and

Laura

Morrow;

Amherst:

University

of

Minnesota

Press,

1989),

pp.

81–100;

Gian

Biagio

Conte,

The

Rhetoric

of

Imitation:

Genre

and

Poetic

Memory

in

Virgil

and

Other

Latin

Poets

(ed.

Charles

Segal;

Ithaca,

NY:

Cornell

University

Press,

1986).

54

Rabbinowitz,

‘Truth

in

Fiction’,

pp.

126–29.

55

Charles

H.

Talbert,

Reading

Luke-Acts

in

its

Mediterranean

Milieu

(NovTSup

107;

Leiden:

Brill,

2003),

p.

17.

Characterizing

Jesus

18