A Philological Study of the Reflexive-Possessive Use of Personal Pronouns in the Fourth Gospel

This study provides a philological analysis of all the occurrences of personal pronouns with reflexive-possessive meaning in the Gospel of John. Here, the author argues that the Gospel highly conforms to the rule of Classical Greek that the deictic force of the article suffices to identify the possessor when it is clear in the literary context who the possessor is. This high conformity enables the author to specify in which cases personal pronouns are strictly necessary to indicate the possessor and where they are redundant. Exegetical case studies (e.g., John 6:52) illustrate the implications of this study for the interpretation of the Gospel.

The midwife of truth: The nature of irony and a rationale for its prevalence in the Gospel of John

<p>The Gospel of John is renowned for its pervasive use of irony. While this phenomenon is widely recognized by scholars, there have been only a few attempts to explain the “how” of Johannine irony and no meaningful attempt to explain its “why.” The last major treatment of the topic was by Paul Duke in his 1985 work, Irony in the Fourth Gospel, which provides an account of how Johannine irony works through an analysis of local and extended ironies. Other examinations, such as Gail O’Day’s Revelation in the Fourth Gospel in 1986, explore irony as a corollary of some other thematic concern. The reticence of scholars to delve deeper into the nature of Johannine irony is understandable given that as Duke puts it, irony laughs at all pretensions, especially the pretension of claiming to have grasped irony. This study undertakes the demanding but necessary task of describing irony to a level that allows meaningful engagement with ironic texts, while accepting that it remains ultimately indefinable. Particular attention is paid to historical shifts of understanding of the nature of irony and the implications this has for appreciating irony at a conceptual level. From a survey of the Johannine scholarship, a comprehensive but non-exhaustive overview of the Fourth Gospel’s use of irony is derived. No previous work has attempted to approach the subject in this way. The main advantage of doing so is that it allows for the identification of broad patterns of irony and the way it functions in the narrative. This in turn provides a framework for proceeding to an examination of particular texts and the identification of a possible rationale. The present study assesses several hypotheses to explain why the author of the Fourth Gospel makes such sustained use of irony. The preferred hypothesis is that it is intrinsically linked to a predominant Johannine theme of alētheia (truth). Drawing on the conceptual link between irony and truth, it argues that the truth theme is a deliberate literary strategy employed by the author to entice the reader to seek certain propositional truths within the narrative. This ultimately serves the author’s desire to evoke revelation and response in line with the Gospel’s purpose statement in 20:31. The argument that irony serves the Johannine truth theme is tested with particular reference to the Prologue (1:1-18) and the Passion Narrative (chapters 18-19). The study establishes that irony serves as the link between appearance and reality in the narrative. Its subtle and engaging qualities make irony the most suitable vehicle to testify to the Gospel’s propositional statements in a manner that fulfils the author’s stated Christological (a revelation of Jesus’ true identity) and soteriological (a response that leads to salvation) purposes.</p>

The midwife of truth: The nature of irony and a rationale for its prevalence in the Gospel of John

<p>The Gospel of John is renowned for its pervasive use of irony. While this phenomenon is widely recognized by scholars, there have been only a few attempts to explain the “how” of Johannine irony and no meaningful attempt to explain its “why.” The last major treatment of the topic was by Paul Duke in his 1985 work, Irony in the Fourth Gospel, which provides an account of how Johannine irony works through an analysis of local and extended ironies. Other examinations, such as Gail O’Day’s Revelation in the Fourth Gospel in 1986, explore irony as a corollary of some other thematic concern. The reticence of scholars to delve deeper into the nature of Johannine irony is understandable given that as Duke puts it, irony laughs at all pretensions, especially the pretension of claiming to have grasped irony. This study undertakes the demanding but necessary task of describing irony to a level that allows meaningful engagement with ironic texts, while accepting that it remains ultimately indefinable. Particular attention is paid to historical shifts of understanding of the nature of irony and the implications this has for appreciating irony at a conceptual level. From a survey of the Johannine scholarship, a comprehensive but non-exhaustive overview of the Fourth Gospel’s use of irony is derived. No previous work has attempted to approach the subject in this way. The main advantage of doing so is that it allows for the identification of broad patterns of irony and the way it functions in the narrative. This in turn provides a framework for proceeding to an examination of particular texts and the identification of a possible rationale. The present study assesses several hypotheses to explain why the author of the Fourth Gospel makes such sustained use of irony. The preferred hypothesis is that it is intrinsically linked to a predominant Johannine theme of alētheia (truth). Drawing on the conceptual link between irony and truth, it argues that the truth theme is a deliberate literary strategy employed by the author to entice the reader to seek certain propositional truths within the narrative. This ultimately serves the author’s desire to evoke revelation and response in line with the Gospel’s purpose statement in 20:31. The argument that irony serves the Johannine truth theme is tested with particular reference to the Prologue (1:1-18) and the Passion Narrative (chapters 18-19). The study establishes that irony serves as the link between appearance and reality in the narrative. Its subtle and engaging qualities make irony the most suitable vehicle to testify to the Gospel’s propositional statements in a manner that fulfils the author’s stated Christological (a revelation of Jesus’ true identity) and soteriological (a response that leads to salvation) purposes.</p>

Jesus and Spirituality: Reading the Fourth Gospel in the Light of the Indian Culture

The Gospel of John is considered as one of the significant literary masterpieces that appeals to Indian spirituality and ideals in multifarious ways. The Gospel has unique features as a universalistic rhetoric that encompasses feelings and aspirations of Indians. The character of Jesus in the Gospel and His assimilative power to contemporary realities reverberate the situational aspects of Indian communities. In the current article, first of all, an attempt is made to explore the character of Jesus and the impression of the Johannine spirituality in relation to Indian realities. We also attempt to place the Fourth Gospel in Indian context in order to derive an interpretative dynamism that takes into account both the Jesus of John and the diverse religious and cultural aspects of today’s context. The character of Jesus and the spirituality reflected in John have much in common with the mystical traditions of the Indian religions.

‘Time is not all powerful’: the johannine eschatological vision in eugene vodolazkin’s laurus

Eugene Vodolazkin’s Laurus employs literary ‘distortion’ to capture and convey the eschatological paradoxes of the Fourth Gospel. Having outlined the complexity and contradictions of the Johannine eschatological vision, this article describes how Laurus meets the challenge presented by this vision. Rather than seeking to resolve the tension between vertical and horizontal eschatological dimensions, Vodolazkin reshapes time itself to accommodate both realised and future-oriented eschatologies. This remythologising of time is a distortion that brings the reader closer to the rich imaginative depths of Scripture: a powerful form of resistance to limited, inflexible accounts of the ‘real’.

Translating John 21:14 and its Significance

In John 21:14, two verbs are, from the viewpoint of syntax, in the passive voice. Do we face here a divine passive—the action of God in raising and revealing the dead Jesus but not explicitly stated as such? Or is this passive voice to be understood as ‘middle’ voice? Jesus inasmuch as he is divine performs the action (resurrection) and ‘receives’ the results of his action, the new risen life in which he appears. By ignoring the possibilities of middle voice, some translations miss the significance of ending John’s Gospel by proclaiming the active involvement of Jesus (as divine) in his own resurrection from the dead and appearance to the disciples—a belief already presented by the Fourth Gospel.

The Testimony of Moses in the Fourth Gospel: Beyond the Passover Feast, and into the Wilderness

By examining the narrative framing of the Eucharistic Discourse (Jn 6:25-71) around the ancestral journey through the wilderness as recorded in Numbers, this paper highlights the intimate connection that the Fourth Gospel has to its Jewish context. In the Fourth Gospel’s Eucharistic Discourse, Jesus is not framed by the Passover Lamb, which the people offer to propitiate the Divine, but as manna from heaven, a gift from the Divine to the people, brining Life into the world. In the spirit of Nostra aetate, I conclude with some proposals for future interreligious dialogues that could fruitfully take place within these new parameters.

The Trial of Jesus before Pilate in the Fourth Gospel

This article proceeds through a series of integrated sections. First, the problem of the Fourth Gospel’s (FG) positioning of the scourging of Jesus and the Roman soldiers’ mocking of him in the midst of the trial is compared with Mark’s account of the trial. Second, by drawing on contemporary sources the methods of Roman crucifixion are examined to provide a guide for interpreting the Biblical data. Third, the efforts to harmonize the FG with the other Gospels by suggesting it referred to a lighter lashing are examined and found wanting. The next four sections develop John’s approach to the Trial as a drama; not as fiction, but as a creative reshaping of his data. By placing the mocking as well as the scourging of Jesus prior to Pilate’s handing him over to be crucified allows the FG to climax the drama with Jesus finally exiting from the praetorium to face his accusers for the first time as their King (Messiah).