Thomas - Love as Strong as Death: Faith and Commitment in the Fourth Gospel 9781472551054, 9780567221520, 9780567228970

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Introduction The Twinning of Thomas
Chapter 1 Going to Death with Him (John 11.16)
Initial Overview
Bravery
Disbelief and Not Doubt or Incomprehension: Context Constricted
The Twinning of Thomas with Jesus, Peter, and Caiaphas
Chapter 2 Where Else Can We Go with Him (John 14.5)?
Initial Overview
Bravery: A Request for Marching Orders
Intransigence: Context Crunched
The Twinning of Thomas with Jesus, Philip, and Pilate
Chapter 3 There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief (John 20.24-29; 21.1-2)
Initial Overview
Bravery: Proceeding Alone
Unwillingness: Context Closed (?)
The Twinning of Thomas with the Resurrected Lord, Judas Iscariot, and Nathanael
Breaking the Pattern
Chapter 4 The Johannine Thomas in the Contexts of the Cultural Topoi of PARRHSI /A and Friendship
Thomas as a Boundary Figure
Refracted Virtue: Parrhsia/ and the Johannine Thomas
The Distinctiveness of the Johannine Thomas
Conclusion The Twinning of the Johannine Community
Thomas in the Johannine Ambit: Multiple Dislocations
Exemplary Character: Shouldering the Weights of Cultural and Social Psychology
Exemplary Character: Breaching the Johannine Borders
The Basis of Thomas’ Individuation
Double Twinship: Thomas Didymus and Janus Geminus
Appendix Brief Comments on the Basis of This Study Concerning the Question of the Relation of the Gospel of John to the Gospel of Thomas
Bibliography
Index of Protocanonical, Deuterocanonical, Pseudpigraphical, and New Testament References
Index of Modern Authors

Citation preview

Library of New Testament Studies

434 Formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Mark Goodacre Editorial Board John M. G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams

THOMAS – LOVE AS STRONG AS DEATH Faith and Commitment in the Fourth Gospel

by Dennis Sylva

LON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W YOR K • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square 175 Fifth Avenue London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10010 UK USA www.bloomsbury.com First published 2013 © Dennis Sylva, 2013

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. Dennis Sylva has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author. The author acknowledges titular use of Song of Songs 8.6. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: ePDF:

978-0-567-22897-0

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by Free Range Book Design & Production

Contents

Acknowledgments

vii

Abbreviations

xi

INTRODUCTION: THE TWINNING OF THOMAS Chapter 1 GOING TO DEATH WITH HIM (JOHN 11.16) Initial Overview Bravery Disbelief and Not Doubt or Incomprehension: Context Constricted The Twinning of Thomas with Jesus, Peter, and Caiaphas

1 11 11 17

Chapter 2 WHERE ELSE CAN WE GO WITH HIM (JOHN 14.5)? Initial Overview Bravery: A Request for Marching Orders Intransigence: Context Crunched The Twinning of Thomas with Jesus, Philip, and Pilate

63 63 63 66 79

Chapter 3 THERE IS (NO) MORE: GOD FROM BEYOND THE LIMITS OF BELIEF (JOHN 20.24-29; 21.1-2) Initial Overview Bravery: Proceeding Alone Unwillingness: Context Closed (?) The Twinning of Thomas with the Resurrected Lord, Judas Iscariot, and Nathanael Breaking the Pattern

32 58

82 82 82 84 91 99

Chapter 4 THE JOHANNINE THOMAS IN THE CONTEXTS OF THE CULTURAL TOPOI OF Parrhsi/a AND FRIENDSHIP 108 Thomas as a Boundary Figure 108 Refractive Virtue: Parrhsi/a and the Johannine Thomas 110 The Distinctiveness of the Johannine Thomas 128

vi

Contents

CONCLUSION: THE TWINNING OF THE JOHANNINE COMMUNITY Thomas in the Johannine Ambit: Multiple Dislocations Exemplary Character: Shouldering the Weights of Cultural and Social Psychology Exemplary Character: Breaching the Johannine Borders The Basis of Thomas’ Individuation Double Twinship: Thomas Didymus and Janus Geminus

130 130 134 136 138 140

APPENDIX: BRIEF COMMENTS ON THE BASIS OF THIS STUDY CONCERNING THE QUESTION OF THE RELATION OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN TO THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 145 Bibliography

147

Index of Protocanonical, Deuterocanonical, Pseudepigraphical, and New Testament References

159

Index of Modern Authors

169

­

Acknowledgments It is a pleasure to thank those whose assistance has made this study possible. I want to especially thank Pat Schweitzer and Rose Trupiano. They assiduously provided me with professional library assistance that greatly facilitated this study. Without their efforts, the task would have been immeasurably more difficult. Everyone doing research should have such generous, careful, and skilled consultants. I am grateful for the guidance and expertise of Dominic Mattos and for his and Mark Goodacre’s acceptance of this book into the Library of New Testament Studies. I thank Andrew Mikolajski for his careful reading and helpful emendations as the copy editor of this book. I am also grateful for the discussions I have had with Bob Webb and for his rigorous scholarship. The friendship of Vernon and Deanna Robbins, Robert Webb, Roy Jeal, Russ Sisson, Gregory Bloomquist, Duane Watson, Fred Long, Bob Hall, David deSilva, Alexandra Gruca-Macaulay, Robert von Thaden, and B. J. Oropeza and our regular meetings have been a significant matrix within which my research has developed. I have served on the religious education staff at St Jerome Church since 2007. It is with pleasure that I acknowledge the friendship of the Reverend Dr John Yockey and all the help he has given me. I also appreciate the friendship of the Reverend Erich Weiss, Anne Simonis, and the staff at St Jerome. I have also been teaching at Nashotah House since 2011. The faculty, students and staff have stimulated my work. I thank especially Garwood Anderson, Carol Klukas, David Sherwood, Laura Hummer, Shauna Morris and her group in Florida, Matthew Baker and James Stanley. I look forward to the development of new friendships that have begun at Nashotah House. I complete the review of the final proofs for this book on Thomas the twin at this school, which has a name meaning ‘twin’.  I am grateful for permission to quote from Rae Armantrout’s poem ‘Relations’ (in Versed, published by Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT: 2009). Life with my wife and son has been a great joy. Because of them my life has been immeasurably richer than I could have ever imagined it would be. This book is dedicated to my parents for so much.

My Parents with Gratitude

B

x

Narcissist Universalism

Abbreviations AB Anchor Bible An. Bib. Analecta Biblica ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament BAGD Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature BBB Bonner Biblische Beiträge BBPS Bulletin of the British Psychological Society BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BI Biblical Interpretation Bib Biblica BIS Biblical Interpretation Series BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries BPP Biblioteca della Parolla del Passato BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CBNTS Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum CollIET Collection Institut d’Études Théologiques ColPo Collection Poétique CP Classical Philology DDS Distinguished Dissertations Series EB Études Bibliques EH Europäische Hochschulschriften EJSP European Journal of Social Psychology ESEC Emory Studies in Early Christianity ET Evangelische Theologie FF Foundations and Facets GBS Guides to Biblical Scholarship GNS Good News Studies HBS Herders Biblische Studien HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs

xii

Abbreviations

HTNTC Herder’s Theological Commentary on the New Testament IBT Interpreting Biblical Texts ICC International Critical Commentary ILBS Indiana Literary Biblical Series ITS Indian Theological Studies IVPNTC Intervarsity Press New Testament Commentary Series JAOR Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JPSP Journal of Personality and Social Psychology JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSS Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series KNT Kommentar zum Neuen Testament LB Lire la Bible LCBI Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation LCL Loeb Classical Library LP Xenophon, Lakedaimonion Politeia LS H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement (rev. and aug. by H. Stuart Jones and R. McKenzie; 9th edn; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) NCB New Century Bible NEB Die Neue Echter Bibel Neot Neotestamentica NHMS Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies NIBC New International Biblical Commentary NICNT New International Commentary of the New Testament NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch NTL New Testament Library NTM New Testament Message NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus NTS New Testament Studies OBS Oxford Bible Series ÖTKNT Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament PA Philosophia Antiqua PAFSBSS Publications of the American Folklore Society: Bibliographical and Special Series PB Psychological Bulletin PM Psychological Monographs PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary PRS Perspectives in Religious Studies PSN Paul’s Social Network PSPB Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin PTMC Princeton Theological Monograph Series

Abbreviations

xiii­

RB Revue Biblique RNBC Readings, a New Biblical Commentary RNT Regensburger Neues Testament RNTS Reading the New Testament Series RSR Recherches de Science Religieuse SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SE Science et Esprit SGKA Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums SNT Supplements to Novum Testamentum SPHSSP Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper TKNT Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament TynBul Tyndale Bulletin Vid Vidyajyoti WBS Word Biblical Studies WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament YCS Yale Classical Studies ZB Zürich Bibelkommentare ZNW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft The abbreviations of ancient sources are those found in Patrick H. Alexander et. al., eds, The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999). English translations are either from the Revised Standard Version or are my own.

­­

Introduction The Twinning of Thomas This is a socio-rhetorical study of the Johannine Thomas. Thomas appears among the lists of the apostles in the synoptic gospels.1 In the canonical gospels, however, it is only in the fourth gospel (FG) that this disciple emerges from the rest with distinct words and unique roles. The Hebrew word mw)t and the Aramaic one )mw)t mean ‘twin’. It is rare to find these words used as a name for a person.2 The Greek Qwma~j (‘Thomas’) is a Greek name that sounds somewhat like its Semitic counterparts.3 John provides his interpretation of the meaning of this name by the phrase, o9 lego/menoj Di/dumoj (‘the one called the twin’) in 11.16; 20.24; 21.1. The repetition of this phrase appears significant precisely because it is unnecessary to reidentify Thomas, who had also appeared in 14.5. There is no room for confusion as to his identity as there is with Judas in 14.22, of whom it is written that he is ‘not Iscariot’. This treatment of designating Thomas has no parallel among the disciples in John.4 It will be argued that the Johannine repetition of Thomas’ epithet is of a piece with Thomas being a literary dyad in this gospel. This concept, which will receive clarification throughout this book, suggests the socio-rhetorical approach that I adopt. A socio-rhetorical interpretive analytic is concerned with the literary, social, cultural, and ideological matrices

1 Mt. 10.1-4; Mk. 3.13-19; Lk. 6.12-16. 2 It is found as a personal name in a Phoenician inscription. See CIS 1.46.3. 3 In Thomasine tradition, Thomas is said to be the twin brother of Jesus. Acts of Thomas 31. 4 In Jn 1.40, Andrew is called ‘Simon Peter’s brother’. In 1.42, Jesus calls Simon Peter ‘Cephas’, which the narrator immediately says means ‘Peter’: o4 e9rmhneu/etai Pe/troj. Although this disciple is called Simon Peter or Peter throughout the narrative, there is no repetition of the phrase indicating what his name means. In 1.44 Philip is identified as being ‘from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter’. Jesus himself calls Nathanael ‘a true Israelite in whom there is no guile’ (1.47). None of these epithets are found again when these characters reappear. One disciple is never named but called by the sobriquet ‘the one (disciple) whom Jesus (he) loved’ (13.23; 19.26; 20.2; 21.7, 20). Lazarus is initially called ‘the one whom you love’ but not after this initial designation (11.3). The only character, besides Jesus, who has an appellation repeated is Caiaphas: ‘who was high priest that year’ (11.49; 18.13). The second instance occurs when the narrator is introducing Annas and functions to show the authority by which he conducts the hearing. Nicodemus is reidentified in his second and third appearances but not with the same words. See Jn 3.1, 10; 7.50; 19.39.

2

Introduction

within which literary meaning develops.5 The dimensions of socio-rhetorical interpretation that play a prominent role in this study are the narrational and socio-cultural matrices within which John forms the character of Thomas and the ideological context in which he functions. Methods of characterization, particularly some found in the ancient Mediterranean world, and stylistics are the two narratological foci especially helpful for this study.6 The manner in which John compares Thomas to other characters is decidedly influenced by methods of characterization found in the Hebrew Bible. It was Erich Auerbach who propelled the study of how narratives in the Hebrew Bible differ from Greco-Roman ones. He did this in his seminal and classic comparison of the Hebrew Bible and the Homeric epic traditions. The essential difference between these traditions is that Homer focuses on the foreground of characters, and the Hebrew Bible, on their background. Homer concentrates on the exploits of heroes who encounter adventures without any inner or past baggage. There is no concern with how their pasts or their subconscious lives influence the present. Rather, Homer spotlights the activities of historically static, one-dimensional characters. He does this by recounting numerous details of the scenes in which actions occur and by expressly mentioning any thoughts that characters may be having. The effect is to pinion the tale to the explicitly described present.7 Different Greco-Roman biographies, histories, and tragedies have been found to have different degrees of focus on the internal struggles of characters and on whether they are depicted directly through evaluations or descriptions or indirectly through the characters’ own speech and actions.8 The focus on the foreground, on what is occurring in the scene is, however, characteristic of much of ancient Greek and Roman literature.9 On the other hand, Hebrew 5 V. Robbins, The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology (London: Routledge, 1996); Idem, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996). See Tapestry, pp.44–191 and Exploring, pp.7–86 for different dimensions of a text’s inner texture, intertexture, social and cultural texture, and ideological texture. 6 Due recognition should be given to the seminal work in narrative-criticism and the fourth gospel by R. Alan Culpepper. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (FF; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). 7 Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. W. R. Trask; Princeton: Princeton University, 1953). 8 See D. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke-Acts (ESEC, 2; New York: P. Lang, 1991), pp.71–174. Cf. T. Duff, Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), p.13; J.-A. Brant, Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), pp.165–6. 9 It is common to place a greater emphasis on action in Greek literature than on character. In part, this stems from Aristotle’s exalting action over character in tragedy. Poetics 1449b, 1450a. This perspective is shared by formalists, structuralists, and semiologists, who also view characters as ‘functions of the plot’. J. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark’s Gospel (JSNTSS, 102; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), p.57; A. J. Greimas, Sémantique structurale (Paris: Librairie Larousse, 1966), pp.176–80; V. Propp, Morphology of the Folk Tale (2nd edn; PAFSBSS, 9; L. Scott, trans.; S. Pirkova-Jacobson, ed.; Austin, TX: UP, 1968); J. Culler, Structuralist

Introduction

­3

Bible narratives highlight the unexpressed. The underpinnings of the decisions of characters are often murky and resolve into view slowly by subtle connections.10 The Hebrew Bible epic tradition inclines readers to explore how the inner lives of its characters, the tendencies induced by their psyches and their past, enrich the understanding of the choices and actions that engage them fully in the present. This creates much more developed characters, with complex responses to life. What provides this rich picture of characters’ inner lives is the paradoxical style of less is more: sparseness. The Hebrew Bible authors reduce both details of the physical scene in which an action occurs and the expressed thoughts of the characters in the scene. The effect of this distillation is to point to what remains in the shadows. Hebrew Bible narratological research has demonstrated how literary minimalism can be used to imply much about characters in few words.11 This is so even for minor characters. Why this is important is because there has been a tendency to conceive of minor characters in biblical literature as flat characters. Studies of characterization often distinguish between round characters and flat ones in terms of their inner complexity.12 The distinction comes from E. M. Forster who claimed that flat characters revolve around a single trait whereas round characters are more complex. The inner struggles, motivations, and desires of the former are not treated; those of the latter are. Flat characters do not change; round ones do.13 Building on this perspective, both narratologists and a number of people involved in studying the characteristics of biblical narratives in particular have shown that these are two types that fall on opposite ends of the spectrum. In between are characters of various degrees of development.14 Because of the sparseness with which characters, especially Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975), pp.230–35. C. Conway describes the mimetic representational view of characters to which the formalists and structuralists, among others, responded. Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization (SBLDS, 167; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), p.50. Gunn and Fewell view the perspective of viewing the Bible through a Heilsgeschichte lens as manifesting a focus on plot over character. Narrative Art in the Hebrew Bible (OBS; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p.48. 10 Auerbach, Mimesis, pp.8–23. 11 R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), pp.114–30; D. M. Gunn and D. N. Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible, pp.53–75; J. P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), pp.55–72; A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1984), pp.27, 32, 34–43; S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSS 70; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp.48–92. 12 E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1927), pp.103–18. 13 Forster, Aspects, pp.65–75. 14 W. J. Harvey, Character and the Novel (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1965), pp.56–8; Y. Ewen, Character in Narrative (Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Hapoalim, 1980), pp.33–44; Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, pp.90–91. F. Burnett, ‘Characterization and Reader Construction of Characters in the Gospels’, Characterization in Biblical Literature (E. Struthers Malbon and A. Berlin; Semeia 63; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp.1, 15, 19; Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, p.32.

4

Introduction

minor ones, are treated in the Hebrew Bible (HB) and in the Gospel of John the temptation is to view them as relatively flat characters. The realization of the minimalistic ways in which characterization in the HB occurs should be a caution to look for subtle textual cues as to the degree of inner complexity of characters before making this assessment. In the fourth gospel, characters are developed through gaps. Gapping is the process of withholding some information from the reader. Such information can include the events that led to a character acting in a certain way and the consequences that followed or what a character’s motivation was for acting in this way.15 The reader’s inclination is to seek to fill in the gaps in the texts. This can occur as either ‘illegitimate gap-filling’ or ‘legitimate gap-filling’, depending on whether or not the reader is guided by the text’s rhetoric.16 Textual cues on how to fill the gaps related to Thomas in the Gospel of John come principally in the form of two stylistic devices: repetition and synkrisis. Repetitions establish important connections between this character and other characters. Moreover, the variations present in these repetitions often convey significant points.17 A synkrisis is a comparison. It was one of the progymnasmatic exercises.18 Comparisons could be between people, places or things.19 Plutarch made extensive use of this literary device in his parallel Lives. The use of it far antedates him, though, appearing already in Homer and in some Greek tragedies.20 Characteristically synkrisis often takes place in ancient Jewish writings in less direct narrative analogies that require the reader to discern from literary suggestions the connections, similarities, and differences and to draw inferences from them.21 There are places in

15 For studies of gapping in OT narratives, see Sternberg, Poetics, pp.186–8; Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, pp.136–9; Adele Reinhartz, ‘Why Ask My Name?’: Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). 16 W. Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), pp.172–5; J. Darr, On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), p.59; Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (ILBS; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), pp.186–7. 17 For repetition and variation in Hebrew Bible narratives see Gunn and Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (O, 148-155; Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, pp.88–113; Sternberg, Poetics, pp.365–440; Jerome T. Walsh, Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2001), pp.101–14; Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, pp.112–22; Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, pp.42–5, 68–75, 103–10 and passim. 18 Theon 10.8; Nicolaus 10.1-4. 19 Aelius Theon, 10; Nicolaus, 9; Hermogenes, 8; Aphthonius 10. 20 G. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), p.78, n.11. 21 This is not to say that more direct forms of synkrisis are not found in ancient Jewish literature. See the extensive, direct synkrisis in Wis 11-19.

Introduction

5­

the Hebrew Bible where direct statements about a character’s personality or inner state are found, but showing, and not telling, is the predominant means through which characterization occurs and a showing that itself is minimalist.22 Moreover, in the context of John’s comparisons, the differences as well as the similarities in comparisons must be studied. In narratives in the HB, contrasting characters with one another or contrasting a character’s act with another of this same character’s acts or with a social more is an important means of characterization.23 At least four comparisons have already been noted in the Gospel of John.24 I propose that this literary device is found a number of times in the characterization of Thomas. Its use in the depiction of this disciple is subtle rather than overt. The comparisons between Thomas and others occur through linking this disciple’s words and actions to those of other characters. These comparisons are indirect ones somewhat akin to the type of comparisons made between Peter and the BD. Thomas himself is characterized by means of comparisons to a gamut of characters: both protagonists and antagonists. There is a difference of opinion among several progymnasmata as to whether comparisons should be limited to people who seem to be on par with each other or if comparisons should be developed between blameworthy and praiseworthy people.25 John compares Thomas to people whom the evangelist portrays (1) as blameworthy, (2) as similar to Thomas, and (3) as more praiseworthy than him.26 An exploration of Johannine comparisons of Thomas with other characters will demonstrate the dyadic representation of this disciple. The concept of the dyad is a social-anthropological one. As it is used here, it expresses the idea that in the ancient Mediterranean world individuals are defined in terms of their relation to some other person(s) or to some place. Usually the persons 22 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, pp.53–64, 89, 92; Gunn and Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible, pp.57–63, 68–71; Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, p.129. 23 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, p.40; Conway, Men and Women, p.62. 24 C. G. Mueller finds the fourth evangelist to also be using synkrisis in his presentation in John 1–4 of the relation of the person and works of John the Baptist to Jesus. ‘Der Zeuge und das Licht: Joh 1,1–4,3 und das Darstellungsprinzip der su/gkrisij’, Bib, 84 (2003), pp.479–509. J. Neyrey has noted the comparisons in the Fourth Gospel between John and Jesus, Jesus and Jacob, Jesus and Abraham, and Jesus and Moses. ‘Encomium versus Vituperation: Contrasting Portraits of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL, 126 (2007), p.547. For synkrisis in the Pauline letters, see C. Forbes, ‘Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric’, NTS, 32 (1986), pp.1–30; J. N. Aletti, ‘The Rhetoric of Romans 5–8’, in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture (S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht; eds; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp.294–308. For synkrisis in the Letter to the Hebrews, see H. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), p.104. There is a synkrisis of John the Baptist and Jesus in Luke 1–2. 25 For the former, see Aelius Theon, 10. For the latter, see Hermogenes 8. 26 Comparison is also used in the progymnasmatic exercise of the ‘commonplace’ but the purpose there is the censure of stereotypes. G. Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric, p.205. Thomas and the characters with whom he is compared are nuanced, however, by the fourth evangelist.

6

Introduction

in relation to whom New Testament characters are defined are God, Jesus, family, clan or nation.27 It will be argued that the Johannine Thomas espouses the noblest value of a dyadic culture. There are two sets of indicators that the Johannine Thomas may be a somewhat developed character rather than a flat one. The first is based on the perspectives of Petri Merenlahti. He uses Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of the monologic narrative. This is a narrative in which the narrator’s voice is the authoritative voice in the narrative.28 Merenlahti proposes that in monologic narratives characters that fit with the narrator’s ideology become more defined, and those who don’t are ‘stripped of their individuality’.29 He considers those characters most likely to fall into the latter group to be those at odds with the ideology of the narrator. As said previously, narrative conventions of the Hebrew Bible appear to have influenced John’s characterization techniques. The narratives in this corpus are monologic: the narrators being treated as trustworthy, authoritative ones.30 The perspective of Merenlahti on which characters are developed may seem to argue that Thomas’ character is a flat one. After all, Thomas does contend against one of the central elements of the narrator’s point of view: that Jesus is the life that conquers death. It is precisely this stance by Thomas, however, that makes him so useful to the narrator, and thus, worthy of some type of development. The startling anagnorisis of Thomas at the end of John 20 creates a literary example of the validity of the narrator’s ideology.31 The second set of indicators that there is some depth and complexity to the Johannine Thomas comes from Seymour Chatman’s ideas on the features that suggest a character rather than simply a literary ‘walk-on’. A character tends to be named, to express opinions and display emotions, to have familial relationships, and to affect, and be affected, by the plot.32 These features are a part of the depiction of Thomas who is named and whose familial relationship is indicated by the sobriquet ‘the twin’ (11.16; 20.24; 21.2). John 20.25b, 28 provide evidence of how opinionated he is and of how much he is affected by, and affects, the plot.

27 J. Neyrey, ‘Dyadism’, Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning (J. Pilch and B. Malina, eds; Peabody, MA Hendrickson, 1993), pp.49–52. 28 M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (C. Emerson and M. Holmquist, trans.; M. Holmquist, ed.; Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1981). 29 P. Merelanthi, ‘Characters in the Making: Individuality and Ideology in the Gospels’, Characterization in the Gospels (D. Rhoads and K. Syreeni, eds; JSNTSS, 184; Sheffield: Shefield University Press, 1999), pp.48–9, 71. 30 Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), pp.93–102; Sternberg, Poetics, pp.84–128. 31 Similarly, C. Keener writes that Thomas’ ‘skepticism makes him an ideal proponent of a high Christology’. The Gospel of John (vol.2; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), p.1211. We will also see that Thomas’ confession of Jesus in 20.28 is not only the highest confession in the gospel but also the one that most resonates with the narrator’s view. 32 Chatman, Story and Discourse, pp.139–41.

Introduction

7

Coleen Conway has noted how the study of minor characters in the FG has been largely shaped by viewing them as flat bearers of single traits that manifest a type of faith response, or disbelief in Jesus.33 She notes, however, that the ambiguity in the presentations and interpretations of Nicodemus, the mother of Jesus, Peter, Mary Magdalene, the BD, Pilate, the Samaritan woman, and Martha and Mary argue against a portrayal of these characters each illustrating a single quality.34 Conway does not deal with Thomas, but I find him to be a much more nuanced character than he is often considered to be. He is a character with conflicting, powerful tendencies. I am looking for the distinct complex character driven by the push and pull of personal exigencies. The listing of the various drives is not enough to understand the function of Thomas. The goal is to study, rather than simply list, the various components of the literary character of Thomas and how they may relate to each other by means of interpreting them both in the proximate contexts in which they appear and in the larger development of Thomas throughout the course of the narrative. This is not to say that Thomas is not also a type. A character may both be a type and have a unique set of traits.35 Thomas is a type in that he speaks explicitly as a member of the group of disciples (11.16) and for the disciples (14.5). Hints that he may be more than a type, however, come from 20.25b, where he rejects the testimony of his fellow disciples and from 20.28, where he utters the most appropriate confession of Jesus: one that is without parallel in this gospel. In his rejection in 20.25b he is presented as an anti-type of those who do not see and yet believe. In this regard, it is often claimed that Thomas simply represents the other disciples who also do not express belief until they have seen the risen Jesus. It will be argued, however, that Thomas is unlike them in some important ways at this point in the narrative. Moreover, although he does speak as a disciple and for them in 11.16 and 14.5, respectively, these verses and their immediate contexts also contain some oppositional traits in Thomas. Finally, we will see that there are a number of ways in which the thought, speech, and actions of the Johannine Thomas have been interpreted. This diverse exegetical tradition should alert us to the possibility that John has with deft strokes made this disciple more than just a type.36 So, too, should the minimalistic means of characterization found in the Hebrew Bible. The portrayal of Thomas in terms similar to and suggestive of the words and actions of other characters rounds him. Both the larger web of Thomas’ relations and his roles in the contexts in which 33 ‘Speaking through Ambiguity: Minor Characters in the Fourth Gospel’, BI 10 (2002), pp.324, 326–8. 34 ‘Speaking through Ambiguity’, pp.329–39. 35 Notable novels with characters who are both types and are round are Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility. Mr Darcy struggles with pride and Elizabeth with prejudice in the first book, and Elinor embodies sense and her sister Marianne sensibility in the second. 36 So, too, C. Conway, in reference to all minor Johannine characters. ‘Speaking through Ambiguity’, p.328.

8

Introduction

he appears highlight the significance of the disciple who casts filaments backwards and forwards in this gospel.37 The introduction concludes with my adumbration of this significance. Thomas has a foot on both sides of the Johannine dualistic divide. In a literary world formed, inhabited, and polarized by means of the response that characters give to the Johannine Jesus, Thomas appears existentially at home in the one and ideologically at home in the other. It is not for him simply a matter of needing to grow in the belief in, and understanding of, Jesus’ message, as it is for other members of the core group. Such growth is necessary for Thomas, but in him it is hindered by a determined opposition. No other character in this gospel so tenaciously holds on to companionship with Jesus while just as resolutely distancing himself from Jesus’ central teaching. He does not just remain in the group and mildly question Jesus as do the rest of the disciples, nor does he leave the group as a result of Jesus’ message, as do others.38 Thomas breaks down the barriers between the disciples as those belonging to the light, who are not of this world, and those in the dark, who are of this world. Because of this character we must question just how strongly the borders are guarded and in which ways they are permeable. Some view Thomas as representative of the disciples either in all his appearances or in certain ones, while others write about what they consider to be unique attributes of this character.39 Thomas does typify the disciples in that he has the difficulties (11.8, 16; 14.5) and needs (20.25b) that they have. Thomas is different, however, in that he is the only character who remains a disciple and yet who verbally rejects, and seems to close himself off to, Jesus’ central tenet of being the life that conquers death. Other characters that do so either end up apostatizing (6.66) or are those who never were disciples and who refuse to believe in Jesus. Both groups clearly belong to the world, the darkness, unlike the core group of Jesus’ disciples who are ‘not of this world’ and who are ‘sons of light’ in a gospel with a rhetorically rigorous dualism.40 Just where Thomas falls in this bifurcated world-view and why he alone appears to be able to straddle both sides when John calls for a radical decision on Jesus are questions this study explores. Those who stress the salient features of the Johannine Thomas often interpret them as being obtuseness or doubt, on the one hand, and

37 Compare the following description from Virginia Woolf. ‘She waved her hand, going up Shaftesbury Avenue. She was all that. So that to know her, or any one, one must seek out the people who completed them; even the places.’ Mrs Dalloway (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1925), p.231. 38 For this latter group, see Jn 6.66; 8.31, 59; 13.27-30. 39 For the former, see e.g., I. Dunderberg, The Beloved Disciple in Conflict?: Revisiting the Gospels of John and Thomas (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp.58–9; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), p.1016, n.46; R. Brown, The Gospel According to John XIII–XXI (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1970), pp.1031–2. 40 Jn 1.9-13; 12.35-36.

Introduction

­9

loyalty and/or courageousness, on the other.41 The results of this study are (1) to modulate these characteristics, so much so as to change one of them and to suggest a new understanding of the significance of the other, (2) to propose several types of interrelated development of this character throughout the narrative, and (3) to delineate how his enduring and evolving traits function to bridge those on two sides of an apparently unbridgeable Johannine divide.42

41 See e.g., C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to Saint John (London: SPCK, 1958), pp.382, 476; R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (C. Hastings, trans.; HTNTC; vol.3; New York: Seabury Press, 1990), p.329; R. A. Whitacre, John (IVPNTCS; Downers Grove, IL; InterVarsity Press, 1999), pp.250, 383, 484–5; P. Dschulnigg, Jesus Begegnen: Personen und ihre Bedeutung im Johannesevangelium (Münster: LIT, 2002), pp.221, 224–5; H. Orchard, Courting Betrayal: Jesus as Victim in the Gospel of John (JSNTSS, 161; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), p.185. C. Skinner views Thomas’ role as that of the misunderstanding disciple, a quality that Skinner sees him sharing with the other disciples. John and Thomas – Gospels in Conflict?: Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question (PTMS; Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009), pp.55, 60, 62, 67. A countercurrent to the view of Thomas’ loyalty or courageousness is found in the thought of John Chrysostom that the questioning of Jesus by the Johannine Thomas demonstrated the cowardice of this disciple. Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 62 (NPNF1 14.228), 73 (NPNF1 14.269). 42 In regard to the development of Thomas, Alain Marchadour sees Thomas displaying loyalty in chapter 11, incomprehension in chapter 14, and resistance in chapter 20. Les personages dans l’évangile de Jean: miroir pour une christologie narrative (LB, 139; Paris: Cerf, 2005), p.131. I will argue for different types of progression throughout the gospel.



­

Chapter 1 Going to Death with Him (John 11.16) Initial Overview Thomas makes his entrance onto the Johannine stage in the episode about Lazarus in John 11. As with his other appearances, he is strangely both a strong influx pushing the current of the story toward its comedic resolution, and an eddy in the middle of the stream.1 Courage propels him into the already roiling waters of Jesus’ mission, and insufficient faith causes him to become an obstacle to its flow. Thomas appears first at the turning point of the narrative, at the point where John is making clear that the significance of Jesus’ signs is that they show that he is the one who gives eternal life. Thomas walks onto the stage near the point where Jesus is about to make this eternal life a reality by means of his own death and resurrection. John introduces Thomas close to the transition between what has frequently been called the Book of Signs (Jn 1.19–12.50) and the Book of Glory (John 13–21). He is presented this side of the boundary of life confined by death and life eternal, and he appears there as one who does not recognize the new horizons and the new possibilities they offer. Thomas reasserts the realm of death that is quickly crumbling before the realm of life that Jesus is bringing about. Having said this we should not think about Thomas as a tragic character or even as one whom at this point (John 11) is painted only in dark tones. His courageous commitment to Jesus carries him over from one realm to the next, and it helps to carry the other disciples over as well. Thus, while one characteristic makes him affirm the power of the old world, another leads him over to a new world that is becoming manifest. It should be clear from the preceding paragraph that I view the initial comment by Thomas as demonstrating both courage and a deficiency of faith.2 Often this comment has been interpreted in terms of an obtuseness and loyalty on the part of Thomas.3 I will argue, however, that Thomas’ 1 I am here using the term ‘comedic’ in the sense of a resolution where the protagonists achieve their goals. 2 ‘Denying Thomas’, rather than ‘doubting Thomas’ is a more appropriate description as Thomas will consistently reject rather than struggle with the possibility of an afterlife. Stanley Marrow notes that Thomas exhibits in 11.16 a certainty that death would result from following Jesus. The Gospel of John (New York: Paulist, 1995), pp.184–5. 3 See e.g., the following scholars, who note one or both of these characteristics. R. Schnackenburg,

12

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

comment represents a denial of a central component of the Johannine Jesus’ message, rather than either doubt or slowness in understanding it, together with loyalty that rises to valour. The importance and far-reaching implications of these interrelated qualities – through the connections of Thomas with many characters and events in the narrative – have not been fully understood. This study will address these important Johannine features. A brief survey of alternative ways in which Jn 11.16 has been interpreted will set the context for an in-depth investigation of this verse and what it conveys about Thomas. There are those who view the initial words of this character as a cry of resignation and despair, as a recognition of what appears to be the inevitable, collective execution of the disciples.4 Death hardly appears inevitable for the group, however, as they twice protest against Jesus’ course of action and distance themselves from it by a shift of subject as to who is undertaking this journey (11.8, 12). Thus, rather than a bow to the inevitable, Thomas’ statement is a call to the disciples to change their minds and stick with Jesus. Moreover, there is a pragmatism and a cynicism about this character that appears incompatible with what would be, in the view that 11.16 is fatalistic, a call to group suicide. In 14.5 Thomas will ask for specific directions on how to proceed to where Jesus is going, and in 20.25 he appears as so grounded in the material world as to mock any chances of life beyond the death of the material body. It will be argued that in 11.16 Thomas sees doom on the horizon if they follow Jesus, but he sees no necessity to their doing so; it is their free choice.

The Gospel According to St. John (C. Hastings, tr.; HTNTC; Vol.2; New York: Seabury, 1980), p.328; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (second edn; Louisville: Westminster, 1978), p.394; G. Beasley-Murray, John (WBS, 36; Waco: Word, 1987), p.189; F. Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), p.159; Charles Talbert, Reading John (RNTS; New York: Crossroad, 1994), p.172; L. Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT; rev. edn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p.484. A. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge: University Press, 1965), pp.112–13; D. Carson, The Gospel According to John (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p.410. 4 E.g., E. Kraft, ‘Die Personen das (sic) Johannesevangeliums’, Evangelische Theologie 16 (1956), p.27; R. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957), p.220; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, trans. G. Beasley-Murray, R. Hoare and J. Riches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), p.400; B. Witherington, III, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), p.202; J. Ramsey Michaels, John (NIBC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), p.195; A. Xavier, ‘Thomas in the Fourth Gospel’, ITS (1993), pp.18–28; A. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge: University Press, 1965), pp.112–13; N. Farrelly, The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp.120, 127. It has also been proposed that in 11.16 Thomas is doing no more than what the other disciples are doing at this time: evaluating Jesus’ proposed course of action as resulting in death. E. Haenchen, John 2 (R. Funk and U. Busse, eds; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), p.60. Nevertheless, only Thomas verbally sides with Jesus on adopting this course. Moreover, Thomas is the only one who is portrayed as speaking for the inevitability of death over life immediately following Jesus’ clarification that his journey is for life over death, and Thomas does so in a manner that parallels Jesus’ words of life: reversing them to words of death.

Going to Death with Him

­13

Another negative assessment of Thomas in 11.16 is that he manifests a misunderstanding of the uniqueness of Jesus’ death that saves others; this death cannot be shared.5 An initial critique of this view stems from the fact that the Johannine Jesus calls all to participate in his self-sacrificial love (15.12-13). It may be added that the positioning of Thomas’ narrative debut demonstrates that the sticking point for this character is the very possibility of salvation beyond death rather than the meaning of Jesus’ death. The two are connected, but it is the denial of the former that makes Thomas misunderstand the latter. It is no accident that Thomas jumps into the dialogue precisely after Jesus has clarified that he will raise Lazarus. This shows that the crux of his difficulty is the idea of a hope beyond the grave. The subsequent words of Thomas in John 14 and 20 will bolster this view. So it is a denial of Jesus’ power over death that is at the root of Thomas’ words in 11.16. A more positive conception of Thomas is that in 11.16 he is doing what should be done. There are two variants of this thesis. First, some consider the verse an ironical truth that Christians have died in Christ (Rom 6.8; 2 Cor. 5.14).6 This Pauline construct appears to be inconsistent with the evidence in this gospel. Although the fourth evangelist uses death imagery to express our solidarity with Jesus, he does so with an image different from dying in him or being ‘baptized into his death’ (Rom 6.3). The specific type of death imagery that he employs will be treated later as a backdrop upon which to view the statement by Thomas on dying with Jesus. The second version of the thesis that Thomas is doing in 11.16 what should be done is the view that there is a congruence between the statement of Thomas and the perspective of the fourth evangelist himself. Thomas is said to have prepared the disciples for Jesus’ death.7 This ‘preparation’ is sometimes held to be of the same type as Jesus himself provides in Jn 12.24-26.8 Truly, truly I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it remains alone. If it dies, it bears much fruit. The one who loves his life loses it, and the one who hates his life in this world keeps it for eternal life. If someone would serve me, let him follow me. Where I am, my servant will be. If someone serves me, the Father will honour him.

But there is a certain inharmoniousness between 11.16 and 12.24-26; Thomas is not there at Jesus’ passion and death.9 Further, there is a temporal 5 Barrett, St. John, p.394; Schnackenburg, St. John, 2.328. 6 See Raymond Brown for his notation of this traditional view. The Gospel According to John I – XII (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), p.424. 7 Daniel Harrington, John’s Thought and Theology (GNS, 33; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), p.71. 8 See R. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel, p.220; J. McPolin, S.J., John (NTM, 6; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1979), p.156; Morris, John, p.484. 9 Daniel Harrington notes the irony of 11.16 because of the failure of the disciples to stand by Jesus during his passion. John’s Thought, pp.71–2. Actually, the irony is much more striking in the light

14

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

incongruity in the words of Thomas. None of the disciples die ‘with’ Jesus (11.16).10 In this regard, the trip to Lazarus narrated in John 11 does not immediately lead to Jesus’ death, although it is the occasion for the religious leadership to begin planning on how to put him to death (11.47-53). After this trip, Jesus first returns to the wilderness and then returns to Bethany before going to Jerusalem on the trip that will result in his death (11.54; 12.1, 12). So Thomas’ death perspective is premature rather than percipient.11 His perspective crowds out the life before (the raising of Lazarus) and the life after (the resurrection) the raising of Lazarus. For these reasons, the related thesis that 11.16 is Thomas’ call to the disciples to lay down their lives for Lazarus appears also in need of refinement.12 There is no summons to help expressed in 11.16; only the certainty of death. Lazarus has already died, and 11.16 expresses Thomas’ view that death is the necessary consequence of the journey for Jesus and his disciples. For Thomas, death precludes any help that they might give. Moreover, the disciples have already demonstrated a loyalty to Jesus despite mass defections and threats and attempts to kill him. They have demonstrated no such loyalty to Lazarus, making it improbable that Thomas is calling the disciples to go and die with Lazarus.13 A variation of this thesis is that Thomas was calling the disciples to die not for Lazarus but with him. This variation is in accord with the met’ au0tou= terminology in 11.16. Although there is no narrative justification for this degree of loyalty to Lazarus on the part of the disciples at this point of the narrative, two arguments have been put forward for this view that Lazarus is the referent of met’ au0tou=.14 First, the focus in 11.10-15 is on Lazarus and this feature argues for interpreting met’ au0tou= in 11.16 as referring to Lazarus. In response, while the focus of the discussion in 11.10-15 is on the proposed course of action regarding Lazarus, there is an undercurrent in these verses, already begun in 11.8, of opposition to this journey. This eddy is based on the remembrance of the attempted murder of Jesus that almost took place in Jerusalem (8.59; 10.31; 11.8). The death of Jesus, should he go back to Judea, is the whole reason for the discussion in 11.10-15. Once Jesus closes off the conversation by repeating in 11.15 the summons to Judea that of the absence of Thomas at the passion. Peter does attempt to follow Jesus, and the BD does stand by Jesus during his passion and death. 10 So, too, P. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), p.59. 11 M.-J. Lagrange notes that the danger for the disciples was not imminent at this point. Évangile selon Saint Jean (EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1947), p.299. Similarly, K. Wengst calls Thomas’ words ‘voreilig’ (‘hasty’). K. Wengst, Das Johannesevangelium: 2 Teilband (TKNT, 4, 2; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2001). 12 S. van Tilborg, Imaginative Love in John (BIS 2; Leiden: Brill, 1993), p.233. 13 One could respond, however, that met’ au0tou= expresses not an allegiance to Lazarus but rather a suicidal cry of despair. This appears to be, however, out of character with the subsequent depiction of Thomas as a practical realist as I have previously evidenced. See p.12. 14 See e.g., T. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Johannes (repr., KNT; Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1983), pp.481–­2; Michaels, Gospel of John, p.624; B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB; repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p.392.

Going to Death with Him

­15

he had first expressed in 11.7, Thomas articulates in 11.16 the concern that motivated the dialogue: Jesus’ death. The second argument that 11.16 is Thomas’ summons to die with Lazarus comes from the use of third person singular personal pronouns in 11.15, 17. That these pronouns in 11.15, 17 refer to Lazarus is said to argue that au0tou= in 11.16 does so as well. In response, this view neglects the habitual way that Thomas replies to people. He breaks down comments he has heard into two parts and responds to each distinctly. Thus, in 11.16 Thomas responds first to Jesus’ words, ‘But let us go to him’ in 11.15 with his comment, ‘Let us also go’. It is in Thomas’ clause, ‘in order that (i3na) we might die with him’ that he parries Jesus’ next clause in 11.5: ‘in order that you might believe’. In effect, Thomas says by this rejoinder, ‘Our going will lead to none of us being anywhere’. The words met’ au0tou= in this clause link, then, to Jesus in the corresponding i3na clause in 11.15. If these words referred to Lazarus, they would have been placed in Thomas’ response to Jesus’ exhortation, ‘But let us go to him’ (au0to/n): ‘Let us also go’ (11.15-16). That Thomas breaks down what he hears in a bipartite way and addresses each part separately is shown by his other responses. In 14.5 Thomas replies to Jesus’ statement in 14.4, ‘And where I am going you know the way’, with the binary formulation, ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’15 In 20.25b, as I will argue later, Thomas responds both to the other disciples’ claim to have seen the Lord and to Mary’s report that the resurrected Lord did not wish to be touched (20.17-18, 24). Once again he comments separately on the different parts. The first clause of 20.25b is about what he will need to see and the subsequent ones about what he needs to touch. In 20.29 Thomas also breaks down Jesus’ words in 20.27 to him into two parts: (1) the identification of Jesus through seeing and touching (‘Put your finger here and see my hands, and put out your hand and place it in my side’ – 20.27) and (2) belief in Jesus (‘and do not be unbelieving but believing’ – 20.27). Typically, Thomas responds in a dual way. The first part of Thomas’ words in 20.29, ‘my Lord’, identifies the risen One as the Jesus whom Thomas addressed as ‘Lord’ in 14.5. The second part, ‘my God’, is this disciple’s answer to Jesus’ call to believe. Thus, there is a pattern to Thomas’ responses that suggest that had met’ au0tou= in 11.16 referred to Lazarus it would have been found in the prior clause in this verse. The preceding discussion has shown that it is difficult to see in the initial comment by Thomas a summons to readers of the gospel,16 even

15 Among others, the manuscripts P66*, A, C, and D break down Jesus’ statement in 14.4 into the same type of parts found in Thomas’ reply. John 14.4 in these manuscripts reads, ‘And you know where I am going, and you know the way’. This may have occurred as a result of the influence of the manner of Thomas’ reply in 14.5. 16 Beasley-Murray, John, p.189.

16

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

an unintentional call,17 to true discipleship. Viewing them as a reverberation of the call of Jesus to discipleship both overvalues them and misconstrues them by taking them out of – or by incorrectly assessing – the Johannine context in which they were uttered.18 If the meaning of Thomas’ remark is best explained in terms of both a loyal courage and a deficiency of faith, what precisely are behind these character traits? Why talk about these characteristics at this point of the gospel, and what is their significance in the Johannine scheme of things? The context in which the first Thomas passage is placed is instructive. There is by no means only one way to establish a passage’s literary matrix. The categories of immediate and larger contexts are at once both too vague and too inclusive. They are vague because of the question of where the one ends and the other begins. Should the boundary between the two be determined form critically? If such a choice is made, one runs the risk of placing in the background literary connections that may transcend the form and that may be the primary means by which certain literary features are connected. The categories of immediate and larger contexts are also too inclusive. One must make judgments on what material is a relevant part of the matrix for the feature under investigation. I begin by treating the relevant prior context of Jn 11.16 from the perspective that at the point in the story described in 11.7-16 the disciples reach their collective threshold at which they begin to experience the dis-ease caused by Jesus’ prolonged conflict with the Jews. Thomas functions in 11.16 as a liminal adapter and transcender: as one who helps the other disciples adjust to their perception of difficulty and function in its presence. This chapter will advance several interrelated theses. First, Thomas enables the disciples to continue their loyal following of Jesus when they are in danger of falling away. Second, he does so in ways that undermine their later ability to remain with Jesus. Third, Thomas displays not a lack of understanding of Jesus’ words but rather 17 Carson, John, p.410. 18 Another view that Thomas is presented in a positive way comes from Stan Hartstine. Hartstine claims that Thomas is consistently faithful to Jesus. He depicts Thomas’ statement to the disciples in John 20 on the need he has to see and touch in order to believe as that of a servant who is careful to keep loyal to his master. Thomas does not want to inadvertently transfer his loyalty to another, argues Hartstine, on the basis of the scene in Odyssey 23 when Penelope is told that Odysseus has returned. She did not believe at once that it was Odysseus but required him to show, by knowledge that only he would possess, that the person is her husband. ‘Un–Doubting Thomas: Recognition Scenes in the Ancient World’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 33 (2006), pp.435–47. Hartstine questions if it is likely that the disciple portrayed as loyal earlier in the Gospel would ‘so quickly replace his loyalty with doubt’ (p.447). It will be argued that there is no replacing of one characteristic with another in John 20; the element that Hartstine refers to as ‘doubt’, which I attempt to more precisely define, was already present in the earlier appearances of Thomas. Homer’s works were widely known in the ancient Greco-Roman world. The problems with Hartstine’s view are, however, twofold. First, the argument would have been stronger if it had relied on elements of a standard type scene rather than on only one passage. Second, the risen Jesus contrasts Thomas’ need for seeing Jesus in order to believe with those ‘blessed’ ones who do not see and yet believe (20.29). This saying contains an implicit criticism of Thomas rather than an affirmation of him as a loyal servant.

Going to Death with Him

­17

a fundamental disagreement with them. We begin our exploration with a study of the opposition and hostilities that have built up in the story prior to 11.1-16 and that reach a potential breaking point in this passage. This analysis will provide data for the questions ‘What is the state of affairs when Thomas first speaks in this gospel?’ and ‘What led us to this state of affairs?’

Bravery Discipleship and Danger in John 1 – 10: Prelude to a Literary Life Before looking at the events that immediately precede John 11 and what they contribute to an understanding of 11.16, let us look at the pattern of escalating conflicts and tension that the disciples experience during Jesus’ public ministry in John 2–10. They set the stage for appreciating the emotional toll the group has paid by the narrative time indicated by John 11. In John 2–4 the reaction is positive, with many believing in Jesus.19 There is only a transient shadow cast by his disruption of buying and selling in the temple and only cirrus-like clouds from his encounter with Nicodemus and from Jesus’ initial assessment of the request by the royal official (3.1-15; 4.48). Thus, unlike in the Synoptic Gospels, the actions in the temple lead to no threat on his life. The reaction is simply mockery caused by an ambiguous statement by Jesus not found in the Synoptics (2.19-20).20 Moreover, the notice that after the brief dialogue between Jesus and the Jews concerning these actions, many believed on the basis of his signs, publicly cushions Jesus from any possible official censure or worse (2.23). This is especially the case because only in the FG do the leaders confront Jesus about his actions in the temple with a request for an authenticating sign (2.18). By doing signs in Jerusalem following the dialogue with them, Jesus has forestalled any actions of the leaders against him. The situation is much more threatening in the Synoptic accounts. Luke also writes about public support that impeded the leaders, but it is an actual plan that they had to kill him that is stalled (Lk. 19.47-48). Mark writes about the leaders seeking to kill him after these actions without any buffer to these plans (Mk. 11.18). Matthew moves the process of the leaders’ attempts to kill Jesus one step further by having them undauntingly question Jesus following 19 Jn 1.35-51; 2.11, 23; 3.26; 4.29, 41, 42, 53, 54. The question by the Samaritan woman in 4.29 contains the term mh/ti. This may imply a certain degree of doubt on her part as to whether or not Jesus is the Christ. That she asked the question at all, however, shows a certain openness to him. Moreover, her words to her fellow citizens (‘Come, see’ – 4.29) are similar to the calls by Jesus and Philip to discipleship in 1.39, 46. C. Conway, Men and Women, p.123; T. Seim, ‘Roles of Women in the Gospel of John’, Aspects on the Johannine Literature (L. Hartman and B. Olsson, eds.; CBNTS 18; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell, 1987), p.69. 20 R. Whitacre notes that Nathanael has a similar incredulous question, but that unlike the leaders he keeps himself open to Jesus’ revelation. John (IVPNTCS; Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p.83. This lack of openness on the part of the leaders does not lead to, or accompany, however, any type of plan to put Jesus to death, as we will see is the case in the synoptic accounts.

18

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

the cleansing of the temple even in the face of his healing miracles at this time and the praise this elicits from children (Mt. 21.15-16a). In the FG the reaction of the leaders to Jesus’ cleansing of the temple casts no pall over Jesus and neither do the other demurrals in John 3–4. Even though Nicodemus’ original confession founders on the shoals of misunderstanding, there is no report that it led to his disbelief.21 Jesus is initially hesitant to respond to the official’s request, seeing it as an indicator that the Galileans need signs in order to believe. Matters change quickly, though, as the official soon believes Jesus’ word and then believes in Jesus himself (4.48, 50, 53). There is one action that Jesus takes after the dialogue with Nicodemus that sets a precedent for how he will respond to future conflict; Jesus leaves Jerusalem (3.22). The situation that led to this departure will have rough analogues in later passages. We have seen both that Jesus had done signs in Jerusalem that led to the belief of many (2.23) and that these signs and belief would have deterred any attempt by the leaders, who requested an authenticating sign for his actions in the temple, from taking action against him at this point. John 3.1 links Nicodemus to those who believed on the basis of these signs and claims that he is a leader as well. It is noteworthy that either the whole dialogue between Nicodemus and Jesus or a distinct section of it (3.1-15), depending on whether or not one views 3.16-21 as a monologue that springs from the preceding dialogue or part of the dialogue itself, concludes with statements on the resurrection of Jesus and the life it brings, as did Jesus’ ambiguous response to the leaders who questioned his actions in the temple (2.19; 3.13-15).22 That the leader, Nicodemus, does not understand Jesus and that Jesus leaves Jerusalem after talking with him suggest Jesus’ attentive awareness of resistance by leaders and his calculated withdrawal (3.22). It is possible that this is the reason that Jesus also leaves Judea and goes to Galilee in 4.3 when he learns that the Pharisees heard that ‘he was making and baptizing more disciples than John’ (4.1). Two major scholarly proposals as to the reason for this departure are: (1) it was a prudent relocation to diffuse the jealousy of the Pharisees; or (2) it was a move to avoid the assumption of, or an actual rift between, Jesus and John.23 There are several arguments, however, against the second proposal. In the FG the Baptist responds to his disciples that Jesus must increase and he must diminish (3.30). This comment mitigates jealousy. Moreover, there is no questioning of Jesus by John in the FG, as is the case in Mt. 11.12-19 and Lk. 7.18-35. What suggests that 4.1 is a tactical 21 The continual esteem that Nicodemus has for Jesus is shown by his responses in 7.51, where he defends Jesus, and in 19.39, where he brings a large quantity of spices and wraps them in the cloths in which he buries Jesus. 22 For arguments for Jn 3.16-21 as constituting a distinct section, see e.g., Carson, John, p.203; Brown, John I–XII, p.147. 23 For the former, see, e.g., Bultmann, John, p.176; Morris, John, p.224; Haenchen, John 1 (R. Funk, tr. R. Funk and U. Busse, eds; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), p.218; Lindars, John, p.176; Beaseley-Murray, John, p.59. For the latter, see, e.g., Michaels, John, p.68; Talbert, Reading John, p.108; Carson, John, p.215.

Going to Death with Him

­19

withdrawal in the face of potential Pharisaic opposition is this note on the Pharisees in relation to baptism recalls their previous monitoring in 1.19-28 of baptismal activity. In addition, a calculated retreat in 4.1 is consonant with Jesus’ leaving Judea after periods of opposition by the leaders (6.1; 10.40), with his caution about going to Judea (7.1, 6-8, 10), and with his departure for a wilderness area in Judea after the council meets to decide how to put him to death (11.54). Thus, there is no dangerous ambiance in Jn 2–4, just the briefest of opposition in the form of mockery and later either unformed belief or inchoate belief. Yet even when there are intimations of opposition in this section, Jesus cautiously allows some distance between himself and the leaders. From John 5 onward, however, Jesus is embroiled in disputes, attacks, and intrigue. After a Sabbath cure, we read that the Jews persecuted Jesus and tried to kill him (5.16, 18). These actions appear to be prospective, however, subsequent to his extended monologue in 5.19-47. There is no account during this discourse of any interruptions by questions or objections, as is the case in the following discourses.24 Moreover, we might expect such responses because of the scathing comments that Jesus delivers against them at this time. In 5.38 he tells them that they do not have God’s word within them. In 5.42 he says that they do not love God. Jesus also says that the Jews ‘accept glory from one another’ but do not seek the glory that comes from God (5.44). Finally, in 5.46-47 Jesus claims that the reason they do not believe him is because they do not believe the Law. The lack of any concrete statements or actions on the part of the Jews at this point, in noted contrast to their reactions in John 7–10, suggests that their hostility is currently crystallizing first in plans for persecution and then in plans for execution (5.16, 18). The disciples experience, however, no direct confrontation at this point, and once again Jesus opts for a prudent relocation (6.1).25 The opposition is no longer tacit in John 6. At first, the crowd responds exuberantly to Jesus’ multiplication of the loaves by seeking to make him king. This soon changes to complaints over Jesus’ explanation of this sign and then to rejection.26 Significantly, this rejection spreads to many of Jesus’ own disciples, as well, with the result that the group of disciples suffers a mass defection.27 The threat to the disciples is so great that Jesus asks the twelve if they will also leave him (6.67). They remain, but now they are a truncated core living in the wake of a sudden disillusionment on the part of the crowd and an equally abrupt and radical thinning of their ranks. 24 Further, although the narrator says that Jesus ‘answers’ in 5.17, there is no mention of any statement of the Jews to which Jesus responds. The sense is that Jesus is responding to the perceived hostility on the Jews’ part, indicated in 5.16 by the mention of their persecution. For the reasons articulated in the paragraph of which this note is a part, the reference to the persecution appears to be proleptic and Jesus’ response, anticipatory. 25 See M. Stibbe, John (RNBC; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993) for a depiction of the Johannine Jesus as an ‘artful dodger’. 26 Jn 6.14-15, 41, 52. 27 Jn 6.60, 66.

20

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

From John 7–10 the intensity of the conflict escalates significantly. Through it all Jesus sagaciously keeps the distance necessary to avoid apprehension. John 7–10 is set in Jerusalem, the scene for the prior strongest acts of opposition to Jesus (2.18, 20; 5.16, 18).28 The heightened degree of danger for him during the events recorded in John 7–10 is expressed right from the outset of John 7. The first verse of this chapter said that Jesus ‘did not wish to go to Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill him’ (7.1). The sense of danger is developed in 7.2-10. Jesus responds to his brothers’ suggestion to go to Judea with the assertion that he is hated and with the veiled reference to his death should he go there (7.6-8). When he does go up to Jerusalem, he does so in secret (7.10). There was no need for covert actions in his prior trips to the city. Once he is in Jerusalem, descriptions of the danger he is in, and his carefulness in the light of it, abound. So perilous is the situation for Jesus that none of the people at the Festival of Tabernacles ‘would speak openly about him for fear of the Jews’ (7.11-13); even to speak about him is to expose oneself to hostility. The actual speech of the crowd to Jesus and the actions of the crowd that stem from their disagreements with Jesus differ markedly from what is found prior to this Feast and also manifest the precariousness of this setting for Jesus. Previously those who had verbally interacted with Jesus had expressed mockery, a lack of understanding, questions for him to prove himself, or assertions that his speech was so difficult as to be untenable.29 Now we find a number of the harshest responses along with attempts to arrest and kill Jesus.30 These build in intensity throughout John 7–8. In John 7.14–8.59 there are three sets of divisions that progress in such a way as to confound expectations of any significant degree of success in replenishing the recently depleted group of disciples. Each set is comprised of two stages. The first set is in 7.14-43, and it involves the crowd’s reaction to Jesus in John 7. Initially, as a whole they have questions about Jesus (7.25-27). Then, the crowd is divided over Jesus with some believing that he is the Prophet (7.40-43). The second set is in 7.44-52, and it comprises a similar two-step process in which this division affects the leaders as well. Initially, the officers sent by the Pharisees to arrest Jesus come back to the leaders without Jesus, providing as an excuse their admiration of Jesus’ speech (7.46). The response of the Pharisees is to create a division between themselves, who know the law, and the ‘accursed’ crowd, who does not (7.48-49). Next, the division occurs within the ranks of the leaders themselves as Nicodemus demurs about their proposed course of action and is reprimanded by them (7.50-52). The third set of divisions occurs in John 8.12-59. Initially, the Pharisees and the larger crowd appear to be divided over Jesus. The Pharisees lead the attack, while ‘many believed in him’ (8.13, 19, 30). Jesus continues his speech to those who believe in him, but ultimately none of these end up doing so (8.31-59). 28 The events narrated in these chapters occur during or soon after the feast of Tabernacles (7.1-10.21) and during the feast of Dedication (10.22-39). 29 Jn 2.18, 20; 3.4, 9; 4.11, 15, 20; 6.41-42, 52, 60. 30 Jn 7.20, 30, 44; 8.48, 59; 10.31-33, 39.

Going to Death with Him

­21

This order of divisions raises hopes only to dash them. The crowd’s questioning leads to the belief of some of them. When even the officers sent by the Pharisees to arrest Jesus refuse to do so because of how impressed they are, the hopes for more support are heightened, especially because the officers in disobeying orders come back and witness to Jesus before the Pharisees. That one of the leaders breaks ranks in the face of the Pharisees’ harsh censure of the whole crowd increases positive expectations. Finally, when many of the crowd believe in Jesus in the face of the Pharisees themselves coming to Jesus and personally criticizing him, prospects of public conversion loom large (8.13, 30). This crescendo of possibilities plummets by the end of John 8 where it becomes clear that no converts are made.31 Several other features contribute to the emotional turbulence that attends these finally shattered possibilities for group-growth. They do so by casting extreme examples of rejection throughout the complex of possibilities for growth. The first are the words about Jesus’ death that permeate John 7–8. Both Jesus and the crowd, including those who initially believe in him, speak about people wishing to kill him (7.19-20, 25-26; 8.22, 40, 44). The second feature comprises the references to attempted arrests of Jesus (7.30, 32, 44; 8.20) and an attempt to kill him (8.59).32 For the first time disagreements with Jesus culminate not simply in mocking him and/or departing from him but in seeking to arrest or kill him.33 The potential for the enlargement of the group is always butting up against these extreme words or actions of rejection in these chapters. These words and actions keep the emotional climate charged. The disciples are having their emotional resources taxed. Throughout this death-permeated ambiance the Johannine Jesus moves boldly but prudently. When they pick up stones, and by so doing make a concrete attempt on Jesus’ life, Jesus hides and leaves the temple (8.59).34 Yet the danger remains because Jesus stays in Jerusalem. In fact, the danger now spreads to his disciples, as well. This expansive threat is first indicated at the 31 James Swetnam argues that the group that Jesus excoriates in 8.31-59 is not the group referred to in 8.30, who are said to have believed in him, but rather a separate group that no longer believed in Jesus. ‘The Meaning of pepisteukotas in John 8.31’, Bib 61 (1980), pp.106–9. If this is so, then the sense of heightened, and dashed, expectations for the conversion of others would be missing from these verses. D. A. Carson has argued convincingly against Swetnam’s view. Gospel according to John, p.347, n.2. 32 John 7.30 and 8.20 note that the crowd cannot arrest Jesus because his hour had not yet arrived. 33 H. Orchard argues for ‘an escalation in hostility’ in John 7–8. Courting Betrayal, p.88. The progression does not seem that simple but rather involves oscillations between anger and apparent inroads into evoking the belief of people. Thus, the crowd wants to arrest him in 7.30, but after further words of Jesus only some of them are said to want to arrest him in 7.44. An actual attempt at an arrest is made by the chief priests and Pharisees in 7.32, but it is frustrated by the impression that Jesus makes on those sent to seize him (7.45-46). The Pharisees take the lead in the attack in 8.11, but Jesus actually makes many believers (8.30). These believers apostatise by 8.59. 34 As Jesus came to Jerusalem in secret because of the danger, he has to hide and leave the temple in the same way. P. F. Ellis, The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984), p.156; Stibbe, John, p.96.

22

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

outset of John 9 when Jesus responds to the disciples’ question about the blind man by saying, ‘we’ have only a limited time to work before the night comes ‘when no one can work’ (9.4). The degree of the threat to the disciples is shown by the reaction of the leaders, the blind man, and the blind man’s parents to Jesus’ healing of the blind man. The blind man’s parents are careful not to say that anyone has healed their son because the leaders have ‘agreed that anyone who confesses Jesus as the Christ would be put out of the synagogue’ (9.22). The seriousness of the threat becomes clear when the blind man is cast out (9.34).35 It is not simply the expulsion that is significant but also the fact that the man had not confessed Jesus as the Christ. He had called Jesus a prophet and someone ‘from God’ before he was turned out (9.17, 33). It is simply the fact that he stood up for Jesus against the leaders that provoked the leaders to this degree (9.30-34). This puts Jesus’ established group of disciples doubly at risk. The decision to drive out those who confess Jesus as the Christ is an attempt to undermine Jesus’ ministry by attacking his base of support. Although remaining in Jerusalem for the events narrated in John 9, the Johannine Jesus operates carefully at this time. He calls less attention to himself than he did in John 7 and 8, where he stood up and initiated a discourse in the temple. His healing of the blind man takes place outside of the temple, and he is not present for the formal inquisition of the man by the authorities (9.1-34). When he does find the man and defend him before some Pharisees, it is after the man has been ‘driven out’ by his official inquisitors. Jesus is there for him and defends the man, but the defence is before those Pharisees who happen to be with the healed man and not before the official council (9.24, 34-41). Nevertheless, the sense of increased danger is also present because whereas the Pharisees had the blind man on trial to pass judgment on him, in 9.39-41 Jesus passes judgment on them.36 The discourse of Jesus in John 10.1-18 and his manner of participation in the subsequent dialogue with the Jews in 10.24-38 – including his role in its origin and what he chooses to do in its aftermath – also manifest Jesus’ cautious, less directly confrontational stance. The discourse on the Good Shepherd occurs without any change of scene from the preceding dialogue between Jesus and those Pharisees who are near him, sometime after the official session with the blind man is over. It is, therefore, outside of the temple and the crowds this could attract. In the following dialogue, Jesus is in the temple. There is no indicator, however, that he went there to teach, as there is in 7.14. Rather, Jesus is simply walking in the temple when the Jews come to him and initiate the discussion (10.23-24). Moreover, several months have passed between the Feasts of Tabernacles, at which Jesus took the initiative in speaking (John 7–8), and the events at the Feast of Dedication narrated in 10.23-33, at which 35 A. Lincoln has written that already in 9.14, with its notice that the healing of the blind man occurred on the Sabbath, the reader has a sense of how dangerous the situation is because of the results of the prior healing on the Sabbath in John 5. Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), p.98. 36 Lincoln, Truth on Trial, p.99.

Going to Death with Him

­23

others draw him into conversation. There has been time for tempers to cool down. When there is another attempt to arrest him following the conversation during the Feast of Dedication, Jesus places distance between him and his antagonists as well. He goes to the other side of the Jordan to the place at which John had baptized (10.40-41). As in John 6.15-22, Jesus puts water between himself and those who do not understand his message, although what each group intends to do with, or to, Jesus is quite different. The particular place that Jesus goes to at this point is an advantageous one for the disciples. It is the place where John had formerly testified to Jesus (1.15-36). It is the place where the first two disciples had heard John speak of Jesus and from which they had gone to Jesus (1.35-38). The result of his stay there must be a balm for the disciples, coming off months of stiff rejection of Jesus and his message. Whereas the multitude that had come to Jesus in Jerusalem wanted several times to either arrest or kill him, ‘many’ come to him across the Jordan and believe in him (10.42). The place has been a return to home field and the advantages that it brings. The crowd that believes links their belief to the testimony of John the Baptist that had earlier occurred there (10.41).37 Four more subtle features emphasise the emotionally healing environs of this place for the disciples. First, there are two polloi\ (‘many’) words in 10.41-42: one to indicate the number of those who came to Jesus and the other to indicate the number that believed in him. The repetition stresses the success of Jesus’ mission there. It contrasts with the process in John 8–10 by which crowds come to Jesus either predisposed to him or open to discussion and then uniformly turn away from him. Across the Jordan, where John baptized, there is no disjunction between initial approach and remaining with Jesus. Second, the narrator says that Jesus ‘was remaining there’ (e1meinen e0kei=). This indicates a certain respite. Third, the twofold use of the word e0kei= itself conveys this relief as it links the place where Jesus and his disciples now abide (10.40) to the widespread success of his mission there (10.42).38 Fourth, the crowd that believes in Jesus testifies that ‘everything (pa&nta) that John said about this man was true’ (10.41). The unqualified affirmation is a 180 degree shift from the wrangling attendant upon virtually all of Jesus’ words in John 8–10. Thus, in different ways and in different times throughout his recent stay in Jerusalem, prudence has attended the daring deeds and words of the Johannine Jesus. The result of these precautions is the return to safer territory with welldisposed masses who wholeheartedly affirm him. It is precisely both the apparent departure of caution when it seems to be most needed and the departure from 37 D. Moody Smith notes that the ministry of John brackets the ministry of Jesus. John (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), p.214. Compare J. Sanders and B. A. Masten, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1968), p.261. The return to the area Jesus was in before the ministry began is a stepping away from the stresses and strains of this ministry. 38 Both in 10.40 and in 10.42 e0kei= is placed as the last word in clauses, a position of some emphasis.

24

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

friendly, ministerially productive territory to hostile, apparently barren territory that leads to a period of transition for Jesus’ core group. They have recently escaped with Jesus from hostile mobs in Jerusalem. This last visit to Jerusalem constituted their most prolonged stay there and their most sustained experience of dangerous opposition to Jesus (John 7–10). The level of resistance to Jesus had reached a new plateau during this time. In this light, it is only to be expected that Jesus will act with the proper circumspection he had demonstrated in his previous activities in Jerusalem. Given the new state of affairs, the new plateau, the degree of caution regarding returning to Judea would presumably be greater. This is the narrative presumption established by the FG, and it appears to be violated by Jesus’ bold, and initially unqualified exhortation, ‘Let us go to Judea again’ (11.7). Thomas as Liminal Adapter: John 11.16 The proposal advanced in this section is that in 11.16 Thomas enables the disciples to cross their threshold of tolerance to the opposition to Jesus that has been building throughout the prior narrative. As an introduction to more detailed arguments advanced for this proposal, I begin with a look at, and responses to, the incompatible view that in 11.7-16 the disciples show no unwillingness to accompany Jesus. Thus, Theodor Zahn conjectures that it is selbstverständlich (‘self-evident’) that the disciples want to go with him.39 This perspective would not see Thomas’ comment in 11.16 as holding the group together. It is, however, precisely the relation of the desire of the disciples to remain with Jesus to their ability to do so that is at question here. Zahn’s idea shows a lack of appreciation of the build-up in narrative tension until 11.8 and its effects on the disciples, who are not static figures in the narrative, despite their paradigmatic exemplifications of certain traits. These effects are a build-up in their unease and resistance, as shown by the two times they express hesitancies about the journey (11.8, 12). The two demurrals make unlikely the proposal by Ulrich Busse that Thomas’ statement in 11.16 expresses the readiness of the whole core group to journey with Jesus.40 This ‘readiness’ was brought about by Jesus and Thomas. The term kai\ may also signal the continued resistance of the disciples until Thomas speaks to them: ‘Let us also (kai\) go …’. J. Michaels has commented on the unusualness of this term in 11.16 considering that Jesus had just told in 11.15 the same group to go to Judea.41 He sees the presence of the term kai\ as posing the quickly disconfirmed possibility that Thomas is addressing a different group than Jesus had just addressed with similar words. It appears, though, that the presence of kai\ in 11.16 signals that even Jesus’ words in 11.14-15 may need support in order to move the group forward.

39 Johannes, pp.481–3. 40 Das Johannesevangelium (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), p.188. 41 Gospel of John, p.623.

Going to Death with Him

25­

Thomas Brodie acknowledges that 11.8 expresses the hesitancy of the disciples, but thinks that this attitude was soon changed to their solidarity with Jesus and Lazarus in 11.11-16.42 He finds this transformation indicated both by the change of titles that they use for Jesus in 11.8, 12 and by Thomas’ exhortation in 11.16. It is with the idea that the change of titles expresses the disciples’ transformation that I take exception. It is difficult for this argument to bear the weight of this proposed change. The term 9Rabbi/ (11.8) is used of Jesus in very favourable ways in 1.38, 49; 4.31; 9.2, and the same is true of the similar 9Rabbouni/ in 20.16.43 Thus, there is no reason to see the move from 9Rabbi/ (11.8) to Ku/rie (11.12) as a move from hesitancy to solidarity. It should also be noted that there is some holding back on Philip’s part when he uses the term Ku/rie, in 14.6. Therefore, the two titles cannot be distinguished in this way, and Thomas’ saying in 11.16 should not be interpreted as simply an affirmation of an already existing determination by the group of disciples. It is not the case that Thomas’ response in 11.16 reflects the already present solidarity among Jesus and the disciples (11.11-16). The disciples continue in these verses to proffer an argument against going to Judea (11.12). Moreover, Thomas is hardly the disciple who is representative of the group so that his response could be seen as reflecting their opinion. Thomas is the only one not present with the rest of the group when the resurrected Lord appears first to them, and he is the only one who initially refuses to participate in their belief (20.24-29). It appears more probable that 11.16 is another example of Thomas being willing to take a contrary point of view to the rest of the disciples. Thomas evokes the pluck and resolve of the rest of the disciples and overcomes their initial fear. He is a catalyst. By adding his own words to those of Jesus, he creates a collective pressure that overcomes the collective opposition to Jesus’ words. The idea that 11.12 expresses a continuation of the obstinacy of the disciples in regard to Jesus’ proposed journey has, however, itself been questioned. R. Allan Culpepper suggests that the disciples were willing to accompany Jesus at this point of the narrative and that the hesitation they expressed in 11.12 is a result of their misunderstanding of Jesus’ statement, ‘Our friend, Lazarus, has fallen asleep’ (v.11).44 This thought will serve as the springboard for my further thoughts on why the contrary view, that in 11.16 Thomas speaks to a group in danger of being unable to tolerate the pressure of continual loyalty to Jesus, is more likely the case. First, though, it is necessary to treat the focus on 11.12, apart from 11.8, as not expressing a reluctance to follow Jesus. There is no reason to view this verse as marking a change of attitude by the disciples from the one they manifest in 11.8. Rather, these back-to-back comments by them display the same grammatical pattern of a title, followed by a statement of what has just recently occurred, and concluding with a statement of future 42 The Gospel According to John (New York: Oxford University, 1993), pp.391–2. 43 In 1.49 R 9 abbi is linked to the titles o9 ui9oj \ tou= qeou= and basileu\j ... tou= I0 srah/l and Jesus responds well to this threefold confession. 44 Anatomy, p.117.

26

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

action that explicitly or implicitly involves a journey to Judea: the subtext of the words ‘he will recover’ in 11.12 being that there is no need for such a journey. ‘Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?’ (11.8) ‘Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.’

(11.12)

This similar pattern suggests that in 11.12 the disciples are still in the process of attempting to dissuade Jesus and, thus, that 11.8, 12 should be interpreted together in the relevant interpretive matrices of which they are a part. A number of narrative features suggest that 11.8, 12 are expressive of the disciples’ unease and their hesitancy in following Jesus. Let us begin with the immediate context of 11.7-16. First, in 11.7 Jesus does not say, ‘Let us go to Bethany’, but rather, ‘Let us go to Judea again’.45 These words relate their future experience to their past experiences in Judea, which were progressively becoming more dangerous. Second, the disciples’ first words of protestation are, ‘Rabbi, just now the Jews were seeking to stone you, and you are going back there again?’ (11.8). The use of the word, nu=n (‘now’), in 11.8 shows that the attempt to kill Jesus written about in 10.31 was still very active in engaging fear within them.46 Third, Jesus speaks about all of them going to Judea, and the disciples respond in terms of Jesus’ going, rather than in terms of all of them going (11.7-8). This formulation distances them from Jesus’ proposed collective course of action. The ‘you’ of concern in the clause ‘Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you’ has a ‘you’ of self-preservation embedded within it (‘and are you going there again?’).47 Let us now broaden out to look at what larger contexts than 11.7-16 may contribute to the understanding of the disciples’ comments in 11.8, 12. Another factor that is consonant with, and suggests the literary probability of, the disciples’ reluctance may be the ambiguity of the manner in which Jesus initially received the request from Martha and Mary. His first response is that ‘this illness is not to death’ but rather for God’s glorification through the glorification of the Son of God (11.4). The danger is dismissed; the accent is on the positive outcome. This message appears to be reinforced by Jesus’ actions of remaining where he was for two days after he has received the message from the sisters (11.5). In this light, the words in 11.7 of Jesus’ summons to his disciples, 1Agwmen ei0j th\n I)oudai/an, specifying the place where he had recently been in peril rather than Lazarus as their destination, 45 B. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (3rd edn; London: J. Clarke, 1958), p.165. 46 Morris, John, p.540. 47 Perhaps a lack of commitment on the part of the disciples is signalled by the evangelist in Jesus’ change of subjects from his call in 11.7 to the whole group to go to Lazarus to his statement in 11.11 that he himself is going. This modification, following the disciples’ rejoinder in v.8, may indicate Jesus’ awareness of some muffled resistance on their part.

Going to Death with Him

27

are abrupt and potentially disconcerting. The disciples have been lulled into a sense of security, rooted in their distance from Jerusalem, only to hear Jesus’ exhortation, without any accompanying precautions, to go again into Judea. The passage actually highlights the personal freedom the disciples exert at this time as they stand up to Jesus and question him. Jn 11.8, 12 is the first time that the disciples question the wisdom of Jesus’ words, and here they do so twice. In 4.33 they asked themselves, rather than Jesus, a question when they don’t understand what he is saying. This question is not one over the veracity of Jesus’ words but simply one about why he is not hungry. Andrew’s question in 6.9 is also about food and in reference to how the amount of food that a boy has could be of use to them. Once again, the questioning is not about Jesus’ teaching; Andrew simply questions whether the information that he has brought forward can be of any practical use. When the core group has questioned Jesus previously, it has been to affirm their loyalty or to request instruction (6.68; 9.2). When other disciples had questioned Jesus previously, it had led to their apostasy (6.60-66). Similarly, the implicit questioning of Jesus’ actions by his brothers in 7.3-5 is said to manifest their disbelief. Questioning Jesus’ teachings or actions is risky in the FG, and the core group has previously not done so. When the man born blind questions Jesus, he makes it clear that it is to receive information that will enable him to properly direct his belief (9.36-38). Thus, the two hesitancies that the disciples express in 11.8, 12 in regard to Jesus’ proposal are fraught with danger. That each objection is to the same command of Jesus demonstrates the hazard they feel that makes them go against their established tradition of quiet obedience. That Jesus, with one significant exception, never otherwise exhorts them to go somewhere with him signals that in John 11 the disciples need to be steeled for this trip. The exception is in 14.31. Here again the disciples need to be strengthened because Jesus has just spoken of his betrayal, of the disciples being unable to accompany him now, of how they should be neither ‘troubled nor afraid’, and of the coming of ‘the ruler of the world’.48 In other places, again with one telling exception, we read simply of Jesus going somewhere and find that the disciples have accompanied him.49 John 6.15 is distinctive because it says that Jesus withdrew alone (mo/noj). When no exhortatory term occurs, though, it is clear from such verses as 4.8; 6.3; 9.2, 35 that the disciples accompany him, although this is not explicitly stated. The presence of the disciples is taken for granted.

48 Jn 13.21, 33, 36; 14.2-3, 27, 30. In 1.39 Jesus’ words ‘Come and see’ are invitatory rather than exhortatory. 49 Jn 2.2, 12-13; 4.3, 43; 5.1, 13-14; 6.1; 7.1; 8.1-2; 9.1; 10.23 (where the action of Jesus’ walking in the temple is spoken about, implying his going to the temple); 10.40; 11.54; 12.1. The one revealing anomaly to the pattern of not reading about the disciples accompanying Jesus on a journey is in 18.1. This verse demonstrates by contrast the Johannine standard of not recording the disciples’ presence in the actual progress from place to place. In 18.1 the naming of the disciples both in the egress from Jerusalem and in the entrance to the garden stresses their presence.

28

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

Thus, the twofold summons in 11.7, 15 of Jesus to his disciples to accompany him to Judea is a marked change of policy that is explainable by the danger that the disciples note in such a journey. In this regard, it is significant that Jesus does not have to encourage the disciples to return to Bethany when he returns to the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus in 12.1. The disciples have only experienced the success in Bethany of many believing in Jesus (11.45). They have not experienced some going to the leaders, telling them what Jesus did, and the leaders’ subsequent plot to kill Jesus (11.4653). Only Jesus knows this, because of his percipience that knows what is in the heart of people (2.25), and therefore relocates from Judea (11.54). So the disciples have no problems accompanying Jesus back to Lazarus. They also have no problems with Jesus’ subsequent journey from Bethany to Jerusalem because a large crowd, impressed at what Jesus did for Lazarus, comes to them when they are again in Bethany (12.9, 14). Success stabilizes them for these journeys. The threat of death had, however, compromised their ability to follow Jesus in his first trip to Bethany. What these observations show is that the disciples have reservations about following Jesus to Lazarus. They have been in an extremely pressurized situation (7.1–10.31) and have been released from it, only to be called to enter it again. Exacerbating their emotions is the apparent removal of any reason to return to Judea. After receiving the message that Lazarus was ill, Jesus had waited two days before going there. Moreover, Jesus had directly responded to this message by saying, ‘This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it’ (11.4). Waiting for two days after this saying before going to Lazarus leads to the expectation that there is no need to go to him. Jesus had already healed at a distance (4.46-54). The disciples do not expect danger coming anymore from this quarter. Thus, they are hit unawares by Jesus’ call, making the blow harder to receive.50 John 11 is a major period of transition in Jesus’ ministry, and it demands a great readjustment on the part of the disciples. With Jesus’ summons in 11.7 of returning to Judea, the disciples have reached their limen: the point at which they may no longer be able to tolerate the pressure and continue being loyal to Jesus. That this is the case is suggested by the fact that at no other time does a disciple have to exhort the others to listen to Jesus, as Thomas does in 11.16. Peter simply speaks for the group in 6.68-69. Jesus’ summons in 11.7, 15 will call for a great deal of psychic readjustment on the part of his followers.

50 The presence of the terms kai\ h(mei=j in Thomas’ exhortation also suggests continued opposition on the part of the disciples that has not been removed by 11.12 but that continues even to the point of time marked by 11.16. The term h(mei=j is a first person plural personal pronoun in the nominative case. The use of the personal pronoun in the nominative case generally conveys some degree of emphasis. See J. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (vol.1; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908), pp.85–6; H. Dana and J. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan, 1957), p.123. The word kai\ in 11.16 alludes to the continued reluctance of the group, and the word h(mei=j is an emphatic admonition that they should not let Jesus go it alone.

Going to Death with Him

­29

The resistance of the disciples having been demonstrated, it remains to be asked if Thomas has overcome this opposition. W. Howard-Brook has claimed that it is moot whether or not the disciples accompany Jesus to Lazarus because no mention of them is found in 11.17-44.51 If this is the case, then Thomas’ words in 11.16 are ineffective. More generally, Culpepper has written that 3.26; 4.1; 5.1-47; 6.66 and 7.3 imply either that the Johannine disciples did not go everywhere with Jesus or that only some of the disciples actually followed Jesus where he went.52 An analysis of the larger motif of the disciples’ following or not following Jesus is necessary in order to treat the question of whether or not the disciples accompany Jesus to Lazarus. Let us begin by acknowledging that not all who believe Jesus follow him in this gospel. Thus, there is no indication that those referred to in 2.23, the Samaritans of 4.42, the royal official of 4.46-54, the man born blind who is treated in John 9, and the secret believers, represented by Nicodemus and referred to as a whole in 12.42, accompanied Jesus. The question that is relevant for our understanding of the role and effect of Thomas in 11.16 is whether or not the core group of disciples consistently follows Jesus except for otherwise clearly indicated exceptions. In this light, let us look at 5.1-47; 6.66 and 7.3, passages that Culpepper proposes may indicate an answer in the negative. Two other passages adduced by Culpepper, 3.26 and 4.1, appear less supportive of Culpepper’s thesis. Each verse is about Jesus baptizing more people than does the Baptist. John 4.2 qualifies this by saying, however, that it was Jesus’ disciples doing the baptizing, showing their presence with Jesus. The first of the three relevant passages cited by Culpepper is 6.66: ‘After this many of the disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.’ The proposal that this verse may suggest that not all of Jesus’ disciples accompanied him relies implicitly on interpreting ‘many of his disciples’ as referring to a perduring discipleship. There are suggestions in the immediate context, however, that this is not the case. It is argued that the ‘disciples’ in 6.66 were once disciples but from this point on are apostates. The phrase ‘many of the disciples’ is found both in 6.60 and in 6.66, indicating that we are dealing with the same group in each verse. In 6.65 Jesus concludes his speech to them by saying, ‘This is why I told you that no one is able to come (e0lqei=n) to me unless it is granted him by the Father’. Placed in this context the statement in 6.66 that ‘many of his disciples went away (a)ph=lqon ei0j ta_ o0pi/sw) and no longer went about with him’ appears to refer to apostasy rather than to a non-peripatetic discipleship. If belief is expressed in 6.65 as a coming (e0lqei=n) to Jesus, then going away (a)ph=lqon) in 6.66 most probably indicates a defection and one that is stressed by adding ei0j ta_ o0pi/sw (‘back’) to the already sufficient a)ph=lqon (‘they went away’).53 51 Howard Brook, Becoming Children of God: John’s Gospel and Radical Discipleship (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994), p.254. 52 Anatomy, p.116. 53 The same phrase is found in 12.19 and in 18.6, and in 18.6 it is also used, as in 6.66, to stress movement away from Jesus.

30

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

Do Jn 5 and 7.3 lead us to consider the core disciples as not being present with Jesus unless otherwise indicated? In order to test this theory, we can prescind from those passages that speak about him being alone or that specify which of the disciples were with him at certain points of the passion, death, and resurrection accounts.54 There are also passages in the Synoptics that note when the core group is not with Jesus or when only some of them are present.55 We must examine John 5 and 7.3 in the light of the broad outlines of John’s version of Jesus’ ministry in order to determine the degree of possibility that at 11.17-44 an implied reader has been created who is uncertain whether or not the disciples have accompanied Jesus to Lazarus. It is not unusual that the disciples go unmentioned in John 5 given the focus on the person and role of the Johannine Jesus both in his words and in the accounts of his journeys. Thus, in 2.13 we read that ‘Jesus went to Jerusalem’. No mention is made of his disciples accompanying him although they were mentioned in the previous verse as having been with him on another journey. Yet it is clear from the conclusion of the pericope on the cleansing of the temple that the journey reference in 2.13 includes the disciples, because in v.22 the evangelist says that when Jesus was raised the disciples remembered a saying of his from this occasion. As no disciples other than the core group have been named up to this point, we are led to conclude that this is the group referred to by 2.22.56 In John 4; 12.35-13.12 and 12.1-11 one also derives a similar view about this Johannine feature of explicitly mentioning Jesus’ journey while implicitly including the disciples. According to 4.3-6, Jesus left Judea to go to Galilee and on the way passed through Samaria. It is only after meeting the Samaritan woman that the reader is told that the disciples were with Jesus (4.8). When Jesus arrives in Galilee, he is welcomed by the Galileans (4.43-54). There is no statement that the disciples were with him, but it is difficult to see them left, or choosing to remain in Samaria. John 12.35-13.20 and 12.1-11 also indicate that there is a narrative focus on Jesus during the journeys that does not preclude, but rather includes the disciples. Apparently the final words of Jesus to the crowd occur in 12.35-36a. John 12.36b says, ‘he went away and hid himself from them’. John 12.44-50 presents an outcry of Jesus to some unknown audience. This section may be displaced. In 13.1 Jesus is at supper before the feast of Passover. It is not until 13.5, however, that we find out that the disciples are at supper with him. Once again the focus is on Jesus, and his disciples’ presence is assumed until they need to be introduced. John 12.1-11 provides perhaps the closest connection to John 11 and the nearest matrix for addressing the question of whether or not the core group accompanied Jesus to Lazarus. Another journey of Jesus to Lazarus 54 Jn 6.15; 18.15-17, 25-32; 19.25-27; 20.1-17, 19-22; 21.1-23. 55 See, e.g., Mk. 6.46-47; 9.2-13; 14.33-42, 54-72; 15.40, 43-47; 16.9-13; Mt. 14.23; 17.1-13; 26.37-46, 58-75; 27.55-61; 28.9-10; Lk. 6.12 (but 6.13 shows the disciples are not far away); 9.2837; 22.54-62; 23.50-56; 24.13-35. 56 Jn 1.37-51; 2.1-11, 12.

Going to Death with Him

­31

is recounted in these verses, and we are initially told that Jesus went there; no mention is made of the disciples going with him. This seems implied, however, from 12.4-8 where Judas Iscariot speaks and is responded to by Jesus. Thus, there are other places in the FG where the core group is either not explicitly mentioned as moving from one place to another with Jesus or are not mentioned at first as having done so. In both types of situations the larger narrative asserts or implies their actual presence. Thus, the lack of a mention of the disciples in 11.17-44 is not proof of the absence of the disciples. John 7.3 also does not pose a problem to the thesis that the core group of the twelve remained with Jesus throughout his ministry: ‘Therefore, his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples might see the works that you are doing”’. The ‘disciples’ of this verse could refer to the core group, but the following facets of the text make this improbable. First, there was just a massive defection from Jesus’ disciples followed by Jesus’ asking the twelve if they also wish to leave (6.66-67). This group’s loyalty in remaining with Jesus is heightened both by Peter’s expression of their wish to do so and by Jesus’ saying that he himself chose them, and yet one of this select cadre is a traitor (6.6870). These three verses emphasise that loyalty is the rule for the twelve; apostasy, the exception. Given these events and words at the end of John 6, it would be difficult to see how the disciples of 7.3 could refer to the twelve. It would offend the narrative logic. This is the very group that just chose to remain with Jesus. Should they now be in Judea apart from him one would expect some justification of this sudden turn-around. It is much more likely that the disciples in 7.3 are an outer circle of disciples either referred to in 2.23 or including this group. There are two even more pressing arguments against the view that the disciples did not accompany Jesus to Lazarus. Jesus has not once, but twice called the disciples to do so (11.7, 15b). If the disciples had refused, it is probable that the evangelist would have made this clear. Related to this call is the feature of the fourth evangelist’s stress when people do not adhere to Jesus’ words. Given this tendency and the two exhortations in 11.7,15b, the question of whether or not the disciples went to Lazarus does not appear to be left open. One would expect some comment if they had not. Thomas functions as a liminal adaptor and as a liminal transcender. His courageous call in 11.16 helps the disciples to cope with the stress and to move forward with Jesus beyond the threshold. Thomas has a key role here because, as we have just seen, there is a real danger in John 11 of another, and much more serious, peripeteia when the disciples are called to go to Judea. Although many disciples have fallen away (e.g., 6.66; 8.31, 59), the core group of the twelve has remained faithful (6.67-69), with the caveat that there is an adumbration that one of them would betray Jesus (6.70b).57 The 57 Aristotle defined courage as ‘the mean respect of fear and confidence’ regarding death. Eth. Nic. 3.5.22; 3.7.8-13. Thomas errs on the side of rashness, of over-confidence, calling for dying with Jesus but not himself being at the cross. We will see shortly that from a Johannine perspective, it is ironic that this over-confident character paradoxically does not have enough confidence in Jesus’ power over death. For now, though, Thomas resembles Theophrastus’ portrayal of the over-zealous

32

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

courage of Thomas holds together the core group of disciples at a point in the story where great opposition has threatened its dissolution.58 But the means by which Thomas rallied the disciples paradoxically undercut the ideological support for their continued loyalty to Jesus during his passion and death.

Disbelief and Not Doubt or Incomprehension: Context Constricted

The purpose of this section is to argue that Thomas also manifests in 11.16 not simply incomprehension of Jesus’ words or some doubts in regards to them, both of which are often argued, but rather an active disbelief. Arguments from three different perspectives suggest this perspective. John 11.16 as a Thomasine Retort The use of i9na clauses in 11.4-16 is instructive in informing us about Thomas’ myopic character. Such purpose clauses reveal Thomas’ limited participation in Jesus’ purpose, and they are found in vv.4, 11, 15, 16; the first three are Jesus’ statement of intent and the last is Thomas’ intention. In v.4 Jesus says that Lazarus’ sickness is not ‘for death’ but rather ‘for the glory of God in order that (i9na) the Son of God might be glorified through it’. This glory is placed in v.4 in contrast to Lazarus’ death, leading one to think of the resurrection of Lazarus as the referent of the latter part of the verse. This appears to be the case as elsewhere we read about the signs of Jesus as manifesting his glory (2.11).59 In 11.11 Jesus says that ‘Lazarus has fallen asleep’ and that he goes ‘in order to (i9na) wake him’. After the misunderstanding and the clarification in 11.12-14 that Lazarus’ sleep refers to his death, Jesus tells the disciples that for their sake he is glad he was not there when Lazarus died ‘in order that (i9na) you may believe’ (11.15). This latter i9na clause must refer to their belief by means of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus. For John the signs may evoke belief and this particular sign also has this effect.60 person (peri/ergoj), described as ‘the one who promises what he is unable to do’ (o9 de\ peri/ergoj toiou=to/j tij oi3oj e0pagge/llesqai a)nasta&j a4 mh\ dunh/setai). Characters 13.1-2. 58 J. Neyrey writes that 11.16 expresses the sentiment of all the disciples at this point to die with Jesus. The Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp.190–92. There is, however, nothing in the context that suggests such a willingness on the part of the other disciples at this point. It is Thomas who helps Jesus catalyse the group. 59 However, according to John, Jesus’ death is also the hour when he is glorified (12.23). It appears that 11.4 may refer, then, both to Lazarus’ resurrection and to Jesus’ death as the means by which the Father’s glory is shown and Jesus is glorified. So, too, e.g., Hunter, John, p.112. The two are closely linked in this gospel; the report of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus provides the impetus for the chief priest and the Pharisees to begin making a concerted action to kill Jesus (11.46-53). The preceding observations suggest that the i3na clause in v.4 may allude to Jesus’ giving up his life in order to save Lazarus. 60 See e.g., 2.11, 22; 4.53b; 9.38; 11.45. B. Westcott correctly notes that 11.15 is about an increase in the faith of the disciples who already have manifested belief (2.11; 6.69). St. John, p.166.

Going to Death with Him

­33

Thomas’ i3na clause in v.16 (‘in order that we might die with him’) shows his lack of appreciation of Jesus as the life. This lack of appreciation is a deliberate unwillingness to believe in Jesus in this regard rather than simply a benighted incomprehension. As we have just seen, Jesus has repeatedly stressed that he is going to raise Lazarus in a manner that comes to clear articulation in the two verses immediately prior to Thomas’ response. For Thomas to respond as he does in 11.16 is to deflect the focus of Jesus’ words from Jesus as the victor over death to death as the victor over Jesus.61 In itself, 11.16 could indicate simply a willingness to die with Jesus and an affirmation of Jesus’ claims in John 10 that he would lay down his life for his sheep. But the context, the phrasing, the mimic-quality of these words is telling. Thomas utters them right after Jesus talks about his going to raise Lazarus, and he does so by using the same or similar words in a parallel fashion (11.15-16). He does so, however, without one mention of the life that Jesus has just promised. Thomas may affirm Jesus’ words in John 10 that he would die for his sheep, but he makes no mention of Jesus’ repeated affirmation in John 10 that this death would end in life for his followers. Rather, Thomas claims that death is the disciples’ end. This context shows that Thomas’ words are a denial, veiled in a call for loyalty, of Jesus’ affirmation of life beyond death.62 In other words, 11.16 has the flavour of the quick retort and the antithetical content intrinsic to such a saying. Also supporting the view that a deliberate refusal to believe is implicit in Thomas’ statement in 11.16 are: (1) Spartan intimations in this verse; (2) the two sayings on walking in the light or in

61 It could be argued that Thomas simply expresses the disciples’ sentiments in 11.8. C. Dietzfelbinger, Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Teilband 1 – Johannes 1–12 (ZB; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2001), p.343; U. Wilckens, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (NTD. 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2000), p.177. But Thomas puts an exclamation point where the rest place a question mark. The other disciples ask about Jesus’ intention while pointing out the danger. Thomas maintains that the feared danger will be actualized. 62 Alain Marchadour claims that in 11.16 Thomas ‘espouses without condition the point of view of Jesus’ (Les personages, p.132). It appears, though, that Thomas embraces Jesus’ directive to remain with him but subtly criticizes the purpose Jesus gives for this command. Thomas’ remark runs counter to the whole stream of the signs tradition. There are seven signs related in the first eleven chapters of the FG, and 20.30 implicitly points to the resurrection appearances of Jesus as other signs while mentioning many other signs that Jesus did. The raising of Lazarus is a culmination of sorts in that it is the only one of the first seven signs that is unparalleled by another sign and in that it points to the sign of Jesus’ resurrection. Thus, 2.1-11 and 4.46-54 are situated in Cana and have a ‘request-rebuke-response structure’. The accounts of the feeding of the 5000 and the walking on the water are placed next to each other in 6.1-15 and 6.16-21. Jerusalem is the setting for the healings of the man at the pool and the man born blind (5.1-15; 9.1-41). Trial scenes follow both of these healings. So M. Stibbe, ‘A Tomb with a View: John 11.1-44 in NarrativeCritical Perspective’, NTS 40 (1994), pp.40–42. The signs point to Jesus as the life, the reference in 11.37 concretely linking the sixth sign to the seventh in terms of Jesus’ life-giving power. The potency of the sign, its length and position relative to the prior signs and to the resurrection give it a privileged status. Witherington, III, John’s Wisdom, p.198. Thomas’ comment in 11.16 is an intellectual eddy to the seventh sign.

34

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

the darkness in 11.9-10; and (3) the comparisons and contrasts established between Thomas in 11.16 and certain other characters in 11.17-53. Spartan Shadings of the Johannine Thomas There are three characteristics of 11.16 and its context that suggest subtle Spartan shadings of the Johannine Thomas. Taken as a whole, these characteristics support the view that there is a caustic criticism embedded in 11.16. These attributions are: (1) the repeated use of the verb a!gw in 11.716 in conjunction with (2) what this verb calls the disciples to do and (3) the clipped retort by Thomas in 11.16. The term paidei/a was commonly used to refer to education. The Spartans tended to use the term a)gwgh/, however, to describe their training. The verb a!gw is the core around which the interaction between Jesus and Thomas revolves: Jesus uses this term in 11.7, 11, 15b. Thomas repeats it in 11.16. One suggestion that in 11.16 the term may have Spartan overtones is that both Jesus and Thomas use it to call others to heroic loyalty in the face of death. This dovetails with the purposes of the Spartan a)gwgh/. The Spartan a)gwgh/ was said to have three goals: (1) the inculcation of obedience that led to (2) endurance during difficulties and that (3) culminated in ‘victory or death’.63 Thomas’ statement is an exhortation, in the face of the dangers the disciples sense, to an obedience unto death. The obedience the Spartans inculcated was reputedly an unstinting one. There are traditions of Spartans following orders without question.64 This obedience was strengthened by training to endure hardships. Plato writes about Spartan education being geared to ‘the extraordinary bearing of much suffering’ (to\ peri\ta_j karterh/seij tw~n a)lghdo/nwn polu\).65 Hardiness was inculcated from having the ephebes wear only one garment. Xeonophon says that this is in order that the youth might be ‘better prepared to endure cold and heat alike’.66 Plato also writes about the kruptei/a as a test of endurance. It involved wandering around the countryside in winter without any bedding or footgear.67 There was an ethos, as noted by Xenophon, that by ‘enduring pain for a short time one may win lasting fame and felicity’ (Laced. 2.9 – e1stin o0li/gon xro/non a)lgh/santa polu\n cho/non eu0dokimaou=nta eu0frai/nesqai).68 Thus, in the imperial period the goal of the flagellation at the altar of Artemis Orthia in the a)gwgh was to see which of the ephebes could receive the most number

63 Plu., Apoph. 237A. For obedience, see Xenophon, Const. Lak. 1, 2, 3, 5 (especially 2.3 and 8.1-2). 64 For the unquestioning obedience of Spartans, see Plutarch, Lyc. 16-25. 65 Plato, Laws 1.633b. 66 Const. Lak. 4. See also Const. Lak. 2. 67 Laws 633b-c. 68 This translation is from E. Marchant, Xenophon: Scripta Minora (Loeb; London: Heinemann, 1925), p.145.

Going to Death with Him

­35

of whippings.69 This was called the diamasti/gwsij (‘the whipping’).70 The family gained honour through the endurance of a youth in this way.71 The youth strove to be the one who could hold out the longest. ‘The one remaining wins extraordinary renown among them.’72 Those who endured the most whippings received crowns.73 The boys don’t groan or cry out during the whippings.74 The winner was called a bwmoni/khj (‘altar victor’) and statues were erected in their honour around the altar.75 This enduring of the whipping becomes a model for others to endure.76 In an earlier period, Xenophon writes about a ritual at this shrine in which boys tried to take as many cheeses as possible while others tried to whip those who stole the cheeses. According to Xenophon, the purpose was to show that ‘it is possible after having suffered for a short time to rejoice in being honoured for a long time’.77 This endurance-strengthened obedience was to be primarily expressed in courageous actions. Cowardice was the arch-vice and courageous loyalty the arch-virtue for the Spartans.78 Xenophon portrayed the Spartan punishments for cowardice in more detail than he did their punishments for other offenses. They amounted to the coward’s being treated like a second-class citizen.79 There are a number of texts that deal with a group of disgraced Spartans called ‘the tremblers’ (oi9 tre/santej).80 These passages present this group of people as devoid of a&ret/h.81 The offence of this group is that they acted cowardly in battle (Plutarch, Agesilaus 30.2). Tyrtaeus contrasts the tremblers with ‘those who have the courage to come to close quarters with the enemy on the front line’.82 Another offence of the tremblers is that they survived a battle when the other Spartans died in it.83 Two texts portray them as having been subjected to extreme ostracism because of their a)timi/a.84 Without employing the

69 Plutarch, Arist. 17.10; Pausanius, 3.16.9-11; Hyg. Fab. 261; Cic. Tusc. 5.77; Lucian, Anach. 38-39; Tert. Apol. 50.9; Plu., Apoph. 239D. 70 Xenophon, Const. Lak. 2.9. 71 Tert., Ad. Mart. 4.8. 72 Plut., Inst. 40.239C-D. 73 Nic. Dam., FGr.Hist. 90 F103 (Z.11). 74 Cic., Tusc. 2.34, 46; 5.77; Petr. Sat. 105. 75 IG V.1 nos. 142-44, 554, 653. 76 Alciphron, Ep. 3.18.3; Paus. 8.23.1 – There is also a tradition about the Spartan women being whipped at the festival of Dionysius. Schol. To Libanius, Or. 1.23. 77 Xenophon, Const. Lak. 2.9. 78 See, e.g., Tyrtaeus, CURFRAG.tlg-0266.6, 0266.7, 0.266.8, as well as the numerous sayings of Spartan women in which they fail to welcome home cowardly sons and praise those sons who died valorously. Plu., Apoph. 222F. 79 Xenophon, Const. Lac. 9-10. N. Humble, ‘Why the Spartans Fight So Well’, Sparta and War (S. Hodkinson and A. Powell, eds.; Swansea: Classical Press, 2006), p.226. 80 Tyrtaeus, Fr. 11; Herodotus 7.231-32; Plutarch, Lyc. 21.2; Plutarch, Ages. 30. 81 Tyrtaeus, Fr. 11. 82 Tyrtaeus, Frs. 11-12. 83 Herodotus 7.231-32. 84 Herodotus, 7.231-32; Plutarch, Ages. 30.2-4.

36

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

oi9 tresa&ntoi terminology, other passages also stress the severe turning away from cowards in Spartan society.85 Spartan courage was to culminate in the willingness to lay down one’s life. Although the valuation of bravery and the noble death were widespread, the Spartans had a certain preeminence in their reputation for these qualities. Xenophon tells a number of stories about Spartans who fought to the death even when all hope was gone.86 Herodotus tells how the Spartan king, Demartus, said of Spartans, ‘Whatever that master commands, they do; and his command never varies; it is always to stand firm, and to conquer or to die’.87 It is a major theme in the ancient literature that the Spartans expressed a contempt of death (qana&tou katafroneh/saj). 88 There were numerous Spartan sayings encouraging a noble death, expressed in loyalty to one’s king and comrades. An example is the saying attributed to a Spartan mother who hands her son a shield and says, ‘Either with your shield or upon it’.89 Yellin notes that throwing away one’s shield would enable more effective flight and says that on this basis the maternal exhortation to her son is for him to stand ‘beside his brothers in the most difficult circumstances’.90 In effect, she tells him that if he does not remain with the other Spartans through thick and thin, then he had better come home lying dead on his shield. Another notable example is the famous epitaph in honour of the Spartans who died defending the pass at Thermopylae: ‘Stranger, go tell the Spartans that we lie here in obedience to their orders.’91 Conversely, Isocrates depicted disgrace coming to those Spartans who survived a battle in which their king died or more generally to ‘those (Spartans) who do not have the courage to die for (their king) in battle’ (oi9 mh/ tolmw~ntej e0n tai=j ma&xaij a)poqnh/|skein).92 Congruent with this courage until death, Plutarch writes how even in the diamasti/gwsij many youth will die in the whippings rather than give up.93 When the disciples express hesitation about accompanying Jesus, Thomas encourages them to endure even to the point of suffering death with Jesus. The convergence between common views of Spartan speech and Thomas’ speech extends not only to what Thomas says but to when he speaks as well. That Thomas speaks when Jesus’ core group is wavering as to whether to accompany him into a dangerous situation is consistent both with the sayings 85 E.g., Xenophon, Const. Lak. 9.4-6. 86 HG 1.1.17-22; 1.6.32; 4.3.12; 4.8.32-39; 6.2.22-23; 6.4.5. 87 Herodotus, 7.104. Cf. Xenophon, Const. Lak. 9.1. 88 Plu., Apoth. 210.F; 216C; 222F; 225D and a number of the sayings of the Spartan women in 240F; 241ABCEF; 242A. 89 Plutarch, Mor. 241F 16. The saying is also characteristically terse. There is an ellipsis as the word ‘return’ does not appear in the text: ‘Son [return] either with this or on this’. Paul Debnar, Speaking the Same Language (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2004), p.7. 90 K. Yellin, Battle Exhortation: The Rhetoric of Combat Leadership (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2008), p.50. 91 Herodotus, 7.22. 92 Isocrates, On Peace, 143; Letter 2 (to Philip), 6. 93 Plut., Inst. Lac. 40.239C; Plut., Lyc. 18.2.

Going to Death with Him

­37

attributed to Spartans about not forsaking comrades, especially one’s king, in battle and with the anecdotes of this type about Spartans. The final characteristic found in Jn 11.16 that in conjunction with the two prior characteristics may suggest a Spartan colouring to Thomas is the pithy causticity of his retort. Spartan speech was characterized by pithiness. The Spartans valued a)fele/j braxulogi/a (simple, brevity of speech).94 This was an important goal of Spartan education.95 In 11.16, the combination of loyalty and abbreviated, under-the-surface pungent criticism of Jesus’ words harmonize with the account that the Spartans ‘taught the boys to express themselves in a style sharp but mixed with grace and profound in its brevity’.96 Thus, Plato noted that the Spartans are adept in hurling, ‘like a javelin’, a ‘word full of sense, brief and concise’.97 Herodotus notes that Drenekes, a Spartan soldier, responded to the claim that Persian arrows would ‘block out the sun’ with the comment, ‘So much the better … Then we will fight in the shade’.98 Moreover, a verbal one-upmanship was the goal of this type of speech. According to Heraclides, ‘From childhood they learn to speak briefly and also to mock and be mocked in suitable fashion’.99 Heraclides is reported to have written about Spartan youth: ‘Immediately from childhood on they practise speaking tersely, then good-natured bantering back and forth.’100 Thomas’ words in 11.16 have the pointed, pungent quality of Spartan mockery.101 Jesus calls the disciples to go (a!gwmen) so that (i4na) they might believe. Thomas echoes, ‘Let us also go (a!gwmen) so that (i4na) we might die with him’. None of the words of the other disciples in the FG have the terse snap that Thomas’ words in 11.16; 14.5; and 20.25, 28 have.102 The term, a!gwmen in 11.16 subtly signals the Spartan dimensions of Thomas’ character that lead to his response at this point in the narrative. Jesus’ twofold use of a!gwmen evokes Thomas’ Spartan qualities and triggers his response. John 11.16 shades Thomas with some of what were commonly associated as Spartan-like qualities in how, what and when he speaks. These hues of attribution function both to highlight the courageous loyalty of Thomas and to support the view that Thomas trenchantly critiques Jesus in this verse. 94 Herodotus, 4.40.2; 3.46; 7.226; Thucydides, 4.17.2; Plato, Prot. 342a-c; Setus Emp., Adv. Math. 2.21; Herodotus, 3.48; Plutarch, Lyc. 19.3–20.5; Mor. 241. 95 Plato, Prot. 342e; Plutarch, Lyc. 19.1-3; Heraclides, Aristotle Frgs. 611, 613 in Aristotle, Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, ed. V. Rose (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1886). 96 Plutarch, Lyc. 19.1. 97 Prot. 342 a-c. 98 Herodotus, 7.226. 99 Aristotle Frgs. 611, 613 in Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. 100 Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, FGH 13. 101 Some other examples of Spartan wit expressed concisely are found in Plato, Prot. 342e; Plu., Lyc. 19.3–20.5; Herodotus, 4.40.2; 3.46. In the previously mentioned saying, ‘(Return) either with this or on this’ in Mor. 241f., there is an ellipsis as the word ‘return’ does not appear in the text. 102 Thomas’ words in 20.25 are lengthier than his other remarks. Thucydides wrote that it is Spartan ‘practice when few words suffice, not to use many, but more when the occasion requires that, by explaining something useful by words, we do what we must’. Thucydides, 4.17.2.

38

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

The Darkness Begins from Within: Thomas as a Partial Example of John 11.10 The relation of 11.16 to 11.9-10 also contributes to the criticism of Thomas’ faith. It is proposed that the message of the light and darkness saying in 11.10 is exemplified in the words of Thomas in 11.16. The theses that the image of the walker in 11.9-10 refers either to Jesus or to both Jesus and the disciples have encumbered these verses with so many meanings as to obscure their connection to the statement by Thomas in 11.16. Therefore, as a first step, it will be argued that these theses need to be nuanced; that while the walker may upon studied reflection and rereadings refer to Jesus, this reference will not necessarily be discerned or retained by the reader. Rather, the evangelist advances the disciple as the walker of 11.9-10 and walking in light or in darkness as referring respectively to belief or to a deficiency of belief in Jesus and to the consequences of each. It is these meanings revolving around the disciple as the walker that the reader takes from reading 11.9-10. These considerations serve as the basis for the final part of the study of 11.9-10 as a similitude that is provided with a practical, partial, negative example in the reaction of one of the disciples, Thomas (11.16). When the light and darkness sayings in 11.9-10 are viewed in conjunction with the other light and darkness sayings in John’s gospel, then it appears that the saying in 11.10 refers to an umbra in the disciples that is beginning to manifest itself, and most obstinately so in the character of Thomas. The purpose of the nuances proposed and the arguments about to be marshalled is to reclaim the personal example that is given to the light-darkness symbolism in 11.9-10 and in the process both to flesh out Thomas within the Johannine symbolic world and to uncover some of the dynamism with which this character is charged.103 The scholarly discussion of 11.9-10 has largely revolved around the questions of what are the referents to the light and darkness imagery and who walks in them. How many levels of meaning are present in these terms? That actual day and night are referred to as well as Jesus as ‘the light of this world’ is virtually undisputed. The use of the phrase ‘the light of the world’ to refer to Jesus in the two preceding light references (8.12; 9.5) leads the reader to perceive the similar phrase in 11.9 in a similar manner. But there are questions regarding the presence of any further polysemy and, if so, how it is 103 It may be argued that a secondary effect of such a study is to reclaim the power of the Johannine utilization in 11.9-10 of light-darkness symbols. In writing about symbols which have been at the root of Western society, Edward Farley claims that they have been diminished in the postmodern era and are at all times subject to discreditation (Deep Symbols: Their Postmodern Effacement and Reclamation [Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996], pp.1–26). While Farley finds these deep symbols to be more community specific than are such universal symbols as light and darkness, it appears that John has made use of these two universal symbols to such a degree that they have become Johannine community symbols and, through this usage, deep symbols of later Christian communities. According to Norman R. Petersen, the light ‘conceptual system’ explains Johannine language more than any other system in this gospel (The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light [Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1993], pp. 75–8). The Johannine symbols of light and darkness are diminished by a lack of appreciation of both the discreditation of the former and the exemplification of the latter in the response of Thomas in 11.16.

Going to Death with Him

­39

accomplished. Do the dark images in 11.10 refer to Jesus’ betrayal and death and/or to a lack of faith on the part of the disciples? Who is the one who is portrayed as walking in the day or night? Is it Jesus, the disciples, or both? Some opt for Jesus alone as the walker of 11.9-10. According to this interpretation, the imagery of 11.9-10 signifies that the hour of Jesus’ death has not yet come, and so Jesus can go to Bethany without ‘stumbling’, without being killed, because it is still the season of security.104 Barnabas Lindars articulates such a perspective, developing it in four related points. First, says Lindars, the sayings in 11.9-10 alternate between conveying to the reader a sense of urgency and by removing this sense. Initially they strike the reader with the impression that there is only so much time to act: the same impression made by the day-night saying in 9.4. Second, the clauses ‘because he sees the light of the world’ and ‘because the light is not in him’, at the end of 11.9 and 11.10 respectively, emphasise the need for perception in order to avoid stumbling. Third, the use of the phrase ‘the light of the world’ in 11.9 is an allusion to 8.12 that takes away the sense of urgency. Jesus is ‘the light of the world’ over which the darkness has no power. Finally, the urgency is renewed by the presence of statements in 12.27, 35-36 to the effect that Jesus’ hour is imminent and that the light of his ‘incarnate life’ will soon be snuffed.105 Four responses, corresponding to the four levels of meaning proposed by Lindars, provide arguments against the manner in which Lindars sees the walker as referring to Jesus. First, rather than conveying an initial sense of urgency because of a limited time to act, as does the day-night saying in 9.4, Jn 11.9 has a much more consolatory tone in response to the trepidation expressed by the disciples (11.8), and 11.10 a much more admonitory one. Second, noticeably unintegrated in this thesis about an alternation between urgency and relief as regards Jesus is the second level of meaning. This is not surprising as it would be difficult to understand why the author would have to exhort the perspicacious Johannine Jesus to perceive correctly in order to avoid stumbling. Third, while the ‘the light of this world’ in 11.9 certainly refers the reader to Jesus, it is by no means established that the person who is described as walking in this verse refers to Jesus. Quite the contrary, the facts that ‘the light of the world’ refers to Jesus and that the person who is walking is said to see this light leads the reader to naturally view the walker as someone distinct from Jesus. Fourth, while Jn 12.23, 27 notes that Jesus’ hour is imminent, 12.35-36 does not claim that the darkness will put out the light of Jesus’ incarnate life. Rather, these verses warn that the darkness will overtake those who do not walk in Jesus’ light by believing in him. It is especially difficult to find Jesus in the walker of 11.10. The translation of 11.9-10 by Mark Stibbe handles this difficulty but apparently at the expense of the particular referents of the final clauses in each verse: ‘Are there not 104 See, e.g., Lindars, John, pp.389–90; Stibbe, John, p.127; Ramsey Michaels, John, p.196; B. Weiss, Das Johannesevangelium (KEK 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902), p.403. 105 Lindars, John, pp.389–90.

40

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by the world’s light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light.’106 The translation, ‘the world’s light’ blurs the allusion to Jesus and that of ‘he has no light’ allows a reference to Jesus as the walker where none appears possible. Elsewhere, Stibbe had rendered the designation of Jesus as to_ fw~j tou= ko&smou in 8.12 and in 9.5 as ‘the light of the world’, which can easily be construed as an objective genitive: ‘light for the world’.107 His translation of this phrase at the end of 11.9 as ‘the world’s light’ does not link, however, the reader clearly to Jesus’ earlier claims to be this light, moving the English reader toward viewing the phrase as a subjective genitive, light provided by the world. Moreover, Stibbe’s translation of the last clause of v.10 as, ‘for he has no light’, especially when viewed in the context of his prior translation ‘for he sees by the world’s light’, can simply mean that there is no light at night. The words o#ti to_ fw~j ou0k e1stin e0n au0tw~| in 11.10 are, however, more precisely translated as ‘because the light is not in him’. It appears an insurmountable obstacle to view this clause as a predication of one who has been directly called the light (1.5, 9; 8.12; 9.5) and who is alluded to by this image in 11.9.108 (It will be argued later that this obstacle cannot be surmounted by interpreting ‘because the light is not in him’ as an expression of an ancient theory of vision because this clause is so worded and so positioned as to signal to the reader something more than an understanding of sight.) It avails little to adduce the Johannine features of the occurrence of Judas’ betrayal at night (13.30) and of night being the time when no work is possible (9.4); the light is never put out by the darkness (1.5) in this gospel. Moreover, ‘stumbling’ appears an unlikely metaphor for Jesus’ death in a gospel in which it is shown in diverse ways that no one takes Jesus’ life from him, but rather he freely gives it (10.1718). ‘Stumbling’ appears, in fact, singularly inapt to express Jesus’ death in a gospel in which the crucifixion is looked at as a ‘lifting up’ and in which it is his captors who ‘fall to the ground’ (3.14; 12.32; 18.6). Finally, it can be argued that the question by the disciples as to whether or not Jesus is going to Judea (11.8) naturally leads the reader to interpret Jesus as the walker of 11.9.109 This appears to be the case upon reading the first part of verse 9. When one comes to the final clause, ‘because he sees the light of this world’, however, the reader is led by prior light imagery to view Jesus as the light and to look for another who walks in his light. Thus, arguments advanced for the view that Jesus alone is the walker of 11.9-10 are difficult to sustain. Johannine imagery and theology preclude this interpretation of 11.10, and while the reader is initially led to view Jesus as the 106 Stibbe, John, p.127. 107 Stibbe, John, p.100. 108 The term fw~j appears twenty-three times in the FG. Only once is it attributed to anyone other than Jesus. There the light that John the Baptist has is said to be comparable to a simple lamp (5.35), whereas Jesus’ light is consistently said to be what enlightens the world and those in it who believe. In 1.9, it is said that John is ‘not the light’ but rather that ‘the true light’ is Jesus (1.9). 109 E.g., Carson, John, p.409.

Going to Death with Him

­41

walker of 11.9 he or she is soon dissuaded from this opinion by the end of the verse. Can more substantial arguments for such an allusion to Jesus be found among those who view both Jesus and the disciples as the walkers? A presentation of the work of D. A. Carson, Craig Koester and Otto Schwankl surfaces much of the argumentation for the inclusion of Jesus as the walker in 11.9-10 that is found among those who view both Jesus and the disciples as the referents of this image.110 Carson claims that the verses apply first to Jesus and next to the disciples. In reference to Jesus, 11.9-10 say that he is safe as long as he does the work of the Father during the time for such work. The time will come when such work will be impossible.111 The problem that I have with this reading is the attribution of Jesus’ safety to Jesus’ doing the Father’s will. While this meaning may be derivative of the larger complex of themes in John’s gospel, it does not appear to be expressed in 11.9-10. Rather, 11.9 attributes the safety of walking in the day to Jesus himself, ‘because he sees the light of the world’: the phrase ‘light of the world’ clearly used of Jesus in 8.12 and 9.5 and the idea applied to Jesus in 1.5, 9. Of course, in John’s language one motif tends to commingle with another. The point is, however, that the discernment of Jesus as the walker is not as easy as Carson portrays it to be. Another way of explaining the walker as both Jesus and the disciples is presented by Craig Koester who argues that the walking image in 11.9 means both that Jesus acts in the time span appointed for him and that the disciples should believe in him. The stumbling image conveys both the idea of the physical injury of Jesus’ death and that of the disciples’ lack of faith in Jesus.112 The presence of a double entendre at the end of 11.9 (‘the light of this world’) is probable, but the adding to this double meaning the multivalences of different walkers, different types of walking and different meanings of ‘stumbling’ appears to strain both the ability of readers and the credibility of the interpretation.113 Finally, Otto Schwankl has proposed the following means of including Jesus among the referents of the walker of 11.9-10. According to Schwankl, these verses point to the total spectrum of possible referents that the reader has when reading them: Jesus, his opponents, and the disciples. The focus on Jesus as the walker conveys the meaning of the accomplishment of Jesus’ 110 Proponents of this interpretation include Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel, p.220; Schnackenburg, St. John, 2.325-26; Barrett, St. John, pp.391–2; Beasley-Murray, John, p.188; C. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), pp.145–7; B. Byrne, Lazarus: A Contemporary Reading of John 11:1-46 (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1991), pp.43–4; McPolin, John, p.155; Carson, John, p.409. In addition, J. Ramsey Michaels in his 2010 commentary changed the view he expressed in his 1989 one by claiming that the walker refers to Jesus, the disciples, and potential disciples. Gospel of John, p.620. 111 Carson, John, p.409. 112 Koester, Symbolism, p.146. 113 The idea of two different walkers is somewhat awkward as the point of these verses appears to be different types of walking and not different walkers: the same terms (tij peripath=)| are used for the walkers of each verse instead of oi9 me\n ... kai\ a3lloj or e3teroj (‘one … another’).

42

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

work. Behind this meaning is the idea that Jesus must do this work at the proper time (9.4) and the idea that no one can lay hands on him until his hour comes (7.30b). Schwankl realizes, however, that Jesus cannot be the walker of 11.10 because the image of Jesus’ stumbling is not Johannine. Therefore, he proposes that in 11.10 the walker represents Jesus’ opponents. He provides, however, no arguments for this view and admits that it causes the flow of thought in 11.9-10 to be ‘somewhat unorganized’ (ziemlich unorganisch).114 Finally, Schwankl sees a change in the referent of the walker from Jesus to his opponents as succeeded by another such change in which the walker designates the disciples. He does not say when this occurs, but he does note that 11.10c (‘because the light is not in him’) is similar to passages such as 15.45 and 17.23, 26, which are about Jesus’ presence in the disciples. Schwankl concludes that although the referents to Christ and to the opponents as the walkers are not obliterated, the referent to the disciples is given a preference. Understanding 11.9-10 as referring to the disciples provides a meaning that can run consistently throughout these verses.115 While Schwankl’s study is a careful one, in the end his interpretation implies that 11.9-10 is an act of literary legerdemain; this view requires too much of the reader with too few clues to guide him or her, especially to the reading of the walker as signifying the collective opponents of Jesus. While carefully excluding 11.10 as an allusion to Jesus, Schwankl’s study does not deal with the problem of viewing Jesus as the one who walks in the light (11.9) when he is this light.116

114 O. Schwankl, ‘Die Metaphorik von Licht und Finsternis im johanneischen Schrifttum’, Metaphorik und Mythos im neuen Testament (Karl Kertelge, ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1990), pp.156–­7. He does claim that the opponents could be alluded to in 11.9. This would confuse matters even more, however, as then the external agents of the stumbling (11.9) would be literarily metamorphosed into the stumblers themselves (11.10). 115 Schwankl, ‘Die Metaphorik von Licht und Finsternis’, p.157. 116 In a subsequent study, Schwankl’s thesis comes closer to that of Koester and others. While retaining the three referents to the walker which he proposed in his earlier study, he attempts to buttress the view of Jesus as the walker of 11.9 by saying that the phrase ‘the light of this world’ (v.9) – which the walker sees – can be natural sunlight or the presence of God who decides the time for Jesus’ activity. This is contrary to the consistent use of light symbolism elsewhere in this gospel to refer to Jesus and not to the Father. Moreover, in this later study Schwankl does see Jesus as one of the referents of the walker of 11.10. Viewing this verse as an allusion to Jesus’ passion, he attempts to get around the difficulty of relating ‘the light is not in him’ (11.10) to Jesus by simply saying that Jesus does not stumble because the light does not leave him; the effect of this assertion, however, is to deprive 11.10 of any reference to Jesus at all because the whole thrust of this verse is to talk about someone who stumbles because of a lack of light, an attribute applied frequently to the Johannine Jesus. Schwankl makes inconsistency a virtue of his interpretation of 11.9-10 when he claims that in his symbolism John heightens inconsistency, refuses to give the reader a final referent to his metaphors, and ‘halts the process of interpretation’. (O. Schwankl, Licht und Finsternis [HBS, 5; Freiburg: Herder, 1995] pp.248–50.) While Johannine language is often multi-dimensional, there is a consistency to it. Most to the point, there is a consistent use of light imagery in this gospel to refer to Jesus, as shown above on pp.40–41.

Going to Death with Him

­43

Nevertheless, he is on the right track. The reference to the disciples is not only the preferred one, but it is also the one that the evangelist actively advances. The walker does not signify the opponents, can signify Jesus to the studious rereader, and most clearly signifies the disciple to readers of the gospel. How the walker of 11.9 may and does allude to Jesus and to the disciple respectively shows how the former allusion is obscure and the latter lucid. The manner in which the reference to Jesus is placed in the background and the reference to the disciple is placed in the foreground clarifies how the reader firmly focuses on the disciple as the walker. This perception makes it easier to see how the words of one particular disciple, Thomas, can soon function as an example of the message articulated in 11.10. It is not that 11.9 cannot function as a response to the disciples in terms of Jesus’ safety. Part of the beauty of the passage is that in extremely detailed and studied rereadings it can. The main thrust of 11.9-10, though, is to lead the reader to focus on the demands of discipleship. This is suggested by the following considerations. At first, the claim that the walker of 11.9 sees ‘the light of this world’ appears to be an insuperable obstacle to viewing Jesus as the walker of this verse because ‘the light of this world’ is an indisputable metaphorical referent to Jesus. This obstacle is surmounted, however, by the observation of the similar incongruity found in 9.4-5. There Jesus and his disciples are presented as being able to work in the day, but the implied reason is because both he and the disciples can see by Jesus’ own light (‘While I am in the world, I am the light of the world’ – 9.5).117 In an analogous manner, Jesus and the disciples can walk while it is day because both he and the disciples can see by Jesus’ light (‘If someone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of the world’ – 11.9). This is not, however, a view of this verse that one arrives at readily. The reader has been prepared to view Jesus as ‘the light of this world’ because of the repeated use of light imagery in this way. There has been, however, only one prior instance of Jesus viewing the world by his own light, and this idea, already difficult to conceive, is made more difficult to grasp in 9.4-5 because it is not stated there directly but must be inferred from the concatenation of images in these verses. Therefore, the ability of the reader to perceive another indirect reference to this idea in 11.9 is severely hampered. The reader is led, however, to view the walker of each verse as a reference to the disciple, especially because of the difficulties of 11.10 referring to Jesus. Right from the beginning of 11.9 the reader is prepared to view Jesus’ response in broader terms than what will happen to him (11.8) because the indefinite pronoun ‘someone’ (ti\j) is the subject of 11.9. By the time the reader reaches the end of the verse with its notice of the walker seeing ‘the light of this world’, he or she views the verse as referring to the disciple(s) who has come to and walks with Jesus the light. The word ti\j (‘someone’) 117 For this reason, source and redaction critics often viewed 9.5 as a Johannine insertion into an earlier tradition. See, e.g., P. Ensor, Jesus and His ‘Works’: The Johannine Sayings in Historical Perspective (WUNT, 85; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996), p.105.

44

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

in 11.9-10 may look like a signifier of Jesus because the disciples have just asked Jesus a question regarding his journey (11.8). The indefinite pronoun leaves open, however, other options that the personal pronoun e0gw& (‘I’) or the use of first person singular verb would not. It is argued that ti\j in 11.9-10 is an indirect way of referring to the disciples which is congruent with other statements by Jesus to the disciples in 11.7-16 and which together comprise a rhetorical attempt to help the disciples continue to accompany Jesus. The core group has passed critical tests, and by the point of the narrative indicated by John 11 Jesus demonstrates a concern to keep the tried group together. In John 6 Jesus’ words had occasioned a defection by many of his disciples (6.66). Jesus’ response is to ask the twelve if they also wish to leave (6.67). Answering for this group, Peter declares their loyalty to Jesus (6.6869). The twelve remain faithful to Jesus during the dangerous episodes that occur during the Feasts of Tabernacles (7.1–10.21) and Dedication (10.22-42); their presence is noted in 9.1-2. In John 11 Jesus begins the attempt to hold together the group that has come so far but that will not be able to accompany him all the way to his death. This concern of the Johannine Jesus to keep the group intact is witnessed to in 17.12: ‘When I was with them I kept them in your name which You have given to me, and not one of them was lost except for the son of destruction in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.’ This concern explains the deflective rhetoric employed by Jesus in 11.7-16. There is a speaking at angles to, rather than directly at, the harsh reality of Lazarus’ death in 11.7-16, until the obstinacy of the disciples renders such a strategy ineffective. Thus, the initial exhortation by Jesus is ‘Let us go to Judea again’ (11.7). No mention of Lazarus’ death is made at the outset; a notice of this type may strike too hard at the exposed nerves of the disciples, recalling too vividly the recent attempts to kill Jesus (10.31). The diversion from the too excruciating direct reference to death continues in the indirect response of the light and darkness sayings, which address discipleship rather than physical death. This indirect rhetoric of walking or stumbling in the day or night is less ominous than the blunt statement by the disciples (11.8). The concrete application that Jesus draws from this day and night vignette is also an example of a response oblique to the terms in which the disciples have phrased the matter: ‘Lazarus, our friend, has fallen asleep, and I go to wake him’ (11.11). This is a soothing reframing of the proposed events. It is in this context that the use of ti\j (‘someone’) in the light and darkness sayings of 11.9-10 is best viewed. The indirect pronoun allows Jesus to invite the disciples, in a manner sensitive to their frayed nerves, to loyalty and to expose the true danger that resides in not following Jesus. This circumlocution in 11.9-10 is consonant with the manner both in which the disciples have disguised their unwillingness to accompany Jesus and in which Jesus subtly begins the redirection of the disciples in 11.11. Hiding their own unwillingness to accompany Jesus by responding to his first person plural exhortation ‘let us go’ (11.7) with the second person singular ‘are you going’, the disciples participate in the rhetoric to deflect a too painful topic away from

Going to Death with Him

­45

themselves. The return by Jesus in 11.11 to a direct response curiously picks up this transformation by the disciples from plural to singular discourse and reverses it in such a way as to obliquely exhort the disciples to come along: ‘After saying this he continued, “Lazarus our (plural h9mw~n) friend has fallen asleep; but I (singular) go to wake him”.’ Whereas the shift effected by the disciples from the plural ‘let us go’ to the singular ‘are you going’ distanced themselves from the journey, Jesus’ move from the plural ‘our friend’ to the singular ‘I go’ subtly calls to mind the disjunction between the hesitancy of the disciples and the actions of a true friend and by so doing encourages the disciples to recognize the ties of friendship and accompany him to Lazarus. Thus, the indefinite pronoun tij in 11.9-10 is an indirect reference to the disciples. It is part of the rhetoric of deflected referents in 11.7-16, the rhetoric by which Jesus attempts to ease the transition of the disciples to Judea. The imagery that forms an inclusio to 11.7-16 also leads the reader to view the tij of 11.9-10 as a reference to the disciples. Both in 11.7 and in 11.15b Jesus encourages the disciples to accompany him to Judea. Thomas picks up this emphasis on the participation of the disciples by saying to these ‘fellow disciples’ (summaqhtai=j) ‘let us also (kai\) go in order that we may die with him’ (11.16). The function of the words of Jesus and Thomas in 11.7-16 is to encourage the disciples to accompany Jesus to Judea, a function indicated in the surface structure of this section by the inclusio in 11.7, 15b, 16. Nowhere in 11.7-16 or in 11.1-6 does Jesus express a hesitancy about his going to Judea at this time, as he did in 7.6-8. The concern in 11.7-16 is for the disciples, and the walking imagery in 11.9-10 picks up the walking imagery implicit in the inclusio in which this concern is expressed; the ti\j who is walking (11.9-10) is the disciple called to embark on the journey with Jesus (11.7, 15b, 16). If the reader is led to view the walker of 11.9-10 as a reference to the disciple, then what is said in these verses about the walking itself? John 11.9 proposes that a close association with Jesus is the best safeguard to following Jesus: seeing ‘the light of this world’ (11.9), a reference to Jesus, ensures the ability to continue with him instead of stumbling. John 11.10 refers to an obstacle to following and explains the obstacle, the stumbling, as a result of darkness: ‘But if someone walks at night he stumbles because the light is not in him.’ There are two references to darkness in this verse, but it is the latter (‘because the light is not in him’) upon which the reader focuses to provide an explanation for the stumbling. The word o#ti (‘because’) at the beginning of the final clause in 11.10 signals to the reader that this is where an explanation is provided, and the clause itself catches one’s attention and leads to the idea that it is alluding to a lack of belief. While perhaps reflecting an ancient conception of vision, the final clause of 11.10 cannot be fully explained on the basis of this theory. The wording of this clause, as well as the context in which it is placed, argues that it is meant to arrest the reader and lead him or her to reflect on its significance. Many scholars note that an extramission theory of sight is presupposed by

46

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

these words.118 In the ancient Mediterranean world there were at least four major theories to explain the sense of sight. According to the extramission theory, from the eye or through the eye comes a ray that strikes objects so as to allow a vision of them. The intromission theory is a second way of explaining sight. According to this theory, the objects themselves produce ‘effluences’ which, hitting the eye, allows sight to occur. A third theory, the intromissionextromission one, attributes sight to the meeting of rays within one with the emanations without. Finally, Aristotle attributed sight to a medium between the observer and the observed.119 The following features indicate that the wording of 11.10 gives the reader pause. First, there is a shift of perspective between 11.9 and 11.10. After reading about seeing the light of the world (11.9), we expect to read about the opposite state in terms of not seeing this light. The focus moves, however, from the external to the internal: from light outside that is seen (11.9) to a light inside that enables the world to be seen (11.10). Although each focus is understandable to the reader, there is a shift nonetheless. Second, the parallelism between 11.9 and 11.10 is broken by this perspectival shift as the following diagram makes clear.



If someone walks in the day (A) he does not stumble (B) because he sees the light of this world. (C) But if he walks in the night, (A’) he stumbles (B’) because the light is not in him. (C’)120

The aborted parallelism in 11.9-10 also functions to highlight the clause ‘because the light is not in him’ and to momentarily arrest the reader’s attention. It is a defamiliarizing device that catches the reader’s attention and alerts him or her that something more than an observation on sight may be occurring. Defamiliarization, noted first by English Romantic poets and subsequently by the Russian Formalists, is a literary formulation in which the familiar is presented in an unusual way in order to evoke new understandings and experiences. The unexpected formulation leaps to the foreground of the reader’s consciousness and invites a reconsideration of the way one has read this piece of material.121 It is like a road sign that warns someone that he or she 118 See, e.g., Schnackenburg, St. John, 2.325-26; Moloney, Signs and Shadows, p.158, n.16. 119 See D. Allison, Jr., ‘The Eye is the Lamp of the Body (Mt. 6:22-23 = Lk. 11:34-36)’, NTS 33 (1987), pp.61–71 for the breakdown and for proponents of the various theories. See also the study by H. Betz of Mt. 6.22-23 in the light of ancient theories of vision. ‘Mt. 6:22-23 and Ancient Greek Theories of Vision’, in H. Betz, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (L. Welborn, trans.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), pp.71–87. Allison builds on Betz’ study and attempts to provide more information on these ancient theories. 120 This diagram is from Byrne, Lazarus, p.43. 121 P. B. Shelley, ‘The Defence of Poetry’, Shelley’s Literary and Philosophical Criticism (J. Shawcross, ed.; London: Humphrey Milford, 1932), pp.120–59; S. Coleridge, Biographia Literaria

Going to Death with Him

47

is approaching a sharp curve. The original reading of Codex Bezae indirectly witnesses to the recognition of the jarring effect of the wording in 11.10c by its reading of e0n au0th=+| (‘in it’, referring to the night) instead of e0n au0tw~| (‘in him’) so that verse 10 is about light not being in the night rather than its absence in the disciple. What type of signal is given by the final clause of 11.10? Clearly the attentive reader of the gospel views the light as a reference to Jesus. This is so because prior to 11.9-10 this image has been applied to Jesus and because the phrase ‘the light of this world’ in 11.9 connects to the appellation ‘the light of the world’ which was used for Jesus in the two preceding light passages (8.12; 9.5). If the light in the final clause of 11.10 is Jesus, then what is being said at this point is that Jesus is not in one. This appears to be an assertion of a lack of faith in Jesus similar to 5.38 and 8.37b, in which Jesus says his word is not in those who do not believe in him. ‘Stumbling’, then, is not, as some have argued, a necessary reality that occurs when Jesus is not with the disciples.122 Rather, it is the result of Jesus not being in one, the result of a failure to believe in Jesus. The unusual wording of the last clause of 11.10 cannot be fully explained on the basis of the intromission-extramission theory of sight in which rays from within and from outside of one ocularly converge. While the wording of this clause may draw on the first-century reader’s recognition of such a theory, its abrupt break from the established parallelism of 11.9-10 and the particular wording of this clause arrests the reader and leads him or her to the view that it contains an allusion to a lack of faith in Jesus. John 11.9-10, despite initial appearances, is not an example of antithetical parallelism. Rather, the sayings in 11.9-10 are like many of the OT meshalim, which move in the second part beyond what was said in the first.123 This ‘What’s Moreness’ of 11.9-10 may be expressed in the following way. A close association with Jesus is the best safeguard to the threat of no longer following him (11.9). The closest association is one in which Jesus is within one: in which accompanying Jesus is undergirded by a faith in Jesus and in his words. Without such a faith, following the Johannine Jesus to the end of his journey is impossible (11.10). As we will see, this point of 11.10 is given a practical illustration in the words of Thomas in 11.16.

(J. Shawcross, ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954). Cf. P. Ricoeur, ‘Philosophy and Religious Language’, JR 54 (1974), pp.79–80. 122 See, e.g., Morris, John, p.481. 123 In effect, Robert Lowth’s catchall category of synthetic parallelism, in which the second half-line completes the thought found in the first, has become increasingly emphasised in the study of biblical poetry. See R. Lowth, De Sacra poesi Hebraeorum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1753); N. Ridderbos, Die Psalmen: Stilistische Verfahren und Aufbau (BZAW, 117; Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter, 1972), pp.11, 13; J. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven: Yale University, 1981), pp.1–29; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), pp.9–65; A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington, IN; Indiana University, 1985), pp.2, 98–9, 130, 135–40.

48

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

Thus, while one possible referent of tij in 11.9 is Jesus, the progression of the verses soon guides the reader in another direction. The images are crescive, gradually creating a composite portrait into which, from the Johannine perspective, the disciples figure as the walkers. The progression of these verses refines not only the referent of the walkers but also how the one verse relates to the other: 11.9 presents a standard of discipleship with which 11.10 is unfavourably compared. The preceding analysis has led to the conclusions that although the walker of 11.9 can refer to Jesus when reflected on through the course of studied rereadings, the evangelist has so arranged these verses that the reader is led to view the walker as the disciple. Walking in the night (11.10) refers to unbelief. This is shown in the common image of walking in darkness found in 11.10; 8.12 and 12.35-36. These latter two passages help clarify aspects of the common image as it is articulated in the former. In 8.12b the image implicitly expresses the idea of faith in Jesus and in 12.35-36 explicitly so. When Jesus says in 8.12b, ‘The one who follows (a)kolouqw~n) me will not walk (peripath&sh|) in darkness but will have the light of life’, the implication is that not to believe in Jesus is to walk in the darkness.124 What is implied in 8.12b becomes concretized in 12.35-36 at which point the walking in the light or in the darkness (12.35) precedes the explanation of walking in the light as believing in Jesus (12.36). The common image shared by 8.12; 11.9-10 and 12.35-36 argues that in 11.9-10, as in 8.12b and in 12.35-36, it is the disciples who are referred to as walking in the light or

124 C. Koester has provided a helpful study on light symbolism in the fourth gospel. His treatment of the first part of the light saying in John 8.12 (‘I am the light of the world’) needs, however, to be delimited. (Symbolism, pp.135–43.) Koester proposes many possible literary parallels that would resonate in the minds of various first-century readers, but the net result is a play of possibilities based on a gleaning of light traditions from Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions. The light statement in 8.12 is made to function as a response to too many different questions or assertions too far removed from it with too few literary parallels to support the reader’s connection to these parallels. Thus, 8.12a is viewed as: (1) supporting a claim implicit in 7.15-17, 19, 23 and in 8.17-18 that Jesus’ teaching is in line with the law; (2) addressing the concern expressed by some in 7.27 as to how Jesus could be the messiah; (3) responding to the claim in 7.41 that the Christ was not to come from Galilee; and (4) supporting Jesus’ claim to be divine as expressed in the ‘I Am’ statements. Only the last one appears to be substantiated. The second and third theses are particularly scant in literary parallels. In 1 Enoch 48.4, a passage cited to show a linkage between the messiah and the phrase ‘a light for the nations’, it is the Son of Man and not the messiah who is designated in this way. It is not until 1 Enoch 48.10 that the Son of Man is said to be the messiah. In regards to the claim that 8.12 may function as a response to the objection in 7.41 that the Christ was not to come from Galilee, only the targum says that Isaiah 9.6 refers to the messiah. Koester links this to the fact that Isaiah 9.1-2 says that the people in Galilee would see a great light. This seems to involve too many steps to view 8.12 as a response to the objection voiced in 7.41.

Going to Death with Him

­49

in the darkness, and that it is their faith or lack of faith that determines whether they walk in light or in darkness.125 To recapitulate, it has been argued from a number of perspectives that the reader is led to interpret the walker of 11.9-10 as referring to the disciple, and that the image of walking in the night (11.10) refers to a lack of faith in Jesus. It will now be argued that the statement of disbelief by Thomas (11.16) appears to serve as a example of the disbelief to which Jesus refers in 11.10. Initial indicators of this possibility are: (1) while 11.10 is an image of the disbelief of the disciple, 11.16 is an expression by a disciple of disbelief; (2) John 11.16 is in the same section as is 11.9-10; (3) the language of going (a!gwmen – 11.7, 15b, 16; poreu&omai – 11.11b) and walking (peripath~| – 11.9-10) are reverberations of a common theme; Thomas’ ‘Let us go...’ echoes, in part, the ‘walking’ image found in 11.9-10. But there are further indications that 11.16 provides an example of the message articulated in 11.10.126 Another argument for viewing 11.10 and 11.16 as principle and example respectively comes from the linkage between darkness, falling and death in the passion narrative of John’s gospel. Satan enters Judas at night (nu/c – 13.30) to 125 The final verses on the light and darkness sayings form an inclusio with the first verses on light in the FG (1.5, 9-13; 12.35-36, 46). The light has come into the world, and the darkness has not overcome (kate/laben) it (1.5). If one walks in the light by believing in the light, then the darkness will not overtake (katala&bh) one (12.35-36). The term katala&bh| in 12.35 is a double entendre expressing not only the idea of being overtaken by the darkness, but also that of being overcome by it. That it has this latter meaning, also found in the use of the term in 1.5, is suggested by the element of risk found in 12.35c (‘the one who walks in darkness does not know where he is going’) coupled with earlier statements to the effect that remaining in the darkness entails death (3.16, 18-20). The idea is that one must come into the light that the darkness could not overcome (kate/laben – 1.5) in order not to be overcome (katalamba&nw – 12.35-36) by the darkness. Belief in the light makes people ‘sons of light’ (ui9oi\ fwto\j – 12.36), recalling John 1.9-13 where the purpose of the coming of the light is to give those who believe the power to become ‘children of God’ (te/kna qeou=). The final light statement in the fourth gospel also echoes the first light statements in this gospel: ‘I have come as light into the world’ (12.46) links up to the sayings that ‘the true light … was coming into the world’ and ‘He was in the world’ (1.9c, 10a). Similarly, the last part of 12.46 (‘in order that all who believe in him might not remain in darkness’) is paralleled by the second clause in 1.9 that Jesus is ‘the one who enlightens all people’. The light passages that are encompassed by the inclusio contain instructions on the various movements toward the light that are required in order to be ‘sons of light’. First, one must come to Jesus (3.21). Second, one must remain with him, doing his work (8.12; 9.4-5). Third, these outward movements to the light must be accompanied and undergirded by an inward movement: a belief in the light and its power over the darkness (11.9-10; 12.35-36, 46). Without this type of inward movement one stumbles (11.10) or is overcome by the darkness (12.35). 126 If 8.12 and 12.35-36 are the two passages that most resemble 11.9-10 by virtue of similar wording and idea, then it is interesting for our thesis on Thomas’ statement in 11.16 as a partial exemplification of 11.10 that both 8.12 and 12.35-36 have points of contact with the Johannine depiction of Thomas. In 8.12b Jesus says that the one who follows him will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life. The statement by Thomas in 11.16 that their journey is to death is a direct contradiction of 8.12b. In 12.35c Jesus says that ‘the one who walks in darkness does not know where he is going’. Thomas expresses the conviction of not knowing where he and the disciples should go: ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’ (14.5).

50

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

begin the events leading to Jesus’ death. When Judas and the cohort come to arrest Jesus in the garden it is at night, and they fall to the ground before Jesus’ impressive self-disclosure (18.1-7). If handing Jesus over to death at night leads to falling at night (13.30; 18.1-7) and to a permanent separation from Jesus and the disciples, then it is consistent with the Johannine symbol system that believing that death and not life would be the final word (11.16) would be portrayed as stumbling at night (11.10) and would lead to an initial absence in the evening (o0yi/aj) from the group to which the living Lord discloses himself. In John 20.19, 24 Thomas is the only disciple not present when Jesus appears to the disciples in the evening (o0yi/aj). Apostasy and disbelief are expressed in the FG through similar, yet distinct, verbs, respectively pi/ptw and prosko/ptw. Similarly, each is given an example in the action of a disciple. The actions of Judas on the one hand and of Thomas on the other witness to different degrees of benightedness and to the consequent results. There is an inner eclipse of faith in one of the disciples (Judas) and a shadow of a deficient faith in another (Thomas). Because Thomas still has some faith, his inner state is defined by imagery of the evening (o0yi/aj – 20.19, 24) rather than of the night (nu/c – 11.10; 13.30). Thomas exists in the gloaming. He has followed Jesus and continues to follow in a dangerous situation. By following Jesus he walks with the light of the world, but he does not have this light fully in him (11.10) because he does not believe in Jesus as the light of life (12.35-36) that darkness cannot overcome (1.4-5). The light is not overcome by the darkness (1.5). However, it can be either extinguished or shaded for someone from within. Thomas is the first example of the flickering of the light among the core group of disciples and Judas, an example of its extinguishment.127 As a consequence, the following of Jesus is obstructed for the former, who does not stay with Jesus until his death nor initially believe in the presence of the risen Lord after his death, and halted for the latter. The connections between 11.9-10 and 11.16 show that Thomas represents the disciple who stumbles because of a lack of a sufficient faith in Jesus as the light unconquerable by the darkness (1.4-5). Transcending the Liminal Adapter: John 11.17-53 I have studied 11.16 in the light of (1) the growing tension in the narrative, (2) the words of Jesus, Thomas, and the other disciples in 11.1-16, (3) the Spartan-like quality of 11.16, and (4) the relation of the light and darkness sayings in 11.9-10 to this character. The assertions of the characters whom Jesus meets when he arrives on the outskirts of Bethany, and of one character who comments on the events that ensued there, are also instructive; they form 127 A. Xavier views Thomas as an example of one who walks in the light (11.9). ‘Thomas’, p.24. He gives no arguments to buttress this view. As I have noted above, 11.9 points to walking with Jesus and so can apply in John 11 to all the core group, and not just Thomas, who finally agree to accompany Jesus (p.45). While this group does express hesitation about following Jesus in John 11, the disbelief that Thomas expresses at this point make him the focus of the disciple who can potentially stumble.

Going to Death with Him

­51

a descant to Thomas’ words. I turn now to this contrapuntal composition of the evangelist and propose that after the journey to Bethany, the disbelief of Thomas is accented by characters who had much more reason than Thomas to affirm death’s sway, and yet, in one way or another, affirmed Jesus’ power of life over death. I begin with the Johannine characterization of Mary and Martha in 11.17-45. Prior to Jesus’ journey to Lazarus, Mary is highlighted more than is Martha. At this point in the story we read not only about the message which the sisters send to Jesus (11.3), but also, and first (11.2), about a future action (12.3) by Mary. Upon arrival in Bethany, Martha is the more prominent of the sisters, having a more extensive interaction with Jesus (11.20-28, 39-40) than does Mary (11.29, 32).128 Mary is paired with Thomas. The discussion that the disciples as a group have with Jesus regarding the danger of going to Judea (11.7-15) is bracketed by references to actions and words by Mary and Thomas, respectively, that focus on Jesus’ death. It will be argued that Mary clarifies the character of Thomas by comparison, Martha by contrast. A study of the character of Mary shows that while she is definitely a disciple whom Jesus loves, her faith, unlike that of her sister, is enclosed by death. This thesis emerges both from the comparison of the words of Martha and Mary in 11.20-44 and from the wording of the Johannine account of the anointing of Jesus (12.1-8), viewed in comparison to the synoptic accounts of this tradition.129 Mary greets Jesus with the first words with which Martha greets him: ‘Lord, if you had been here my brother would not have died’ 128 When Jesus returns to Bethany the second time (12.1-11), Mary will play a more prominent role than does Martha. 129 Contra F. Moloney, who views Mary as being presented more positively than Martha. The Gospel of John (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1998), pp.27–30. He proposes that Martha sees Jesus as a miracle worker and that Mary, by deleting the second half of what Martha says in 11.21-22 when first encountering Jesus, shows that she does not see Jesus in this way. But Jesus had explicitly come to bring Lazarus back to life. So Martha’s statement about God even now giving Jesus what Jesus asks for is in line with Jesus’ purpose. Moreover, Jesus had first delayed his journey two days until a time when Lazarus was dead so that he could be raised (11.6). The ‘If you had been here …’ and ‘even now’ construction by Martha is congruent with the very pattern of Jesus’ activities in his journey to Lazarus in order to reveal the glory of God (11.4). Moloney also sees the statement that many of the Jews who had come with Mary believed as shining a positive light on this sister (11.45). The verse is, however, simply a reference to the fact that the Jews had been ‘consoling’ Mary and went to continue to minister to her when she left, ‘supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there’ (11.31). It is this very act of mourning by Mary and the Jews in 11.33 that Moloney views as indicative of a lack of faith. Rather than such a quick reversal, it seems that Moloney’s prior characterization of Mary is incorrect. E. Haenchen sees an equally too quick reversal of faith, this time on the part of Martha. Haenchen proposes that 11.22 witnesses to Martha saying that Jesus can raise Lazarus now but that her comment in 11.39b about the stench shows a lack of faith. John, 60. Finally, Moloney considers it a fault that Martha went to meet Jesus, commending instead Mary’s allowance of Jesus to take the initiative in calling her. ‘The Faith of Martha and Mary’, Bib 75 (1994), pp.480–81. This assertion is a puzzlement in a gospel in which, with one exception, members of the core group of disciples come to Jesus rather than Jesus finding them (1.37-50).

52

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

(11.32, 21). This is all that Mary says. Her faith in Jesus’ power of life lies this side of death. She does not continue, as Martha does, with an ‘even now’ (kai\ nu=n) saying that allows for a faith that spans the gulf of death: ‘Even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask’ (11.22). This openness on Martha’s part leads to Jesus’ revelation to her that he is the resurrection and the life (11.25a) and what this means (11.25b-26).130 No further dialogue that enlightens Mary ensues. The story of Mary’s anointing the feet of Jesus (12.1-8) also suggests her inability to transcend death by means of faith. The defence of her in the FG is more muted than is the defence of the women in the synoptics. Lacking in the fourth gospel is the explicit testimonial to her deed that is found in regard to the unknown woman in Mark and Matthew.131 It is not said that John 12.1-8 should be retold whenever the gospel is preached in memory of her, as Jesus claims in Mt. 26.13 and in Mk. 14.9. Of course, this claim is perhaps redundant because the inclusion of the story of the anointing in the gospels itself insures its retelling. Moreover, a certain ‘retelling’ is effected in the fourth gospel by the proleptic announcement in 11.2 of Mary’s anointing. Nevertheless, the fourth gospel lacks this explicit testimonial and the commendation of Mary that it confers.132 There is also no direct, positive assessment of this deed in the fourth gospel. Both Mark and John write that Jesus tells the detractor(s) of the woman or Mary to leave her alone (Mk. 14.6a; Jn 12.7). Matthew and Mark have Jesus say ‘Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for me’ (Mt. 26.10; Mk. 14.6bc). This good work is later, after contrasting it with actions for the poor (Mt. 26.11; Mk. 14.7), specified as the preparation of Jesus’ body for burial (Mt. 26.12; Mk. 14.8b). In Mark’s gospel there is the added commendation that in doing so for Jesus she has done what she could

130 John Painter writes that although 11.27 suggests that Martha has understood the eschatological implications of Jesus’ statement in 11.25-26, the subsequent narrative shows that she still holds to a traditional eschatology. Nevertheless, the allowance of the removal of the stone from the tomb is sufficient for Jesus to raise Lazarus. (The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature, and Theology of the Johannine Community [Nashville: Abingdon, 1993], p.373.) 131 Mt. 26.6-13; Mk. 14.3-9; Lk. 7.36-50. In Lk. 7.36-50 the anointing by a woman is not a preparation of Jesus’ body for burial. 132 Midrash Rabbah on Eccl 7.1 reads: ‘The fragrance of a good perfume spreads from the bedroom to the dining room; so does a good name spread from one end of the world to the other.’ Some wonder if the Johannine notice in 12.3b that ‘The house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment’ is an allusion to this saying and as such a reference to the fame of Mary comparable to the one found in Mt. 26.13 and in Mk. 14.9. We do not know if this saying was in circulation at the time in which the gospel was written, nor yet, even if it was, if the evangelist knew of it. There are not enough similarities between John 12.3b and Midrash Rabbah Ecles 7.1 to establish any connection. A link can only come about by drawing in Mt. 26.13 and Mk. 14.9 in conjunction with the silence of John regarding the fame that would accrue to Mary as a result of this anointing. Thus, any Johannine allusion in 12.3b to a testimonial to Mary is extremely tenuous. If there at all, it is at most a very indirect allusion and one far less likely to lead the reader to the idea of Mary being renowned than is the testimonial in Matthew and in Mark.

Going to Death with Him

­53

(o4 e1sxen e0poi/hsen – 14.8a).133 John does not say that Mary has done a good work for Jesus. He defends Mary’s action but rather baldly, only enjoining leaving her alone and letting her keep the ointment for the day of Jesus’ burial, because unlike the poor, Jesus will not always be with them. Although this point should not be taken too far, it is noteworthy that even the Johannine phrasing of what Mary has done is less directly commendatory than is that of Matthew and Mark, who say either that the unidentified woman has anointed Jesus for burial (Mt. 26.12) or that she has anointed him for burial ahead of time (Mk. 14.8). John writes ‘Leave her alone in order that she might keep (thrh/sh|) it for the day of my burial’ (John 12.7). A subtle point, and one that should not be overworked, but ‘keeping’ ointment for the day of burial (i3na ei0j th\n h9me/ran tou= e0ntafiasmou= mou thrh/sh| au0to&) does not convey as high a degree of positive valuation as does the language of using the ointment to prepare the body for burial, language found in Matthew and in Mark. While all three evangelists refer to an act of anointing, John has Jesus speak in terms of the potential for this act whereas Matthew and Mark have Jesus make reference to the actual anointing itself. The praise of the Johannine Jesus is one step removed from the anointing itself. This muffled encomium corresponds to Mary’s keeping the ointment for the day of Jesus’ burial being out of step with Jesus’ death. John 12.7 implies that Mary has not yet used the ointment, whereas both the remark by Judas Iscariot (12.5) and the description in 12.3 of the action of Mary presuppose that she has.134 It does no good to look at ‘day’ (h9me/ra) in 12.7 as an inexact reference to the present time. The day spoken about by Jesus is the same time as ‘his hour’, the hour of his passion and death. Although that time is near at hand (12.23), it has not yet arrived (12.12)135. Thus, there is a disjunction between Jesus’ exhortation to let Mary keep the ointment for the day of his burial and Mary’s prior use of it. No such disjunction is found in the synoptic accounts. When the preceding features are considered in conjunction with the fact that there is a certain superfluity to the two anointings in the Gospel of John (12.3; 19.38-39), in distinction to the gospels of Matthew and Mark where no other anointing occurs, then it appears as if the Johannine ‘justification’ of Mary before Judas and those present at the feast is an attenuated one at best.136 This observation is not weakened by the fact that Jesus does defend Mary. We would expect no less of the Johannine Jesus who is at pains to defend the disciples (17.12; 18.8, 19) despite their foibles (13.38; 14.5, 8; 16.32).

133 In the Lukan account, which does not tie the anointing to Jesus’ death, the woman is praised for her love and said to have been saved (7.47, 50). 134 Further, as R. Brown has noted, if 12.7 refers to a future use of this liquid we may expect to read of it later, and we do not (John I–XII, p.449). 135 See the temporal indicators in John 12.12; 13.30; 18.3, 27-28. 136 The editors of A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament opt for the reading mi/gma over the reading e3ligma (Bruce Metzger et. al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [London: UBS, 1971], p.254). In either case the body is covered with fragrance.

54

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

The thesis of a subdued Johannine appraisal of Mary’s anointing is also not weakened by the proposal that there is an attempt by the evangelist to link the anointing and drying of Jesus’ feet to the foot washing of John 13. Those who opt for this proposal sometimes see Mary’s anointing as a sign of her prescience and contrast this prehension with the lack of understanding or the need for instruction by a disciple or disciples in John 13. Thus, John Painter provides the following comparisons as indicative of a proposed contrast between Mary and Peter. First, Mary anoints the feet of Jesus, while Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. Second, at each event we read about Judas Iscariot. Third, Mary and Peter are highlighted respectively in the anointing and in the foot washing. Painter claims that in such a way Mary appears in a better light than does Peter because she perceives and anticipates Jesus’ future needs, while Peter cannot understand why Jesus should wash his feet.137 The proposed linkage between the anointing and the foot washing in order to show Mary to the advantage appears a bit stretched. There is no anointing in John 13, but rather a washing. The action of Mary is explicitly contrasted with actions that can be done for others, the poor who are always present (12.8). It is a singular occurrence signifying a preparation of Jesus’ body for burial, whereas the foot washing is intended as a model for the disciples on which to base their lives (13.14-17). A novel way, as far as I can determine, to explain Mary’s anointing the feet of Jesus (as does the woman in Lk. 7.38) rather than his head (as do the women in Matthew and Mark) is to view it in the light of Jn 11.32. It is Mary and not Martha who falls at Jesus’ feet when she declares that her brother would not have died if Jesus had been present. The new action of anointing Jesus’ feet appears a particularly apt response that, by association with her former action at the feet of Jesus, is a fitting tribute to what Jesus has done. It becomes in John’s gospel an unintended prophetic symbolic action, just as the words of Caiaphas (11.50-52) are unintentionally prophetic. Rather than having a connection to the foot washing, the anointing appears much more to be linked generally to the actions that the leaders have just taken and specifically to the words of Caiaphas. The leaders have plotted to put Jesus to death (11.47-53), and Mary has anointed Jesus for this death. The words of Caiaphas and the action of Mary are both unconscious prophecies of Jesus’ death.138 Thus, it is not a percipient Mary who is contrasted with slow, or dull disciples. Rather, it is a Mary whose actions unwittingly participate in a prophecy of the death of Jesus who is linked to Caiaphas and the Jewish leaders. In summary, the thesis of a muted portrayal of Mary by the fourth evangelist is not vitiated by the proposed connection of the anointing to the foot washing. It is proposed that the statements which, in response to Judas Iscariot, Jesus makes on Mary’s behalf and the portrayal of Mary in relation to Martha in 137 J. Painter, Quest for the Messiah, p.375. D. Carson views Mary in her action of anointing Jesus as a foil to the disciples as a whole in John 13. They need to be instructed in washing the feet of others. John, p.427. 138 Bultmann, John, p.416; Brown, John I–XII, p.454.

Going to Death with Him

­55

11.20-44 and are of a piece. The commendation of Mary only goes so far because her faith only goes so far.139 The interesting data revolving around the presence of those who comfort Mary and Martha appears to support this line of reasoning. Why are the people comforting Mary (11.31) and not Martha? They came to comfort both (11.19). Why did they go to follow Mary? According to Jn 11.31bc, when the people saw that Mary left, they followed her thinking that she was going to the tomb to weep; this verse does not say that they followed Martha and Mary, although it is clear from 11.32 and 11.39 that both left. Why did those (or some of those) who had come to give solace to both sisters (paramuqh/swntai au0ta_j – 11.19) not accompany Martha when she had left earlier to meet Jesus (11.20)? Why is it that only Mary, and not Martha, is described as weeping? When the people see Mary leave, they think that she is going to the tomb to weep (klau/sh| – 11.31). No such thought on their parts is written about in reference to Martha’s departure. When Mary meets Jesus with the same opening words with which Martha meets Jesus, both Mary and the people who accompany her are weeping (au/0th\n klai/ousan kai\ tou\j sunelqo/ntaj au0th==| I)oudai/ouj klai/ontaj – 11.33). We do not read about Martha weeping. Why is it that only Mary is prostrate before Jesus (Maria_m ... i0dou=sa au0to\n e1pesen au0tou= pro\j tou\j po/daj … 11.32) while weeping? These features appear to dovetail with the open hope in the other remarks that Martha makes to Jesus (11.22, 24, 27), remarks that have no parallel in the words of Mary. It is Mary who appears to need more comforting than Martha. Mary does not articulate any possibility beyond the death of Lazarus, and she is consequently in more need of comfort than is her sister. This is in no way a criticism of Mary’s weeping. Jesus himself weeps (11.35). It is simply a proposal to make sense of the sketchy, yet distinctive portraiture of these sisters: a suggestion that Mary’s prostrate form (here probably expressive of her grief as in 2 Samuel 13.31 where David lies on the ground when he hears a report that his sons have been killed), her weeping, and the absence on her part of any words that express the hope of a way beyond the death of Lazarus evoke the idea of one whose limited belief system makes her in need of particular support. Mary’s limited expression of faith in Jesus’ power of life over death so long as it is expressed this side of death (‘Lord, if you had been here my brother would not have died’ –11.32) is echoed by some of those who have accompanied her: ‘Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?’ (11.37). The repetition stresses the death boundary of this type of faith.140 Tying Mary still more closely to this group is the notice 139 Nevertheless, we should not forget that the words of Jesus in 12.7-8 are on Mary’s behalf, the particular choice and phrasing of these words being not a criticism but a qualification of her anointing. After all, John does oppose the generosity (poluti/mou [‘of great value’] – 12.3) to the rapacity of Judas (12.6). See Moloney, Signs and Shadows, p.182. This type of opposition is not found among the corresponding characters in the synoptic versions of this tradition. 140 Thus, the claim by John Painter that both Mary and the Jews repeat the view of Martha is

56

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

in 11.45-46 that the group of Jews who believed or who told the Pharisees what Jesus had done were those who had come to Mary. No mention is made of Martha.141 Thus, we have, in a certain sense, complementary portraits of Thomas and Mary. Both are initially paired in a linkage to the death of Jesus (11.2, 16) that brackets the events dealing with the proposed journey to Lazarus. The development of the portrayal of Mary along the lines of a faith bounded by death subtly influences the reader to interpret the terse statement of Thomas in 11.16 in a similar way. Despite these comparisons, though, Thomas is upstaged by Mary. She believes that Jesus’ presence would have resulted in life for her brother, while Thomas believes that their presence with Jesus will result in the death of all of them. If Mary sheds light on Thomas by comparison, Martha does so by contrast. The dialogue between Jesus and Martha in 11.21-27 throws the comment by Thomas into bold relief. Right after we read about Thomas’ exhortation to accompany Jesus, even though to Thomas it will lead to death, we read about the arrival of Jesus (and his disciples) on the outskirts of Bethany (11.17-19). The description of this setting is such as to highlight the apparent prudence of Thomas’ observation: Bethany is only about two miles from Jerusalem (11.18), and many Jews had come (e0lhlu/qeisan) to comfort Martha and Mary (11.19). Dangerously close to the focal point of opposition to Jesus are both Jesus and the disciples. Moreover, the fact that ‘many’ (polloi\) from a group that has tried to arrest and kill Jesus are present heightens the danger. Although there is no precise mention of where they have come from, the reference to the short distance from Bethany to Jerusalem, immediately preceding the notice of the coming of the people, casts a two-mile long shadow over them. Comforters to Martha and Mary they may be, but the possible results of their meeting Jesus are much more menacing, a thread that the evangelist will pick up in his literary weaving in 11.46. This dangerous setting-bridge between Thomas (11.16) and Martha (11.2027) is traversed by each of them in different ways. Martha goes to meet Jesus (11.20), and rather than claiming the supremacy of death, as does Thomas, she asserts Jesus’ lordship over this ultimate foe. How stark in their contrast are the words of Thomas (‘Let us also go in order that we might die with him’) and the first words of Martha (‘Lord, if you had been here my brother would not partially correct, but in need of nuancing. (Quest, p.372.) Mary and the Jews have Martha’s faith in Jesus’ power this side of death, but do not exhibit the same openness to this power once death has occurred. 141 The remark by D. A. Carson that Mary had the larger circle of friends of the two appears suppositious. (John, p.419.) Raymond Brown wonders if this linkage to Mary reflects a memory of a Mary made more famous than her sister because of the anointing (John I–XII, pp.438–9). Although this is possible, the prior, and unusual, linkage of the Jews to Mary (11.31) renders it plausible that something more deliberative is to be found in 11.45. Mary is linked both before (11.3) the journey of Jesus and the disciples to Lazarus and after this journey to others who are also focused on death: to Thomas and the disciples (11.1-16) on the one hand and to the comforters (11.37), Caiaphas and the whole Sanhedrin on the other (11.47-53).

Going to Death with Him

­57

have died. Even now [kai/ nu=n] I know that whatever you ask God, God will give to you’ – 11.21-22). Thomas asserts the certainty of death where death has not yet occurred; Martha, the certainty of life had Jesus been there, even though death has already occurred. For Thomas death is the last word, in his statement (‘… die with him’) and in their lives. For Martha, the possibilities in Jesus open up beyond death: following the notice of her brother’s death (11.21) she continues with ‘Even now I know that whatever you ask God, God will give you’ (11.22). The concluding words of each are definitive, but in different ways. The ‘even now’ belief of Martha mocks the not yet, but certain resignation of Thomas.142 There is a rough parallelism between the conversation of Jesus and his disciples in 11.8-16 and that of Jesus and Martha in 11.21-27: one that places Thomas in an unenviable light. Both the disciples (11.8) and Martha (11.21) respond to a journey by Jesus, the former to dissuade his journey because of its danger and the latter to affirm Jesus’ power over the ultimate danger, death (11.21-22). Jesus responds both to the disciples and to Martha in terms of raising Lazarus (11.11, 23) in ways that occasion misunderstandings in them. The disciples think that Lazarus is sleeping and that he will be well (swqh/setai) because of it (11.12), and Martha thinks that Jesus is referring to the resurrection on the last day and that her brother will participate in it (11.24). To each Jesus replies with an initially succinct and direct statement. Therefore Jesus said plainly, ‘Lazarus has died’ … Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life’ …

(11.14) (11.25a)

There follow statements involving an evocation of the belief of those who hear them. And I rejoice for your sakes that I was not there so that you might believe. (pisteu/shte – 11.15) The one who believes in me and dies, will live; and the one who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe (pisteu/eij) this? (11.25b-26)

Finally, we have statements by Thomas and by Martha that close the respective scenes. While Thomas’ understanding runs counter to that of Jesus, Martha affirms Jesus’ view. Thomas demurs that the journey will lead to their belief (11.15), claiming that its outcome will rather be their death (11.16). On the other hand, Martha squarely aligns herself to Jesus’ position by her opening words ‘Yes Lord, I have believed …’ (11.27): a response to Jesus’ query ‘Do 142 This openness in Martha’s words need not be taken specifically to mean that Jesus can raise Lazarus before the final resurrection, as A. Hunter thinks it does. John, p.115.

58

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

you believe this?’ (11.26). The assessment of the degree of faith represented by Martha’s comment in 11.27 may vary, but that in contrast to Thomas she attempts to align herself to Jesus’ position appears to be incontrovertible. By their words and actions Mary and Martha provide a commentary on the initial statement by Thomas in the Johannine narrative. Tethered to death, as is the faith of Mary, the faith of Thomas is unable to break its bonds, as does the confession of Martha.143 Thomas has his faith perspective located by the evangelist in part through this triangulation.

The Twinning of Thomas with Jesus, Peter, and Caiaphas Both the similarities between Thomas and Jesus and those between Thomas and Peter clarify the two-sided nature of Thomas: bravery and insufficient faith. We have already seen how Thomas both reflects and refracts Jesus by using in 11.16 Jesus’ words to exhort the other disciples to the concrete action Jesus proposed while mocking the goal of this action. The evangelist also sketches Thomas’ bifocal character by means of similarities between Peter in John 6 and Thomas in John 11. In each situation a decisive figure steps forward to marshal the force of the twelve. Each respond to the threat of apostasy with words that strengthen the group. Both Peter and Thomas manifest bravery by their words. Peter enters into the wake of a mass defection of disciples leading to a truncated group of twelve who are asked if they also want to leave Jesus. Thomas takes a position counter to the rest of the group in order to lead them into a dangerous situation.144 His words keep the inner core with Jesus up until the passion, when two members of this group follow Jesus further. In this sense, Thomas prestresses the apostles, adding with his summons to participate in Jesus’ death the tension that reinforces their commitment. Whereas Peter claims that Jesus has ‘the words of eternal life’, however, Thomas says that 143 J.-A. Brant writes that Thomas resembles the memyimoiri/a character type that Theophrastus describes in Char. 17. She characterizes this as a habitually gloomy character. This may be implied in the term, which both in Theophrastus’ work and in other works tends to describe the outward act of finding fault. See LSJ 1101. Brant hypothesises that in 11.16 it is a gloomy mood of Thomas, in contrast to the post-resurrectional joy stressed by Jesus, that is important rather than the meaning of Thomas’ words. John (PCNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), p.174. This assessment neglects, however, the data from John 14 and 20 that will show that Thomas’ negative reaction comes not from an innate mood but rather from his inability to accept Jesus’ message. Rather than portray a gloomy character in Thomas, John depicts Thomas’ perception of a dire message. As noted earlier, Thomas seems to resemble more Theophrastus’ portrayal of the overzealous person (peri/ergoj) as ‘the one who promises what he is not able to do’. Characters 13.1-2. Aristotle defined courage as ‘the mean respect of fear and confidence’ regarding death. Eth. Nic. 3.5.22; 3.7.8-13. Thomas errs on the side of rashness, of overconfidence. 144 M. Stibbe thinks that both Thomas’ and Peter’s comments in, respectively, 11.16 and 6.6869, demonstrate bravado and, as such, are examples of ‘false discipleship’ (‘Tomb’, p.46). This view neglects the contexts in which each of these statements is made. Peter speaks up when all but the twelve give up on Jesus. Thomas speaks on the crest of mounting tension (especially from John 5–10) that threatens the commitment of even the twelve.

Going to Death with Him

­59

Jesus’ summons in 11.9, 11 to life will end in death (6.68; 11.16). Whatever Peter means by ‘the words of eternal life’, this articulation leaves open future possibilities that Thomas closes. Finally, Thomas, Peter and Jesus are the three of the inner Jesus group who articulate the Johannine love commandment. Thomas does so in a similar, yet distinctive way. He encourages himself and the others to die ‘with Jesus’ (met’ au0tou= – 11.16). This is an expression of loyalty in strong terms, and he has partially backed it up by leading his fellow disciples in their accompaniment of Jesus into dangerous territory. It is precisely these terms, however, powerful though they are, that are problematic. They reverberate with the love commandment as expressed by Jesus and Peter, as his words ‘Let us also go’ echo the similar exhortations by Jesus (11.7, 15), but shape this command in a distinctly Thomistic manner. Thus, whereas, Thomas calls the disciples onward to die ‘with’ their Master, Jesus and Peter phrase the love command as a dying ‘for’ (u9pe\r) others.145 Both the loyal solidarity and the misplaced purpose of the death found in Thomas’ formulation should be noted. Caiaphas is the other character who articulates a version of the Johannine love commandment. In 11.50 he says, ‘it is better that one die for (u9pe\r) the people than that the whole nation should perish’. There are a number of striking similarities and marked contrasts between Thomas and Caiaphas that result in a partial inversion of their character roles. Let us begin with the similarities. Each character belongs to a group whose primary concern at this point is its own safety (11.8, 12, 48). Thomas and Caiaphas are identified as members of these groups.146 These two men address the concern of their respective groups by speaking decisively about Jesus’ death in relation to the death of others. The results are that Thomas and Caiaphas galvanize their colleagues and direct their actions: the disciples follow Jesus and the council plans to put Jesus to death (11.53).147 Another similarity is the oracular quality to each of their statements.148 The narrator says that Caiaphas’ pronouncement is a prophecy (11.51). Thomas’ understanding is partially vindicated when the council decides to put Jesus to death (11.45-53).149 Caiaphas’ words appear, however, more consonant with the narrative at this point than do those of Thomas. Caiaphas affirms the death of Jesus as the means by which many will be saved (11.50), whereas Thomas claims that Jesus’ death will be accompanied by the death of his followers. Given the repeated claims of Jesus in John 10 that he will give up his life to save others, Caiaphas’ words appear as a note in harmony with this larger 145 John 10.11, 15; 13.37; 15.13. 146 Thomas addresses his summaqhtai=j (11.16). Caiaphas is called ei9j de/ tij e0c au0tw~n (11.49). 147 The term ou0n at the beginning of 11.53 shows that it is Caiaphas’ words that direct the council’s previously unfocused exasperation into the attempt to put Jesus to death. 148 The association of the high priest with prophecy can be found in Philo, Spec. Leg.; Josephus, Ant. 11.8.4; 13.10.7. 149 J. Bridges, Structure and History in John 11: A Methodological Study Comparing Structuralist and Historical Critical Approaches (DDS; San Francisco: Mellen, 1991), p.151.

60

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

chord. The FG emphasises this resonance by following Jesus’ and Caiaphas’ claims in, respectively, 10.15 and 11.50 that Jesus will die for others with assertions in 10.16 and 11.52 that his death will also help those far afield.150 This is expressed in terms of creating ‘one’ group out of many.151 The speech of Caiaphas, though exhibiting every bit as much incomprehension as does that of Thomas, logically follows upon the discourse on the good shepherd in John 10. It is not until 13.34; 15.12-14, however, that Jesus talks about the need for the disciples to participate in his love unto death. Thomas’ words are out of sync with the narrative. None of the disciples die ‘with Jesus’. The command is that they love ‘as’ (kaqw\j) Jesus loved: giving up their lives ‘for’ (u9pe\r) one’s friends. Thus, Caiaphas inadvertently prophesies correctly; Thomas, incorrectly. The differences between Thomas and Caiaphas have to do with their antipodal actions regarding being with or apart from Jesus. Caiaphas wishes to sacrifice Jesus for the sake of the people. Thomas claims that Jesus’ disciples should stand in solidarity with him. At this point, Thomas expresses the strongest desire to remain with Jesus. In contrast, the Johannine Caiaphas makes it a point of staying clear of Jesus. A comparison of accounts of the principal accusers of Jesus in each of the canonical gospels highlights this feature of the Johannine Pilate. Caiaphas is inconspicuous in the Gospels of Mark and Luke; he is simply not mentioned. In Matthew’s gospel he is conspicuously present. It is in his house that the chief priests and elders gather to arrest Jesus (Mt. 26.3-5). In both the Matthean and Markan accounts, the high priest must press the prosecution’s attack after an initial failure by the council to find evidence against Jesus (Mt. 26.59-66; Mk. 14.55-64). Matthew clearly designates the high priest as Caiaphas (Mt. 26.3, 57). The Matthean Caiaphas infamously takes centre stage, while the Johannine Caiaphas recedes in his machinations. The Johannine Caiaphas is elusive, coming forth only to speak to a sympathetic group about ways to insure their safety (11.50). Interestingly, although in Jn. 11.49 and 18.13 Caiaphas is said to be ‘high priest that year’, the soldiers bring the bound Jesus to Annas ‘because he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas’. All sorts of reasons could be postulated for bringing him to Annas. One thing that this concretely achieves, however, is to keep Caiaphas clear of the dangerous Jesus. This theme of not bringing Jesus and Caiaphas into direct contact continues in the verses eventuating in taking Jesus to the praetorium (18.24, 28). First, Annas sends Jesus to Caiaphas (18.24). Next the FG treats Peter’s two final denials (18.25-27). Finally, John writes, ‘they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium’ (18.28). Even though Jesus is sent to Caiaphas, the focus of 18.24-28 is on other characters. Thus, instead of writing about the arrival of Jesus at Caiaphas’ house and his reception there, John concentrates 150 Talbert, Reading John, p.164. By contrast, Thomas says that Jesus’ death will result not in an inclusion of others but in death for those already on the inside. 151 Note ei[j poimh/n in 10.16 and ei0j e3n in 11.52.

Going to Death with Him

­61

initially on what is going on back in Annas’ courtyard: Peter’s denials (18.2527). From this scene the reader is immediately whisked away to Jesus being led from Caiaphas to the praetorium (18.28). One never reads of any meeting of Jesus with Caiaphas nor of any scene at his home. Further discouraging any notion of a meeting between Jesus and Caiaphas is the ambiguous use of A!gousin (‘they lead’) as the first word in 18.28. Just who is meant by this term is not clear and this ambiguity keeps the attention off Caiaphas. These features hint that the one who sees danger for all unless Jesus is killed kept himself apart from implication by association. The oblique Johannine referral of the matter to Pilate is all the more unusual given the interrogation that had preceded it. It was left to Annas to conduct the case, and Annas had secured no evidence. Jesus is sent from Annas to Caiaphas and then taken from Caiaphas to Pilate. Jesus is a hot potato for the Johannine Caiaphas. He sends Jesus to the Roman prefect without securing a charge and without apparently even meeting and questioning him. This is the only canonical gospel in which a charge is not obtained on the basis of what Jesus says before the Jewish leaders at this stage of the narrative. As a result, when Pilate asks Jesus’ opponents what accusation they bring against him, they are left to ask Pilate to take their word for Jesus’ guilt: ‘If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over’ (18.30). In each of the synoptic gospels, the accusers are prepared with specific charges (Mt. 27.1213; Mk. 15.3-4; Lk. 23.2, 5); in John’s gospel they are unprepared due to what appears to be a precipitate sending of Jesus away from Caiaphas’ house. Jesus is quickly removed from too close an association with Caiaphas by having the trial occur there. As a result, later, in the wake of Pilate’s intransigence, Jesus’ antagonists must rely on a charge based on evidence that they had procured prior to Jesus’ final entrance into Jerusalem (Jn 19.7; 10.30-33). The Johannine Caiaphas recognizes the danger that Jesus poses to all of them and works to kill Jesus, while removing himself from the sphere of danger. The Johannine Thomas also recognizes the danger Jesus poses to those who are associated with him, but he continues to accompany Jesus providing the support of comradeship. There is a curious character inversion whereby one of the chief antagonists (Caiaphas) is made the spokesperson for Jesus’ purpose and one of Jesus’ most ardent followers becomes the bearer of the antagonistic assertion that Jesus’ goal will not be realized. Inadvertently, Caiaphas affirms Jesus’ own purpose for his death: the life and safety of his disciples (10.10-15, 28-30).152 On the other hand, Thomas denies this purpose. There is both a practical prehension by Thomas and Caiaphas and an obtuseness by them on the larger significance of the actions they prophesy about Jesus. Therein lie both the irony and the tragedy of their statements. Caiaphas knows that the Romans will be satisfied if the reason for the ruckus is removed. Thomas understands 152 For Caiaphas the disciples are part of the larger group of the whole nation that will be spared by Jesus’ death.

62

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

that Jesus’ proposed journey is pushing matters too far. Both are in touch with the political pulse. Both also fail to see how Jesus’ death will save others, but Caiaphas’ prophecy is verbally aligned with this goal whereas Thomas’ is not. The disciple contradicts the central message of Jesus while the archenemy affirms it. Caiaphas and Thomas have briefly functioned in the other’s role while still maintaining their respective allegiances. Which actor wears which mask, the reader may legitimately ask? Thomas is here the principal adversary against the raison d’être of Jesus.

­

Chapter 2 Where Else Can We Go with Him (John 14.5)? Dead life, blind sight …

Richard III IV.iv.26

Bring me the friendship between solving and dissolving

Rae Armantrout, ‘Relations’

Initial Overview The second explicit appearance of Thomas in the narrative is in the first part of the farewell discourse. At a certain point, Jesus says: (1) he is going away to prepare a place for his disciples; (2) then he will return and take them there; and (3) that the disciples know the way to Jesus’ destination (14.2-4). Here Thomas replies: ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’ (14.5). This question leads to Jesus’ response about being ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ and to his statement about how the disciples’ knowledge of Jesus relates to their knowledge of the Father (14.6-7)

Bravery: A Request for Marching Orders It is in character for Thomas to speak up at this point in the narrative. Thomas is oriented toward action rather than toward reflection, and it is at this point that he finally senses something that he may do. Jesus has just said four times that he is going away (13.33, 36b; 14.2b, 3). He said that the disciples are not able to go where he is going (13.33) because they cannot ‘follow’ him now, as Peter will be able to do later (13.6). So Jesus is speaking about a lack of effective action on the disciples’ part right now and leaving open the possibility of such action only in the future, and only explicitly for Peter. When Jesus does talk about action in regard to all the disciples, the activity at first appears to be largely on Jesus’ part. He will go and ‘prepare a place’ for them. This is said twice, the second occurrence reinforcing Jesus as the one

64

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

who is doing something (14.2-3). Jesus seems to preclude any effective action on the disciples’ part, even in the future, by saying that after the preparation is complete he will return and take them to himself (14.3). There seems to be little of the daring journey left for them, only one over-broken trail led by Jesus who has blazed the way. Finally, the concluding words of 14.3 state a reason for Jesus’ actions that appear particularly galling to one accustomed to stick-to-itiveness to Jesus. These words are that the reason Jesus comes and takes the disciples is so that they may be where he is. In the light of Jesus’ preceding statements, the implication is clear that this is the only way the disciples will be able to stick with Jesus. In 14.3-4 Jesus appears to finally give the disciples something to do. Jesus follows his statement, that he will come back in order to take them where he is first proceeding alone, with the claim that the disciples know where he is going. This sequence appears to provide a way to follow Jesus before his return. The one who earlier was willing to follow Jesus to die with him (11.16) finds this an apt time to question the way they should take to reach Jesus’ destination. The man who first jumped into the narrative to exhort others to act, to accompany Jesus (11.16), jumps in again to get his marching orders.1 Thomas’ statement and question in 14.5 is a significantly braver articulation than was even his last exhortation in 11.16. This is because of what occurs, and what does not occur, in the part of the night before Thomas speaks and because of what Jesus had just said about this night less than a week before the events recorded in John 13.1–18.27. It is night when Jesus has his final supper with his disciples. This is the night into which Judas goes out from the supper to betray Jesus (13.30). So great is the danger during this night that Jesus says twice that they cannot follow him now (13.33, 36). This is the night in which Jesus has claimed that Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows (13.38b).2 The last public words of Jesus had been spoken less than a week ago: The light is with you a little while longer. Walk while you have the light lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes While you have the light, believe in the light that you might become sons of light. (12.35-36)

The last words of the prior citation point forward and backward to illume Thomas’ contribution in 14.5.3 Thirty-two times the verb u9pa&gw appears in the FG. Only in 14.5a is there the same type of construction as is found in 12.35b. 1 The problem is, as we will see, that these orders have already just been given. 2 That the denial of Peter, who has just offered to lay down his life for Jesus, is mentioned right after the double articulation in 13.37b-38a of this offer by Peter provides an undertone of the degree of danger they must be in for Peter to enact such a 180-degree shift of intent. 3 In the previous chapter we have seen that these verses link, and contribute to an understanding of the portrayal of Thomas in 11.10, 16. We will now examine the forward reference to 14.5a and its significance.

Where Else Can We Go with Him? ou0k oi]den pou= u9pa&gei

­65 (12.35b)

ou0k oi]damen pou= u9pa&geij (14.5a)

The connection shows that Thomas is willing to walk in the night without the light but toward it. In the night in which Jesus speaks about his departure, Thomas so alludes to prior words about Jesus’ departure in connection with darkness as to indicate his willingness to walk toward Jesus when no directed walking was said to be possible (12.35b-c). John 12.36 does imply that belief is a way to continue in the light, but it is belief in the continuance of the light beyond death that Thomas lacks. Therefore, in 14.5 Thomas expresses a willingness to persist even without the light. The night into which Thomas is willing to proceed is one apparently without the divine powerful presence that was manifest in the journey up until this point. As we have seen, the following of Jesus referred to in 14.4 will have to be in the wake of Jesus’ departure. Thomas is the only disciple who expresses the willingness to continue without the powerful presence of Jesus into the dark night.4 Jesus does not tell the disciples until 14.15-17 that the Father will give them the Spirit of Truth. Jesus does not tell them until 14.18-21 that he will come back to them before the Parousia to strengthen them.5 Jesus does not promise them until 14.12-14 the power to do ‘greater works’ than he did. Recall that prior to his healing the man born blind, Jesus had told the disciples that they must do the ‘works’ of God ‘while it is day’ because ‘night comes when no one can work’. He immediately clarifies this night as occurring when he leaves (9.45). Thus, when Thomas speaks about Jesus’ absence in 14.5 he is asseverating a willingness to continue in a seemingly greatly impoverished state. Thomas is willing to proceed into a night without Jesus’ presence, without an affirmation of the divine presence, and seemingly without the power that has heretofore sustained the group on its journey. When Thomas speaks in John 14, it is the night of Jesus’ betrayal and the night when Jesus says that the disciples cannot follow him now. What may easily be surmised by the disciples is that it is a lack of firm commitment on their part that is the reason for this upcoming separation. This inference stems from the statement of Jesus that follows his telling Peter that the disciple could not follow at this time: Peter would deny Jesus. Thomas revs up his commitment in the face of greater danger. While Jesus is alive, Thomas’ raison d’être is to keep Jesus and the disciples together. Thomas inserts himself into potential rifts between Jesus and the disciples. He had done so in 11.16, and he does so again in John 14.6 Courageous loyalty is a guiding principle with this character. 4 Peter had wished to accompany Jesus (13.37a). 5 The words ‘The world will see me not more, but you will see me’ in 14.19 argue against the verse referring to the Parousia. Brown, John XIII–XXI, pp.645–6. 6 This functional similarity between 11.16 and 14.5 argues against the proposal by D. Woll

66

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

Intransigence: Context Crunched No Refuge for Thomas in His Claim of Incomprehension The Larger Context of John 7– 8; 13.33-38 Thomas professes in 14.5 an ignorance as to Jesus’ destination. It is argued that the discussions in John 7–8 and the repetition of this theme in 13.33-38 have clearly prepared the way so that the statements in 14.2-3 do not come out of the blue. The Johannine Jesus has facilitated the understanding by his auditors through repetitions that progressively illumine their meaning. If the pieces have not all been put together by the beginning of John 14, they have certainly been set out so that Thomas should have understood their final explicit connection in 14.2-3. This preparation comes through the development of the theme of Jesus’ goal in these verses. Let us look briefly at how the theme of Jesus’ destination is developed in John 7–8. It is tied together in these chapters with the theme of Jesus’ origins. Let us focus, however, on what is said about Jesus’ destination in these chapters because this is the theme to which Thomas responds in John 14. The theme of origins in John 7–8 will only be treated in terms of how it clarifies Jesus’ destination. From this perspective, these chapters heighten Thomas’ profession of incomprehension and shed light on the significance of this statement. Jesus connects his origins to his destination in 7.33-34, which contain the first of the ‘Where I am going you are unable to come’ sayings. He claims that he is going to ‘the one who has sent him’, a phrase already clearly used to refer to God (7.16-18). He continues by saying that they will not be able to find him and that they are not able to come where he is going.7 The crowd does not understand that God is Jesus’ destination. The way Jesus has just spoken of himself explains this incomprehension. Jesus had compared himself to Moses and said that his message did not come from himself. These statements have created a perception that Jesus is speaking of himself as a human agent of God (7.19-24, 28). When Jesus speaks again, the lack of understanding by the Pharisees provides the springboard for Jesus to speak twice about his origins and his destination (8.14). Again there is a lack of understanding: ‘Where is your father?’ (8.19). The second saying about the Jews being unable to go where Jesus goes is in 8.21. Again there is a misunderstanding, which Jesus this time attempts to address by a series of contrasts of his interlocutors being from below and from this world while he is from above and not from this world (8.23). These origins of Jesus explain his destination. Reinforcing this idea of an otherworldly goal is Jesus’ selfidentification as e0gw& ei0mi in 8.24. Although misunderstandings of Jesus’ origins continue in 8.26-27, by the end of John 8 another e0gw& ei0mi saying appears to clarify to the quondam believers (8.31) that Jesus is claiming a divine status. that in 14.5 Thomas claims that they will need a successor for Jesus. ‘The Departure of “the Way”: The First Farewell Discourse in the Gospel of John’, JBL 99 (1980), p.230. 7 These verses that are picked up again explicitly by Jesus in 13.33–14.7.

Where Else Can We Go with Him?

­67

This is the natural interpretation, in a Jewish matrix, of a man saying, ‘Before Abraham was’, e0gw& ei0mi (8.58). The attempt in 8.59 to stone him confirms this view; the only other time in the FG that this attempt was made was also after a saying by Jesus that the crowd interpreted as a claim to divinity (10.3033). Thus, by the end of John 7–8 Jesus’ claim as to his origins, and with it the destination that this claim implies, has reached a high degree of resolution. In 13.33 Jesus repeats the saying on people not being able to go to Jesus’ destination and this time applies it specifically to the disciples. Peter’s question in 13.36 , ‘Lord, where are you going?’ may seem to militate against the proposal that John 7–8 has concluded in an illumination of the answer to this question. This is not the case. Jesus had been directing his discourse in John 7–8 to a group called at times ‘the crowd’ and at other times ‘the Jews’. He had clearly said, at the end of this section, to those of the crowd who believed in him that what is necessary for them to remain ‘in the house’ of the Father forever is remaining in his word, which is alternately described as Jesus’ word dwelling in them (8.31, 35, 37b). This group had ultimately attempted to stone Jesus, showing that they will not be able to go to the Father’s home. Peter and the other disciples have remained with Jesus and have not rejected his word. By the logic established by Jesus’ speech, the disciples should be able to go to the Father’s home, a fact that Jesus will soon acknowledge in response to Peter’s question as to Jesus’ destination (13.36; 14.2-3). Peter’s question as to where Jesus is going is, then, a query about what other destination Jesus could be speaking about. Unsurprisingly, the manner in which Jesus spoke in 13.33 about the disciples being unable to go where Jesus goes itself contributes to the confusion: ‘as I once said to the Jews … so now I say to you’. (We will soon see that the ambiguity of Jesus is virtually always the reason for Johannine misunderstandings.) In 8.35-36 Jesus had spoken of the destination as the Father’s home in which sons, not slaves, remain forever. This divine filiation comes from remaining in the word of Jesus (ui9oj \ – 8.31-32). In 13.33, when Jesus says that the disciples will not be able to go where Jesus goes, he addresses them as tekni/a. This term reinforces the perspective that unlike the crowd of John 7–8, the disciples are in the line of divine filiation whose proper destination is the Father’s home. Thus, the logic established by the prior narrative and the terms ui9oj \ and tekni/a in the context of both 8.31-36 and 13.33 leads Peter to wonder, in his question about Jesus’ destination, if a destination other than the Father’s home is now being spoken about.8

8 Contra Tom Thatcher’s claim that in John 13 the disciples do not know Jesus’ destination because they are distracted by evidence suggesting that Peter is Jesus’ betrayer. According to Thatcher, following Jesus’ foretelling in 13.21 that one of the disciples would betray him so soon with another prognostication in 13.38 of Peter’s three denials of Jesus would misdirect the disciples into thinking that Jesus’ destination is simply somewhere where Peter, his betrayer, cannot find him. The Riddles of Jesus in John: A Study in Tradition and Folklore (SBLMS 53; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), pp.259–60. The problem with this view is that Jesus tells Peter that Peter will be able to follow him later, showing that Jesus still considers him to be a disciple and not a traitor (13.36).

68

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

There seems to be no justification in obtuseness, however, for Thomas’ comment in 14.5, given the development of the theme in John 7–8 and the clarity of its articulation in 14.2-3.9 The Immediate Context of 14.2-3 John 14.2-3 sweeps away any trace elements of unclarity that may exist. Jesus is pellucid in these verses as to where he is going, saying so five times. Thus, (1) ‘In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places (2) otherwise how could I have told you that I was going to prepare a place for you? (3) And when I go to prepare a place for you, (4) I will come again and take you to myself (5) so that where I am there you may also be’.10 The repeated language of preparing a place and being where Jesus is comes right after the clause about Jesus going to his Father’s house and emphasises this destination. Yet, in response to Jesus’ subsequent claim in 14.4 that the disciples know the way where Jesus is going, Thomas replies, ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’ (14.5). It is the first part of Thomas’ statement that is particularly problematic.11 Thomas would have to be incredibly obtuse not to understand by the statements in 14.2-3 that Jesus is going to the Father.12 Moreover, Jesus speaks frequently of himself as the descending-ascending redeemer. This theme clarifies the heavenly dwelling of the Father and ultimately of Jesus: ‘you are from below; I am from above’ (8.23a). It is unlikely that the disciple who is presented in 20.28 with the highest confession of Jesus is portrayed 9 The clarity of 14.2-3 is the opposite of the confusion created in 6.5-6. In these latter verses, Jesus actually misdirects Philip by testing him in such a way as to hinder him from getting the correct answer to Jesus’ question. Jesus’ use of a)gora&swmen leads Philip to answer in terms of money rather than in terms of faith in Jesus. 10 The question of whether or not the term o3ti should appear here and, if so, how it should be translated, does not affect the five references to Jesus’ destination. 11 The image of the way to where Jesus is going is at this time much more difficult to understand. Jesus has not clearly linked the discipleship of loving as Jesus loves (13.34b) to this image. Just because in 13.37 Peter arrived at the way to follow Jesus does not mean that the other disciples would have realized this in John 13–14. Moreover, C. Skinner notes that the term o9do/j has only been used one other time in this gospel and that by John the Baptist (1.23). John and Thomas, p.60. 12 J. Michaels notes that in 14.4 Jesus has said that the disciples know the way; he has not said that they know Jesus’ destination. Michaels does note that this goal should be ‘almost unmistakably’ known to be the Father’s house on the basis of 14.2a. Gospel of John, p.774. That Jesus has just articulated the destination clearly is shown by Jesus’ exhortation in 14.1 for the disciples not to let their hearts be troubled and the five affirmations in 14.2-3 that ground their peace in Jesus’ preparing a place for them with the Father and taking them there. Michaels also proposes that the point of Jesus’ formulation in 14.4 is that they don’t need to know the destination if they know the way as the latter will lead them to the former. About Thomas’ response in 14.5 Michaels claims that if Thomas heard about the Father’s household (14.2), he does not necessarily know where it is. There is no intimation, however, in the immediate context that Thomas did not hear Jesus’ statement in 14.2. Given that Thomas uses key words of Jesus from 14.4 in his reply in 14.5, there is a narrative presumption that Thomas also heard words by Jesus articulated just two verses before in the same discourse. See pp. 66–7 for why the narrative points to Thomas and the other disciples knowing the location of the Father by the point of narrative time indicated by John 14.

Where Else Can We Go with Him?

69

here with the degree of denseness required to make the thesis of his obtuseness probable. Rather, 14.5 is Thomas’ statement of unbelief.13 For Thomas, it is all, ‘Dead life, blind sight’.14 Thatcher claims that Thomas’ question is understandable because ‘the disciples still do not know the identity of Jesus’ Father, much less where his Father lives’.15 Neither appears to be the case. We have seen how 13.33–14.7 continues the discussion on where Jesus is going that was developed in 7.3236; 8.14-20, 21-30. In this discussion it became clear that the image of the Father was used of God. The linkage of the two is found in 8.28-29, 42. The equation is also clearly made back in 3.16-17, 33-36; 6.32-33, 37-38, 45-46. In 6.27 Jesus speaks about ‘God the Father’. Moreover, first in 5.17-18 and next in 10.30 outsiders recognize Jesus’ speech about the Father as references to God.16 This point is stressed in 5.19-22, 25-26 by Jesus’ making a number of points about the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’. If outsiders understand this terminology, then by John 14 the narrative presumption is that insiders would as well.17 Path/r referring to God appears in 14.2-3 in reference to the father’s house. Since at this point the term clearly refers to God for the disciples, the house of God in which Jesus will prepare rooms for them must refer to an abode beyond the earth; not only is this location of the Father frequently treated, but it is also never the object of misunderstanding by the disciples.18 Thus, Thatcher’s 13 Contra those who view 14.5 as a manifestation of Thomas’ lack of understanding. See, e.g., J. Resseguie, The Strange Gospel: Narrative Design and Point of View in John (BIS, 56; Leiden: Brill, 2001). 14 W. Shakespeare, Richard III, edited by G. Evans (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), IV.iv.26. C. Dietzfelbinger says that because of Jesus’ statement in 13.33 about the disciples not being able to go where Jesus is going it is left in the balance as to whether or not Thomas’ question in 14.5 was justified. Johannes, p.45. This view neglects the greater specification found in 14.2-3 in regard to the topic of Thomas’ question about Jesus’ destination. 15 Riddles, pp.260–61. Thatcher says that there are only scattered references (5.18; 8.27) outside of the prologue to God as Jesus’ Father, and these are not sufficient for the disciples to know that God is Jesus’ Father. 16 Given this recognition, how can one explain the question by the crowd in 8.19 about the whereabouts of Jesus’ Father and the narrator’s claim in 8.27 that this crowd did not know that Jesus was talking about the Father when he was speaking about the one who sent him? The confusion at this point is generated by Jesus’ claim that his and the Father’ witness to him are proofs of Jesus’ veracity because, ‘it is written that the witness of du/o a)nqrw&pwn is true’ (8.17-18). The use of the Father as an anthropic witness leads to the confusion that Jesus is speaking about a human father. Thus, the puzzlements in 8.19, 27 are the result of Jesus’ speaking of path/r in terms of an a!nqrwpoj. 17 J. Neyrey, ‘Spaces and Places, Whence and Whither, Homes and Rooms: “Territoriality” in the Fourth Gospel,’ BTB 32 (2002), pp.60–74. 18 Some have argued that the house of 14.2 is a this-worldly reality: either the temple or God’s family on earth. For the first, see e.g., J. McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms: The Temple Theme of Jn. 14,2-3 (An. Bib., 114; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988). For the second, M. Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2001), p.163; Neyrey, ‘Spaces and Places’, pp.68–9. McCaffery argued for the temple based on the presence of the phrase ‘my Father’s house’ in both 2.16 and 14.2, in the former of which it refers to the temple. The narrator says, however, that Jesus referred to his body as the temple (2.21). This leads Alan Kerr to conclude that in 14.2 the house refers to Jesus’ body. The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme

70

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

claim that Thomas’ question in 14.5 is justified because the disciples know neither the identity of the Father nor where he abides is not supported by the narrative. Thomas should have known both at this narrative point of time.19 Even though 14.2b-3 and 16.28 are from different farewell discourses that diverge on the important point of whether or not any disciple has asked Jesus where he is going, the similarities between them also support the perspective that 14.2b-3 should have conveyed Jesus’ other-worldly destination clearly to Thomas. John 16.28b is clear that Jesus is going to the heavenly Father: ‘Again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father.’ Both 14.2b-3 and 16.28 treat Jesus’ journeys between the worlds. John deals frequently with this theme. John 14.2b-3 and 16.28 are, however, especially strongly connected to each other by virtue of their shared perspective of the temporal progression of these journeys.20 Verbs of coming and going are clustered in each of these verses in short consecutive clauses to provide itineraries. Douglas Estes finds in the Gospel of John (JSNTSS, 220; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), p.298. As Steven Bryan notes, however, this understanding would not be consonant with the imagery of there being many rooms in the Father’s house. ‘The Eschatological Temple in John 14’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 15 (2005), p.196. The wording in 14.3 that Jesus will take the disciples to himself, not to the rooms in the Father’s house, as Gundry noted, leads Neyrey to opt for the view that the house of 14.2 is God’s family on earth. Neyrey, ‘Spaces and Places’, p.68; R. Gundry, ‘In My Father’s House Are Many Monai’, ZNW 58 (1967), p.70. Similar to Neyrey, see C. Keener, Gospel of John, pp.937–8. In response, the claim by Jesus that he will take the disciples to himself occurs right after he says that he is preparing rooms for them in the Father’s house, rendering the preparation inexplicable if Jesus is not saying that he is taking them to these rooms (14.2-3). Although the Father’s presence is stressed in some passages in John 14–15, the Father in a heavenly realm as the destination of Jesus is found in others, such as 14.12, 24-25. It is with this latter group of passages that 14.2 aligns as shown from the following considerations. John 14.1-5 is the resumption of the part of the discourse with Peter that focused on Jesus going where the disciples could not go. The words in 14.1,‘Let not your hearts be troubled’, refer to Peter’s expressed disquietude over Jesus going away. There is no debate that in 13.33 Jesus means that he is leaving this world, as he does in the other similar statements in 7.33-34 and 8.21. John 13.33 refers to these two passages by means of the words, ‘As I said to the Jews … so now I say to you’. Thus, not to interpret the Father’s house in 14.2 as a reference to the heavenly abode of God goes against the relevant context within which this verse occurs. There is a link between 14.2, 23 of the term monh/ found in each verse in reference to the dwelling together of the Father, Jesus and the disciples. This connection should not be used to show, however, that 14.2 expresses a this-worldly reality, as in 14.23. The imagery in each verse is similar, but notably different as well. Coming to live with the disciples (v.23) is not the same as taking the disciples to live with the Father (v.23). Finally, on the basis of an extensive word study of oi0ki/a in the LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Philo and the NT, G. Fischer concluded that this term in 14.2 does not refer to the temple, family, or community of God (EH Series 23, 38; Die himmilischen Wohnungen: Untersuchungen zu Joh. 14.2f., Bern: Peter Lang, 1975), pp.58–68. 19 As G. Fischer has shown, the word-picture found in 14.2-3 goes back to Jewish apocalyptic. See especially, Jos. Asen. 12.12; 15.7; 2 En. 61.1; 1 En. 39.4; 41.2a; Lk. 16.9. Wohnungen, pp.153, 188–9, 224, 298. 20 Even the two other places where such language is most densely concentrated – John 1.1-18 and John 17 – cannot compare with the terse pointedness of these verses: the journey language in John 1, 17 being punctuated with related themes. See the journey imagery in 1.1-2, 9-11, 14; 17.11, 13, 16, 18, 24.

Where Else Can We Go with Him?

71

nine examples in the FG of verbs that are similar to each other being bunched together to convey a temporal process.21 John 14.2b-3 and 16.28 are the only two such places where going and coming verbs are used in this way. That in 16.29 the disciples respond to Jesus’ itinerary in 16.28 by saying that now Jesus is speaking e0n parrhsi/a| and no longer with parables (paroimi/an) suggests, by similarities, that 14.2b-3 should have been pellucid to Thomas.22 John 14.5 in the Context of Johannine Misunderstandings There are at least nineteen examples in the FG, including 14.1-7, of the pattern of (1) statements by Jesus followed (2) by a misunderstanding by people who hear it and (3) by a response from Jesus.23 None of the eighteen other occurrences offer any clear statements of Jesus that the respondents do not comprehend. John 14.1-7 is unique in the FG in this respect; it is the only comment that, at first sight, looks like a misperception of clear declarations by Jesus and as such has significant implications for our understanding of Thomas in John 14. Let us look first at the other examples to see how Jesus’ statements themselves cause the confusion of Jesus’ auditors. These examples begin in John 2 and 3. Thus, in 2.19 Jesus refers to his body by speaking about raising this temple (nao\n) in three days. Being in the temple while using the word nao\n is bound to cause confusion.24 In John 3, Nicodemus may be slow, but his puzzlement results first from the unqualified statement, ‘unless one is born a!nwqen he cannot see the kingdom of God’ (3.3). The second question of Nicodemus (‘How can this be?’) follows on Jesus’ saying that a person knows the origins and destination neither of the wind nor of those born of the Spirit (3.8). Although in 3.10 Jesus criticizes Nicodemus’ incomprehension, again we are confronted with an undeveloped statement by Jesus (3.8).

21 The Temporal Mechanics of the Fourth Gospel: A Theory of Hermeneutical Relativity in the Gospel of John (BI, 92; Leiden: Brill, 2008), p.169. 22 John 16.17-18 has the disciples questioning themselves about Jesus’ statement in 16.16 about his departure. What they focus on, however, is the meaning of the ‘little while’ before Jesus goes and before he comes back. This element had not been clarified in the FG. 23 R. Alan Culpepper notes eighteen such passages that have these characteristics. Anatomy, pp.152, 160–62. I have added Jn 3.7-10. J. Fenton proposed fourteen such passages. John (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), pp.19–20. For the Johannine literary device of misunderstanding see H. Leroy, Rätsel und Missverständnis: ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des Johannesevangeliums (BBB, 30; Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1968); S. Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment of Christ: A Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel (WUNT, 120; Tübingen: Morh Siebeck, 2000); D. Carson, ‘Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel’, TynBul 33 (1982), pp.59–91. 24 Thatcher, Riddles, p.237.

72

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

John 4 and 6 present four examples of incomprehension revolving around statements of food and drink. The Samaritan woman would be puzzled by Jesus’ statement in 4.10 on living water given his recent request for water while sitting by a well (4.6-7). So, too, would Jesus’ disciples in regard to his statement about already having food to eat, given that they had gone to buy food and had just offered him something to eat (4.8, 31-33). The confusion expressed by the crowd in 6.41, 52 is also understandable. In the first instance, it is caused by how Jesus has spoken about the bread that comes down from heaven. He had begun by comparing it to the manna in the desert (6.32). This leads to misunderstanding when he equates himself with this bread (6.35, 41). The second misperception in this chapter is in 6.52 where the Jews ask how Jesus can give them his flesh to eat. This is the first time that Jesus has broached this theme, and again it is in truncated form: ‘if any one eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh’ (6.51). The newness of the concept and the brevity of its initial formulation explain the incomprehension of the Jews. Moving to John 7, the auditors of 7.33-34 cannot be expected to understand what Jesus says here. Jesus has just begun the explanation of his origins that will continue throughout John 7–8.25 At this time the explanation is still enigmatic. Jesus has proclaimed that his teaching is from God, who sent Jesus (7.16-18). He continues by speaking of himself in relation to the law given by Moses (7.19-24). This comparison would lead the crowd to view Jesus as having been sent by God as Moses was sent by God. When Jesus speaks in 7.28-29 about coming from God, this would be viewed in the context just established of a human mediator of God’s message. Therefore, the misunderstanding in 7.35 as to Jesus’ destination when he says that he is going to the one who sent him results from the cryptic context in which Jesus has recently spoken about himself as God’s representative. Four examples of the statement-confusion pattern are found in John 8. First, a statement on the same topic treated in 7.33-36, followed by a misunderstanding, is also found in 8.21-22. This is to be expected because the puzzling announcement in 7.33 was never clarified in the interval. Jesus had offered no explanation of it in either 7.33-36 or in the other verses prior to 8.21-22. Second, the confusion of the Jews in 8.31-33 over Jesus’ treatment of their potential emancipation is the result of the different dimensions in which one can be free: the Jews taking it in the political sense and Jesus meaning it in a religious one.26 Third, the incomprehension of the Jews in 8.52 results from Jesus speaking as if people would not die when he is referring to life beyond death. Fourth, so unclear is Jesus’ remark in 8.56 that even today there is debate as to his referent. Toward the end of the first part of John’s Gospel there are three examples of Jesus’ affirmations followed by misunderstandings, and in all three the former 25 A brief foray into this theme is found in 5.36. 26 Culpepper, Anatomy, p.157.

Where Else Can We Go with Him?

­73

causes the latter. The determination, in 11.12, by the disciples that Jesus is speaking of Lazarus being asleep rather than dead is occasioned by the term koima&w being able to designate each condition. In 11.23-25 Martha is justified in not comprehending Jesus’ statement that Lazarus will rise again because of the common conception of the resurrection occurring on the last day. In 12.32 Jesus says that when he is lifted up from the earth he will draw all people to himself. The crowd can be excused for failing to grasp both Jesus’ lifting up terminology and his departure from the earth. This is the first time that Jesus uses such terminology before them; the use of it in 3.14-15 was only to Nicodemus in private. One can also not assume that this is the crowd that heard Jesus speak in John 7–8 about his departure. The final four instances of this pattern are found in the farewell discourses. They are in 13.36-38; 14.1-7, 7-9, 21-24 and 16.16-19. We have already treated the reasons why, in 13.36-38, Peter could not be expected to understand Jesus’ statements without further clarification.27 Thomas has no such excuse for his similar question because in 14.2-3 Jesus had clarified his destination. Thus, Peter’s question cannot be used to justify Thomas’ question in 14.5. It may seem as if in 14.8 Philip is being just as obstinate in the face of Jesus’ clarity as is Thomas. But although Jesus has just implied in 14.7 that by seeing Jesus the disciples have seen the Father, this comment has not done away with the distinct person of the Father. It is this distinct person that Philip wishes to see. A common topos was that the child took on characteristics of the parent.28 Philip could have interpreted Jesus’ words in this sense. The resistance of Thomas has no parallel in any other disciple who remains with Jesus. In 14.22 Judas asks Jesus why he will not manifest himself to the world. This is understandable, however, as in 14.21 Jesus has just said that he will show himself to the one who loves him without saying why he would not do so to others. Finally, the misunderstanding in 16.16-19 is a variation of other misunderstandings that have occurred regarding Jesus’ departure. The language is different, however, being about the disciples first not seeing Jesus ‘in a little while’ and then seeing Jesus ‘in a little while’ (16.16). The theme of the ‘little while’ has not been treated before, which explains its ambiguity to the disciples, who call it speaking ‘in a figure’ and contrast it with ‘speaking plainly’ (16.29). Thus, the other nineteen instances of the misunderstandings of Jesus’ statements all arise from the unclarity of these statements.29 This is not the case with Thomas’ response to Jesus’ words about his destination. Moreover, in all of these other instances, the responses that express perplexity are all on point; they are about confusion over what is confusing and not over any element that 27 See pp. 67–8. 28 See e.g., Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.21-33; Isocrates, Evag. 12-18, 29; Sophocles, Phil. 88-89, 874–5. 29 Contra J. H. Bernard, who proposed that the denseness of Jesus’ interlocutors are shown by their misunderstandings. Gospel according to St. John (vol.1; NY: Scribner’s 1929), p.CXI. We will see that rather than stupidity the trait that Thomas demonstrates in 14.5 is obstinacy.

74

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

is clear. Again Thomas’ response about not knowing where Jesus is going is unparalleled in this regard. In these verses Jesus repetitively proclaims a clear message. The images that provoke a number of the misunderstandings are bare, susceptible to incomprehension. For example, this is the case with the temple, a!nwqen, sleep, and resurrection images in 2.19; 3.3; 11.12-14, 2426. Other images that cause confusion are multifaceted and only reveal their different sides upon further questioning or discussion (6.27, 32-25, 51b; 8.32, 37-38, 41a, 44). Still others are articulated in a context that points in a different direction than does the image, making the image ambiguous. This is the case with the water and food images and with the first statement in John 7–8 on Jesus’ destination (4.6-8, 31-33; 7.35). Finally, some of the images that are misinterpreted are the first occurrences of these images for a particular audience in the FG (3.8-9; 8.31-33; 12.32). None of these reasons for confusion apply to 14.2-3. There John continues the prior discussion with Peter on Jesus’ destination by immediately compressing five clauses, in the short compass of two verses, to clarify Jesus’ destination before any question occurs. Despite this up-front packing of information in a pellucid context, information on a theme that has already received sustained treatment in John 7–8, Thomas resists the message, supplying as a dodge the common Johannine claim of incomprehension.30 Obfuscation by the Disciple of Clear Speech There is a common progression in Johannine misunderstandings in which the misunderstanding provides a springboard to progress to new points in Jesus’ discourse.31 Jesus has clarified in 14.2-3 the location question asked by Peter in 13.33. He utters in 14.4 an ambiguous statement on the ‘way’ as a first move in clarifying this image. Thomas has an opposing gambit. Before treating the ‘way’ question, Thomas counters Jesus’ explanation of where he is going. Thomas will not admit to the obvious: that Jesus has clarified his destination. By so doing, Thomas would halt the progression toward Jesus’ disclosures.

30 It has been said that none of the disciples in 13.35–14.31 understand Jesus. J. Hartenstein, Charakterisierung im Dialog: Maria Magdalena, Petrus, Thomas und die Muter Jesu im Johannesevangelium (NTOA, 64; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), p.219; J. Du Rand, ‘The Johannine “Group” and “Grid”’, Miracles and Images in Luke and John: Festschrift Ulrich Busse (BETL, 218; J. Verheyden, G. Van Belle and J. Van Der Watt, eds.; Paris: Peeters, 2008), pp.125–39; C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p.404; Dunderberg, Beloved Disciple in Conflict?, 59. In response, the other disciples do not understand certain points. Yet none of them have had their question responded to in advance of asking it, as has Thomas. Philip’s request to see the Father builds on Jesus’ last words in 14.7 about the disciples having done so. As yet, though, Jesus has not explained this seeing, the prior conversation in 14.5-7 being centred around ‘knowing’ verbs and on who and what are known. Thomas feigns misudersanding when he does not believe. Contra Farelly, who views 14:5b as expressive of Thomas’ seeking clarification. Disciples in the Fourth Gospel, p.121. 31 Barrett, St. John, p.208.

Where Else Can We Go with Him?

­75­

The image of the way is still a riddle in 14.4. Jesus responded to Peter in 13.36 that Peter will follow him later, but he hasn’t explicitly said that the command in 13.34-35 to love one another is the way to follow him. So there is a riddle in 14.4 in terms of the way. Thomas takes a step back and makes the understanding of the riddle dependent upon what should have been manifest to him from Jesus’ words. In a gospel filled with misunderstanding on the part of Jesus’ addressees due to Johannine riddles and irony, Thomas is the only addressee who intentionally skews clear speech of Jesus, injecting elements of uncertainty in it. The thrust of Jesus’ words in 11.9-15 away from the death-inclining thoughts of the disciples toward life for Lazarus is deflected by Thomas precisely at the point of Jesus’ clarity – Jesus’ statement that ‘Lazarus is dead’ and that Jesus will wake him (11.11, 15) – and turned back toward death: ‘Let us also go that we may die with him’ (11.16). Jesus’ pellucid comments in 14.2-3 about his destination being a life beyond death are parried by Thomas with a statement reflecting a view that death has the final word. For all his bluntness, Thomas riddles the riddler. He creates ambiguity when Jesus would have clarity. Thomas reveals the riddler’s ability to spin a number of strands of a linguistic web.32 Thus, in 11.16 he not only intimates the question of whether the trip to Lazarus will culminate in life or death but also does so in such a way that initially casts suspense on whose death he is referring to, that of Jesus or of Lazarus. In 14.5 Thomas not only pulls a linguistic death-screen around Jesus’ words of eternal life but also does so in a way that creates the confusion a riddle is designed to create. As we have seen, Thomas does know where Jesus claims he is going but refuses to accept the possibility of life beyond death. By linking his question about how they can know the way to his words, ‘we do not know where you are going’, Thomas creates a koan: ‘Where is the way to that which does not exist?’ Thomas both does not understand Jesus’ riddle (‘you know the way’) and turns the clear speech Jesus had articulated before the riddle (‘and where I am going’) into another riddle. His blunt speech does not mean it is unnuanced speech. The one who, as we will see, speaks parrhsi/a can spin a conundrum.33 The Oblique Criticism of Thomas in John 14 The narrative presents Thomas as regressing despite the development and the movement in Jesus’ comments from the impossibility, to the certainty, of going where Jesus goes. Thus, Jesus’ comments in 7.33-34 are the bare statement 32 For examples of the Johannine Jesus spinning multiple strands, see e.g., Thatcher, Riddles, pp.214–17. 33 Whitacre’s proposal that 14.5 illustrates Thomas’ humility in asking Jesus a question rather than demanding a response does not address how Thomas’ question differs in this regard from all the other questions that the disciples ask Jesus in this gospel. See e.g., Jn 1.38, 48; 9.2; 11.8; 13.6, 25, 36, 37; 14.22. John, p.350. Only Jn 13.6 appears to have some support for this view because of the context of 13.7-9. In addition, the multiple questions by Jesus’ antagonists or by secret or quondam disciples cannot be interpreted in this way.

76

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

that the crowd cannot reach this destination. John 8.14 presents a glimmer of hope when Jesus says that they do not know his destination. Perhaps rectifying this lack of knowledge will enable the crowd’s journey. This is followed in 8.21-24 by a clear possibility that they can go where Jesus goes. A way is provided to them, and it is by belief that Jesus is e0gw& ei0mi. Although the crowd does not avail themselves of this option, in 13.36 possibility becomes assurance of success for one disciple. Jesus assures Peter that Peter will follow Jesus later. In 14.1-3 Jesus extends this assurance to all the disciples. The degree of probability of Jesus’ interlocutors going where Jesus goes has reached a highpoint in these verses because Jesus says that he himself will make this journey possible for the disciples by coming back and taking them with him. But as the possibilities move to certainties, Thomas maintains a wilful unbelief. The movement, when discussing the ability of others to arrive at Jesus’ goal, from impossibility to ignorance, to assurance for one disciple, to assurance for all the disciples with a promise that Jesus will help them has no positive effect on Thomas. Rather, like those in 8.31-59 who were once believers, Thomas has rejected the claim to Jesus’ origin and destination.34 Thomas is ‘dancing the cliff edge’.35 This is so because of the description in 8.31-59 of the state of people within and outside of the domain of true belief. Each group belongs to a line of descent stretching back to God or to the devil (8.35-36, 44a, 47).36 According to Jesus, what determines one’s origins is truth or falsity. The truth will set people free so that they can remain in the Father’s house forever (8.32, 35-36). The way to belong to the line of truth that originates in God is by remaining in Jesus’ words (8.31-32, 51) just as Jesus keeps the Father’s word and proclaims the truth (8.40, 55).37 Those who do not accept this truth reveal by their lack of acceptance that their father is the devil, who is ‘the father of lies’ (8.42-46). The quondam believers of 8.31-59 participate in the nature of their father, ‘the father of lies’, who ‘speaks according to his own nature’ (8.44c). They do so by rejecting Jesus’ words about his origin and about his destination and the destination of all who believe in him (8.51-52, 57-59). There is a truth thread stretching between John 7–8 and Jn 14.1-7. Those who remain in Jesus’ words know the truth that enables them to remain in the Father’s house (8.31-32, 35-36, 51). As we will soon see, Jesus’ claim in 14.6 34 Charlesworth proposes that 14.5 sets the stage for Jesus to say what he needs to say. Beloved Disciple, pp. 262, 316, 319. This can be said, however, of many questions of antagonists of Jesus who provide the springboard for his teaching. 35 This image comes from the title of Monica Worline’s dissertation, ‘Dancing the Cliff Edge: The Place of Courage in Social Life’, U. of Michigan Dissertation, 2004. 36 The conversation partners of Jesus at this stage create their own line of origins by claiming that they are the ones who come from God and Jesus is the one who is possessed (8.41b, 48). 37 Another image in which this allegiance to Jesus’ words is expressed is that of Jesus’ words having a place in them (8.37). Those who make a place in themselves for Jesus’ words find a place for themselves in the Father’s house forever (8.31, 35-36). The disparity between what Jesus has to say about eternal life and what Thomas is prepared to accept about this topic creates a tension about Thomas’ ability to participate in the journey to the Father’s house.

Where Else Can We Go with Him?

­77

to be ‘the truth’ is a response to Thomas’ lack of belief as expressed in 14.5. By this truth the evangelist creates a narrative tension around the issue of whether Thomas’ words in 14.5, in response to Jesus’ assertion of his origins and destination (14.1-3), will reveal him to be antithetical by nature to Jesus.38 The attempt, in 8.59, by those who believed in Jesus to stone him is striking in what it reveals about the dangers for believers who fall away. There are a number of notices in John 7–8 to the threats on Jesus’ life at the hands of the authorities or of the crowd. None of these threats rise, however, to the level of danger that Jesus is in at the hands of the ‘believers’ of 8.31. In these chapters there are five references to the plan to kill Jesus (7.1, 6-8, 13, 19, 25). There are three attempts to arrest him (7.30, 32, 45). There is one notice of the desire to arrest him and one observation that he was not yet arrested (7.44; 8.20). That only the ‘believers’ acted on the threat highlights a danger for believers. Not remaining with God could take them outside of the group and lead them to the antithesis of that which they wish to do. Thomas is the bull’s-eye of Jesus’ subtle criticism in 14.6: ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.’ This is shown both by the presence of the words h9 a)lh/qeia (‘the truth’) in 14.6 and by the plural form of Jesus’ response implied in the word ou0dei\j (‘no one’) in this verse. Thomas wants to know the way, and Jesus points to himself as the way (14.5-6). Thomas wants to know where Jesus is going, and Jesus claims to be ‘the life’ (14.5-6). This claim to be ‘the life’ is best understood as a reference to the Father’s house to which Jesus is going (14.2). The terms ‘the life’ mean that there is life beyond death; they are a response to the obstinacy of Thomas in this regard despite the clarity of Jesus’ assertions in 14.1-3 that death does not close all. Jesus adds words identifying himself as ‘the truth’ between his selfascriptions of ‘the way’ and ‘the life’ as a response to Thomas’ repeated denials in 11.16 and in 14.5 of the possibility of such life. This appears the best way to explain what otherwise is an awkward intrusion of ‘the truth’ into the content and style of 14.4-6. This section is characterized by a series of dual formulations about where Jesus is going and the way to this place. DESTINATION 14.4 – Where I go (u9pa&gw)

THE PATH TO THE DESTINATION 14.4 – You know (oi1date) the way (o(do&n) 14.5 – We do not know (oi1damen) where 14.5 – How are we able to know (ei0de/nai) the way (o(do&n)? you are going (u9pa&geij) 14.6b – I am … the life 14.6b – I am the way (o(do\j) 14.6c – No one comes to the Father 14.6c – except through me. 38 Besides Jn 14.5, it is either unbelievers or those who will apostatize (6.66; 8.31, 59; 12.45) who reject Jesus’ message. Disciples, other than Thomas, tend to express their problems with acceptance more tactfully. Believers are called ‘sons of the light’ (12.36). Perhaps Thomas exists in the penumbra.

78

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

The Greek words show the connection of the dualities.39 The dual style is maintained at the beginning of 14.5-6 (not included in the table) by the parallel phrases Le/gei au0tw|= Qwma~j and le/gei au0tw|= [o(] ‘Ihsou=j.40 In the light of this persistent style and content throughout 14.4-6, the intrusion of h9 a)lh/qeia in 14.6b, breaking up the repeated duality of ‘the way’ and ‘the life’ as it does, calls attention to itself.41 The context of repeated claims by Jesus in 14.1-3 as to where he is going makes probable that the salient words h9 a)lh/qeia are a subtle criticism of Thomas’ refusal in 14.5 to accept the veracity of Jesus’ words. Supporting this view is the observation that when Jesus articulated the same theme of his origin and destination in John 7–8, words with the a)lh/q root occurred seventeen times, their greatest concentration anywhere in this gospel. Twelve of these terms emphasise this theme of Jesus’ origins and destination.42 Moreover, in these two chapters, two more a)lh/q terms, along with two yeu/sthj terms and one yeu=doj term refer to not accepting Jesus’ origins and destination.43 Thomas couches his own obstinacy behind the veil of the entire group of disciples, claiming that none of them understand Jesus’ words (14.5). Earlier he had also couched his criticism of Jesus’ call to go to Lazarus behind the plural usage indicative of the disciples as a whole. In 14.6 it is Jesus’ turn to rebukingly parry in kind Thomas’ plural thrusts – the ‘no one’ of this verse. Jesus uses this same veil of the disciples to respond to Thomas’ lack of acceptance of the truth that Jesus has articulated in 14.2-4. John 14.6 contains Jesus’ implicit criticism of Thomas coupled with his guidance for all disciples corresponding to Thomas’ implicit criticism of Jesus coupled with his request for instructions for the disciples in 14.5. The presence of h9 a)lh/qeia and ou0dei\j in v.6b embed in this verse a trenchant criticism of Thomas.44 This function is veiled, however, in order not to single out for censure the disciple who works most to keep the group together with Jesus.45 39 R. Schnackenburg says that Jesus does not respond to Thomas’ question as to Jesus’ destination. St. John, 3.64. The pattern shows that Jesus does answer this question in terms of the Father and his life that the Son shares: ‘For as the Father has life in himself so he has granted the Son to also have life in himself’ (Jn 5.26). 40 A group of manuscripts highlights this parallelism by reading for 14.4, ‘And you know where I am going, and you know the way’ (e. g., p.66, A, C3, D, K, D, Q, P, Y). 41 Also calling attention to h9 a)lh/qeia in 14.6 is the way this term breaks up an abb’a’ chiastic pattern in 14.4-5. In the a elements Thomas and Jesus speak about Jesus’ destination of life and in the b elements, about the way to this destination. The words, h9 a)lh/qeia, do not conform to this pattern. 42 These words are in 7:18, 28; 8:14, 16, 17, 26, 31, 32 (2x), 40, 45, 46. 43 These terms are in 8:44, 55. 44 This perspective is not intended to limit in 14.6 the meaning of the multi-faceted Johannine attribute of ‘truth’. See I. De la Potterie, La Vérité dans Saint Jean: Tome I (AnBib, 73; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977); Lincoln, Truth on Trial; A. Wilson, ‘Send Your Truth: Psalms 42 and 43 as the Background to Jesus’ Self-Description as “Truth” in John 14.6’, Neot 41 (2007), 220–34. It is to claim that one function of the term ‘truth’ in 14.6 is to emphasise what Jesus is saying as a response to Thomas’ opposition to this message. 45 This criticism may also be conveyed by 14.2-5 being a textual reverberation of 8.31-36. Both sets of verses speak about the house of the Father and the possibility of remaining in it. John

Where Else Can We Go with Him?

­79

The Twinning of Thomas with Jesus, Philip, and Pilate As in John 11, the fourth evangelist establishes the similarities between Jesus and Thomas by having Thomas use the same key terms that Jesus used (‘know’, ‘go’, and ‘way’) and negativing them. There is a frequent strategy in the FG of citing Jesus’ words in discussions with him. Those outside the group of disciples who oppose Jesus use this as an argumentative tactic to attempt to turn his words against him.46 There is a different tone and purpose when the disciples who follow Jesus do so. Then it virtually always functions as a means of seeking clarification from him.47 With one exception, Thomas is the only disciple who, like those who openly oppose Jesus, cites Jesus’ words in order to criticize them. The exception is in itself instructive of Thomas’ character. It occurs in 11.8 where the disciples twist Jesus’ words athwart of his purposes. Soon after, the character of Thomas makes his first appearance in the FG. He arises as a response to this proposed redirection and effects a realignment of activity to Jesus’ proposed action while denying the actualization of Jesus’ intent. On the other hand, the dialogue with Philip creates a literary Gegenschein (‘counterglow’) from the one with Thomas and, by so doing, alludes to the danger in which Thomas finds himself in regard to being a disciple. The two conversations are linked to each other by contiguity (14.4-7, 8-14) and by the themes of knowing and of seeing. These themes form the hinge between the passages, coming to expression in ginw&skw and o9ra&w verbs in vv.7, uses both oi]koj and oi/ki/a to designate a house in the FG. Oi]koj refers to human houses in 7.53 and to the temple in 2.16-17. Oi]ki/a also refers to human homes in 4.53; 11.31 and in 12.3. It is only in 8.35 and in 14.2 that this term refers to God’s heavenly abode. Both sets of verses speak about the truth in the context of dwelling in the Father’s house. The saying in 8.32 about knowing the truth that will make them free refers to being free to live in the Father’s house. This is shown by the image of being a slave or a free person being developed in 8.34-36 along the lines of being free to remain in the Father’s house. The use of h9 a)lh/qeia in 14.6, breaking the pattern of 14.4-6 as it does, is a flashback to 8.31-36 so as to intimate that Thomas, by his failure to acknowledge Jesus’ clear witness in 14.2-3 as to the Father’s house being his and the disciples’ goal, is in danger of not remaining in Jesus’ word (8.31) and by consequence not being free to remain in the Father’s house (8.32, 34-36). It was to make them te/kna qeou= who live in that house that Jesus came (1.12). As such, h9 a)lh/qeia in 14.6 is an admonition to Thomas to pay more attention to, and to continue to believe in, Jesus’ words. Another argument for seeing in 14.6 a particular focus by Jesus on Thomas comes from the fact that such a view is consistent with the progression of the dialogue between Jesus and Thomas throughout the gospel in regard to one particular parrhsi/a topos that we will treat. See pp.123–7. According to this topos, which we will see elucidates the progression, some sort of subtle criticism of Thomas should be found in John 14. 46 Jn 2.19-20; 6.41-42, 52; 7.19-20, 31-33; 8.17-19a, 21-22, 31-33, 51-52, 56-57; 12.31-34. Jn 7.5-36 is not an example of this feature because there the crowd speaks to themselves and not to Jesus. Jn 8.6-57 is similar to the last part of Thomas’ response in 11.16b in that both change Jesus’ preceding words. 47 Jn 11.23-24; 13.36-37; 14.21-22; 16.16-18. Rather than seek clarification from Jesus, as is the case in the last three passages, Martha’s comment in 11.24 clarifies her understanding of Jesus’ prior words. This is also the case with the secret disciple, Nicodemus, in 3.3-4.

80

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

9: the latter verse as an interpretation of Philip’s comment in v.8. Further, the FG portrays both Thomas and Philip as not knowing Jesus even though each has not expressed himself in these terms. Thus, Philip requests to see the Father (14.8). This picks up on the visual dimension of Jesus’ claim in 14.7b, ‘From this moment you have known and seen him’. Jesus interprets his comment, however, as a manifestation of not knowing Jesus (e1gnwka&j me – 14.9). Thomas speaks about knowing neither Jesus’ destination nor the way to it (14.5). Jesus responds to him in a manner that shows that it is Jesus whom Thomas has not known: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’ (14.6a). The result of these connections is that the pathos of Jesus’ statement to Philip that he still does not know Jesus after all the time Jesus has been with him reflects back on the prior conversation with Thomas, who had also just shown a lack of knowledge of Jesus despite the long time Jesus had been with them. In the prior chapter we treated how Thomas’ statement in 11.16 had certain resonances to Caiaphas’ remark in John 11. There is a possibility, admittedly tenuous at best, that some readers may link Thomas in John 14 to Pilate in John 18.33-38 regarding the truth question. From the break in the pattern in 14.4-6 we saw that Jesus’ claim in 14.6 to be ‘the truth’ is especially addressed to Thomas’ questioning the veracity of Jesus’ words. The next time truth is written about is in 18.33-38 where Pilate and Jesus have a discussion on Jesus’ identity. Pilate begins by questioning Jesus on whether he is ‘the King of the Jews’. Jesus moves the discussion to his coming to witness to the truth and to those who belong to the truth showing it by hearing Jesus (18.37). Even though Pilate questions, ‘What is truth?’ he defends Jesus and sticks up for him before he finally caves in to pressure instigated by the religious leaders (18.39–19.16). There are three sets of questionings of Jesus by his disciples in John 14, signifying their unease that Jesus addresses in this chapter. Thomas does not, however, speak up in John 14 for Jesus as he did in 11.16. Pilate is the ruling Roman authority in Judea, and Thomas clearly has influence with the group of Jesus’ disciples as it is his words in John 11 that help move the group to Judea. This comparison may reflect the inadequacy of Thomas’ leadership. The one who was willing to die with Jesus and who enabled the other disciples to continue on the way to Lazarus with Jesus does not know that the way is to be willing to die for others. Jesus’ response to Thomas, ‘I am the way…’ conveys the message that the way to be with him is to be like him. Blind allegiance is not enough. Personal transformation is necessary. When one is like Jesus, then one is with Jesus. When one is like Jesus, one is on the way, which is Jesus. This is why Jesus had just given them a new commandment to love one another as he had loved them right after saying that he was going away (13.33-35). Thomas is geared to actions and not to ideas. But Jesus translates Thomas’ existentialist concerns into essential categories. Thomas uses two ‘know’ verbs to find out where and how to proceed. Jesus responds to Thomas with three ‘know’ verbs that point to persons: himself and the Father (14.5, 7). Thomas’ understanding is found deficient because, loyal

Where Else Can We Go with Him?

­81

as he is, he has not come to know the essence of Jesus’ being and the Father that this essence reveals. Jesus is ‘the life’: eternal life. Although none of the disciples will understand Jesus fully until after his resurrection when the Spirit will guide them into all truth, Thomas is emblematic of the disciple who knows little of Jesus but who loves him nonetheless. John 14.1-7 intimates, however, that one must love wisely in order to love well.

Chapter 3 There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief (John 20.24-29; 21.1-2) Initial Overview What happens with Thomas between chapters 14 and 20 is a gap in the text that reflects the gap that Thomas has attempted to avoid. Thomas had tried to keep the core group together with Jesus even to Jesus’ death. Only the Beloved Disciple among the twelve was at the cross. Thomas’ focus on a love faithful unto death has not been capable of fulfilling his aspiration. This chapter will progress, as have the two before it, by examining both of the primary aspects of the literary character of Thomas. This will entail the exploration especially of the graphic description by Thomas of what he needs to believe, the virulence of this remark, the significance of when Thomas utters it, the relation of Thomas’ words to the prior resurrection appearances in this chapter, and the question of why the resurrection appearance to Thomas occurred eight days later than the prior appearance to the other disciples. It will also involve a study of where, how, and with whom in John 20–21 Thomas is compared and the function of these parallel portraits. Where this chapter departs from the organization of prior chapters is in its looking at how the pattern of treating Thomas established in the preceding chapters is broken in these final appearances of the disciple.

Bravery: Proceeding Alone

The courage of Thomas as exemplified in John 20 is only treated briefly here because it will receive further discussion in the concluding chapter. John 20 is comprised of a concatenation of three accounts of Jesus’ absence and three resurrection appearances. The former triad involves Mary Magdalene, Peter and the BD, and Thomas.1 The latter involves Mary Magdalene, all the disciples except Thomas, and all the disciples including Thomas.2 Thomas 1 2

Jn 20.1, 2-10, 24-25. Jn 20.11-17, 19-23, 26-29.

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­83

does not believe the other disciples’ testimony of meeting the risen Lord (20.24-25).3 This is a courageous response. Already ostracized by the larger society and having just lost Jesus, Thomas is willing to stand against the small group that still accepts him. One report is easier to stand against, assuming a grief-induced illusion. Much harder is it to oppose a group’s account of an experience of the resurrected Lord.4 Already Thomas’ willingness to go it alone is intimated by the fact that he was not with the other disciples when the Lord appeared to them (20.24).5 Thomas is one of those characters who possess qualities that cause communities to turn to them in times of crisis. When Thomas is again with the group of disciples who have witnessed the resurrected Lord, the evangelist writes that the doors are closed, as he had said was the case when these other disciples had first seen the risen Jesus (20.19, 26). The explanation for these closed doors that is found in the first mention of them is ‘for fear of the Jews’. This explanation is not found when the doors are again closed and Thomas is with the group. The figure who helped the group conquer its earlier fears (11.8, 12, 16) nerves the group. This may also be indicated by certain similarities between the depiction of the man blind from birth and Thomas. Only the blind man, once he receives his sight and is enlightened about Jesus’ identity, worships (proskune/w) Jesus (9.38). The verb proskune/w is used elsewhere by John in terms of worship of the Father. 6 Thomas is the only one who calls Jesus ‘God’ (20.28), and he does so after Jesus has enlightened him regarding the Lord’s resurrected life. Both the man blind from birth and Thomas step out from their larger groups (9.22-34; 20.25b). Both receive clarification of matters beyond their ken (9.37; 20.27). It is clear from (1) the notice in 9.22 that there was already an agreement to ‘put out of the synagogue’ any who confessed Christ, (2) his parents’ refusal to defend their son because of this decision, and (3) the formerly blind man’s defence of Jesus in 9.30-33 resulting in his being ‘cast out’ (9.34b) that the blind man exhibits great courage. The similarities of the characters points to the courage of the Johannine Thomas in standing apart from the group’s witness. But the very decisiveness that enable such characters to function so well in crisis situations may hinder their assimilation into the community’s quotidian life. Thomas has a difficult time being reintegrated into the group. He is not with the disciples when Jesus first appears to them. When he is back with 3 In John’s gospel none of the disciples except Thomas express disbelief in either reports of Jesus’ resurrection or during a resurrection appearance itself. This is in marked contrast to passages in the synoptics where we find a number of such expressions. Mt. 28.17b; Mk. 16.11, 13; Lk. 24.11, 37, 41. 4 Highlighting the obduracy of Thomas, in Luke the disciples may deem the women’s account of the angelic testimony to the resurrection an ‘idle tale’, but they believe the report of the appearance to Simon (Lk. 24.1-11, 22-23, 34). 5 It could be argued that in the FG it is a more courageous activity to be gathered together with the disciples than not to be with the group. But Thomas has not disassociated himself from the group; he joins them at a later time. 6 Jn 4.20 (2x), 21, 22, 23 (2x), 24; 12.20.

84

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

them he expresses the strongest resistance of any disciple to believing in Jesus’ resurrection (20.25). The man purportedly ready to die alongside Jesus is not easily reincorporated into the community of life.

Unwillingness: Context Closed (?) In 20.25 Thomas attempts to definitively close himself off to the tenet that Jesus and he have been debating: Jesus’ provision of a life beyond death. There are four elements of the text through which John advances this perspective. Impeding Testimony The first is the impediment that Thomas places in the way to the testimony of the other disciples. There is a pattern in John 20 of the one who has had a resurrection appearance telling those who have not, ‘I (We) have seen the Lord’ (20.18a, 25a). Mary Magdalene first utters this statement. Immediately following it, the FG says, ‘and she told them that he had said these things to her’ (20.18b). The disciples sans Thomas utter the second statement about seeing the Lord to Thomas. They are given no chance, however, to tell him what they experienced. Rather, Thomas jumps in immediately with what he himself will need to experience in order to believe (20.25b). This creates a literary overtone that Thomas has so shut himself off from the possibility of an afterlife as to also close himself to the witness that nourishes this belief; he closes the conversation prematurely due to his disbelief. The Request for Tactual Confirmation The Graphic Description The graphic quality of Thomas’ response to the disciples’ testimony to the risen Lord indicates his entrenched disbelief (20.25b). It is not just that he wants to touch Jesus, as did Mary (20.17). It is not just that he wants to view Jesus’ hands and side, as the other disciples had (20.20).7 He has to place his finger into ‘the mark of the nails’ and his hand into the lanced side of Jesus. The twofold repetition of ‘the marks of the nails’ and the twofold reference to touching the marks of Jesus’ death emphasise his belief in the finality of death.8

7 Jesus had shown the other disciples his hands and his side during the appearance when Thomas was absent (20.20a). The FG does not say explicitly that the disciples conveyed this information to Thomas, although Thomas’ request for this specific data reflects his knowledge of this display. 8 Y. Simoens proposed that 20.25b represents the valid need of Thomas to have the experience that the other disciples have had of the resurrected Lord. Selon Jean (IET, 17; Brussels: Éditions de l’Institut d’études Théologiques, 1997), p.898. Similarly, R. Williams, Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2002), p.94; Farrely, Disciples in the Fourth Gospel, p.123. This view runs counter to the graphic quality of Thomas’ words in 20.25b. Thomas must not only see, as do the other disciples, but also touch, and the marks of the wounds at that.

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­85

Thomas morbidly conjoins the touch of Mary and the visual verification by the disciples of Jesus’ wounds in a need to touch these wounds in order to believe. Thomas has heard what Mary has said to the disciples as there is no indication that he was absent at that time as there is when Jesus appeared to the other disciples: no exclusionary clause in 20.18 as there is in 20.24. Mary had narrated what Jesus had said to her, the primary component of which was not to hold on to him because he was ascending to the Father (20.17).9 Thomas is similar to Mary Magdalene and the disciples in that he believes when he sees the risen Lord (20.28). He is different from them in that he has stated such proof as a sine qua non for his faith.10 As we have seen, in John 11 and 14 Thomas rejected the idea of a life beyond death. In John 20 he adamantly opposes the possibility of a risen Lord.

9 Gregory Riley sees Mary Magdalene’s holding of Jesus’ feet as functioning to indicate a physical resurrection. Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). He does not see the women’s taking hold of Jesus’ feet in Mt. 28.9 as indicative of this but rather as an act of reverence. Why did the Johannine Mary Magdalene go to the tomb? She has no need to anoint the body with spices, as is the case with the women in Mk. 16.1 and in Lk. 24.1. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus have already done that (John 19.38-42). She does not go to look at the tomb (qewrh=sai to\n ta&fon – Mt. 28.1) as does the Matthean Mary Magdalene. To be with Jesus is the reason the Johannine Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb as shown by the fact that her threefold lament that Jesus has been taken from the tomb (20.2, 13, 15), her weeping (20.11, 15), her twofold ‘I (‘we’ in 20.2) do not know where they have laid him’ (20.2, 13) culminate in the request to know where they have laid him so that she might take him (20.15). Her actions of grasping him seem to be of a piece. It is the natural reaction of one who has lost a loved one, who weeps, seeks and finally finds this one. Thus, it does not seem that Mary’s request for touching is an attempt to validate the bodily resurrection. Riley also points to the empty linen wrappings (20.5-7) as Johannine proofs of a physical resurrection. Argumentation for this proposal is necessary because there are other ways to interpret this Johannine literary feature. I have argued for a different meaning of these empty wrappings elsewhere. D. Sylva, ‘Nicodemus and His Spices’, New Testament Studies 34 (1988), pp.148–51. 10 According to Glenn Most, Thomas’ demand to touch Jesus inadvertently violates Jesus’ command to Mary not to touch him. Doubting Thomas (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2005), p.49. It seems, however, that Thomas’ demand was a conscious repudiation of Mary’s report of Jesus’ prohibition. We have seen that the narrative presumes Thomas’ presence when Mary Magdalene came to the disciples. The reason that Jesus told Mary not to touch him is that he had not yet ascended to the Father (20.17a). Both in 20.17b and in 14.1-3 Jesus speaks of this journey to the Father and links it to the disciples also sharing in the life of the children of God. It was argued that 14.5 is Thomas’ rejection of these notions, a dismissal that Thomas clothes in the guise of ignorance. John 20.25b is Thomas’ straightforward, unambiguous rejection of them. John 20.25b is Thomas’ repudiation of Mary’s report of the risen Lord’s injunction not to touch him. The threefold articulation of his needs to see, touch, and place in order to believe and the threefold touch (each of Jesus’ hands and his side) manifests a denial so complete that Thomas places himself squarely against Jesus’ command given to Mary. This is the culmination of Thomas’ disbelief subverting the loyal follower into the disloyal one whose actions would prevent forward progress.

86

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

His denial of Jesus’ power of life over death seems to have hardened here.11 His graphic description of needing to see the mark of the nails and place his fingers in these marks and his hand in Jesus’ wounded side say in no uncertain terms, ‘Dead is dead’.12 The Virulence of Thomas’ Remark The asperity of Thomas’ words in 20.25 suggests his visceral rejection of an afterlife. We can transition between the graphic quality of Thomas’ remark to its causticity by looking first at the reason Jesus gives Mary for his command not to touch him. It is because he has not ascended to the Father (20.17a); touching him, then, impedes this return. Mary tells the other disciples what has happened (20.18). Yet, when the other disciples tell Thomas about Jesus’ appearance to them, he responds that he will need to have tactual contact in order to believe (20.25). By so saying, Thomas is willing to place himself as a potential obstacle to Jesus’ journey for the sake of verifying Jesus’ continued life. Thomas’ comment is geared to shock the disciples. The different type of witness to the resurrection a woman gives in the FG compared to the witness women give in the synoptic gospels also helps explain Thomas’ virulent reply. Mary Magdalene does not speak of the disciples meeting Jesus again, as do the women in Mt. 28.10, 16, or simply about the direct experience of the risen Lord or an angelic testimony to the resurrection, as do the women in Mk. 16.9-11 and in Lk. 24.4-11. As we have seen, the narrative presupposes that Thomas is there when Mary Magdalene makes this announcement; other disciples only tell him about Jesus’ appearance to them 11 Throughout this study I have been stressing that Thomas disbelieves rather than doubts. J. Hartenstein uses doubt terminology in her study of Thomas. At one point, though, she writes that Thomas has ‘ein anderen Sicht’ (‘a different view’). Charakterisierung im Dialog, p.263. This view is not developed through an in-depth study of the FG in her study, which has an emphasis on viewing the Johannine Thomas against the backdrop of the Thomas of the Thomasine tradition. 12 Gregory Riley has argued that Thomas’ comment in John 20.25 is expressive of a disbelief in a physical resurrection and that Jesus’ response to Thomas is a means by which the evangelist upholds the physicality of Jesus’ resurrection. My responses to Riley’s arguments are for the purpose of arguing that it is not the impalpability of Jesus that is the focus of Thomas’ statement, but the impossibility of any type of life beyond death. John 20.25b should be read in the context of Thomas’ other self-disclosive comments. First, Riley cites Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnans 3.2 and Lk. 24.39-43 as evidence for the debate of a physical resurrection in early Christianity. Resurrection Reconsidered, p.98. The differences between these two passages and Jn 20.25b, 27 are, however, instructive. Unlike the Lukan and Ignatian passages the Johannine verses do not say anything about Jesus being a ‘bodiless daimon’, a spirit without ‘flesh and bones’. Nowhere in the Johannine passage does Jesus eat with them to prove his physicality, although there is a meal included in the John 21 addition to the gospel. Thomas’ words in 20.25b are not a response to a claim by the disciples that they have seen a spirit, as are the similar words by the Lukan Jesus in Lk. 24.39. Rather, Thomas responds to the claim of the other disciples to ‘have seen the Lord’ (Jn 20.25a). Given the portrayal of Thomas in 11.16 and in 14.5 as seeing no possibility for life beyond death, it is more likely that his focus on seeing and touching Jesus’ hands is a reference to death’s finality. The whole of Thomas’ response in 20.25b indicates such a fixation on the power of death over life that various types of accepted means of verification (seeing, touching) need to be used on various signs of death.

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­87

and not about Jesus’ appearance to Mary. The narrative logic of the fourth gospel implies that this message of Mary must have been an ironically bitter one for Thomas to hear. It was a message that Jesus had been seen one more time and was going to depart. Thomas had been actively working to keep himself and the other disciples with Jesus. Now, after Jesus has gone, Thomas hears that he has returned only to leave again. It is not simply a matter of not believing this message of Mary Magdalene. It is that given the particular narrative-constructed make-up, history, and mission of Thomas this message would have been extremely difficult for him to receive. When Thomas returns he hears another message of the same type (20.25a).13 Twice he is said to have missed meeting the Lord whom he thinks is definitively beyond reach. This poking the lion a second time in the same tenderest of his emotional spots evokes Thomas’ visceral reaction. Stridently he responds in words that not only deny both reports and even the possibility of them, but also that drip with sarcastic venom in their mockery of Mary’s report about touching Jesus. This latter aspect of these words of Thomas may be expressed through a paraphrase: ‘Touch him? I’ll believe if I can see and touch the death marks that show that Jesus is definitely gone!’14 Thomas answers two positive testimonies, which are ironically to him particularly galling, with a negative assertion to the effect that he, Thomas, is the one ‘in touch’ with reality and the rest of them are out of touch.15 Thomas’ opposition becomes more intense as a course of action counter to his own increasingly prevails. Thomas wants to keep Jesus and the disciples together. He exhorts the disciples to go with Jesus when it becomes clear from their discussion that Jesus will not be dissuaded from his intent to go to Lazarus (11.15-16). Thomas embeds in his exhortation, however, a criticism of the ultimate separation that will ensue from the execution of this plan 13 Glenn Most suggests that the disciples’ statement to Thomas about seeing the Lord is a criticism of him for not being present at this encounter. His arguments are as follows. First, Most says that this statement of the disciples is not a witness because Jesus has not told them to tell anyone of their experience. As a result, Most sees this statement as a criticism. In response, witness on the disciples’ parts is implied in v.21, in which Jesus sends them as he has been sent. Second, Most sees Thomas’ adamant rejection in v.25 of their message as Thomas’ response to their criticism. Doubting Thomas, pp. 44–5. The strength of Thomas’ reaction at this point is, however, explainable as the result of his prior consistent refusals to believe in life beyond death coupled with his loyalty toward Jesus (11.16; 14.5). These characteristics explain a virulent reaction to a witness that, from Thomas’ perspective, provides nothing but false hope. There is no need to postulate a criticism from other disciples to explain v.25. 14 The man untrusting of words is a verbal puglilist at heart. 15 Glen Most suggests that Jn 20.25 expresses Thomas’ anger that he has been denied the miracle that the other disciples have experienced. Doubting Thomas, p.45. Most seems to want to have it both ways here because he says right before this that Thomas refuses to believe them. It does not appear, though, that Thomas thinks the other disciples have met Jesus again. His words in John 11 and 14 indicate that he has closed himself of to that possibility. Rather, he is upset by reports that ask for a renewed hope, on his part, for a reunification he deems impossible, when the loss was so recent and poignant. He is angry about being forced to live over again, through his disconfirmation of the witnesses of Mary and the other disciples, what to him is an irremediable pain.

88

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

(‘…that we might die with him’ – 11.16). Later, however, when the journey itself involves a period of separation from Jesus (‘and when I go I will come back and take you to myself’ – 14.3), Thomas claims an inability to follow on the basis of a feigned lack of knowledge of Jesus’ destination. When the separation has actually occurred, and Mary Magdalene has in the face of it offered a perspective to live by that is alternative to his own, a perspective that affirms the value of the separation – ‘I am returning to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God’ (20.17) – Thomas is piqued to his strongest opposition yet. He rejects the possibility of the journey in language that is oppositional to the means in which it is being accomplished; Jesus says he must not be touched in order to ascend, and Thomas twice says that he must touch Jesus. In this disciple’s view, there is no longer any living Jesus capable of continuing the journey and if there were, Thomas would hinder the journey. Thomas’ view of how the group’s common life should be lived comes to a final expression with increasing vituperation over its lack of acceptance.16 The character who defined himself around the idea of ‘going’ (11.16; 14.5) is not there initially when Jesus sends the other disciples out and would prevent Jesus’ journey (20.25b).17 Why Wait Eight Days? Why did Jesus set up Thomas for failure? The resurrected Johannine Jesus possesses a knowledge of what is going on among his disciples. Thus, he repeats, when meeting Thomas, a version of the denial that Thomas had eight days earlier said to the group in response to their report of the risen Lord (20.27). So the risen Lord is cognizant of what is happening among the disciples. Why choose, then, a time to first appear to the group of disciples when Thomas is not there? It appears that Jesus is intentionally exposing the weakness of Thomas’ faith as a way for Thomas to make amends for not 16 This progression in Thomas shows the necessity of looking at the ‘order of the presentation’ of a character’s appearances. See M. Sternberg, Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), pp.96–7; J. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus, p.56; Y. Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, p.82. Skinner sees a progression in Thomas from not understanding the resurrection at all in 11.16 and 14.5 to his putting a condition for him to believe in it in 20.25 to full faith in 20.28. John and Thomas, pp.75–6. In addition to 11.16 and 14.5 expressing determined disbelief rather than a lack of understanding, this thesis fails to account for the acidic tone of 20.25b, which is Thomas’ claim that the discussion is effectively closed. 17 The peripheralization of Thomas is also suggested by looking at 20.25 in conjunction with the particularly packed section of John 20.21-23. Jesus departs in Matthew and Mark with the sending of the disciples. John 20.21-23 also describes this commission but continues by Jesus’ gift of the Holy Spirit and by giving the disciples the authority to forgive or retain sins. Luke does speak about these two latter activities, but for Luke the Spirit will come in the near future rather than in the present moment. Moreover, in Luke’s gospel the disciples are to ‘preach’ the repentance and forgiveness of sins (23.4). In John 20.23, they are given the actual power to forgive or retain sins. Matthew does give first Peter, and then all the disciples, the power to forgive sins (17.19; 18.17), but this is not at the conclusion of his gospel. (We will look more at this power in John 20 later.) What John does, however, is to so concentrate in vv.20-23 these three climactic gifts when Thomas is absent as to heighten Thomas’ marginal status.

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­89

following through earlier on his exhortation to die with Jesus (11.16). What is going on is similar to John 21 where Peter’s failure is exposed with an opportunity for him to make amends. Jesus catalyses Thomas’ personal traits of his need to be faithful and his lack of faith in an afterlife to create a new synthesis in this disciple’s character. Jesus places Thomas in a situation in which chagrin over his lack of loyalty to the presence of Jesus would supercharge this characteristic so that it empowers faith. The words ‘Put your finger here and see my hands; and put out your hand and place it in my side’ create the emotionally confusing offer of loyalty needing proof, mixing the domains of relationship and logic (20.27a). The second input to this reaction are Jesus’ words, ‘Be not unbelieving, but believing’ (20.27b). John 20.27 says that Thomas’ lack of faith (in an afterlife) is impinging on his ability to be faithful. This happens by the scenario of Jesus’ identity needing confirmation by means that prove his continued existence. Thus, loyalty is made contingent, the characteristic inimical and antithetical to loyalty. The lack of faith undermines faithfulness and by so doing leads, in a character for whom allegiance is paramount, to the highest confession of faith of any character in this gospel (20.28).18 This exalted confession is a function of his loyalty striving for redemption. It appears that 14.15-17 may also shed light on the reason for the delay of eight days in the appearance to this disciple.19 In these verses, Jesus promises the disciples the ‘Spirit of truth’. The world cannot receive this Spirit because it neither ‘knows’ nor ‘sees’ him. The disciples know him, however, because 18 By saying ‘my Lord and my God’ in 20.28 Thomas shows a realization of the last part of Jesus’ response to him in Jn 14.7: that from now on the disciples have known and have seen the Father. Both Mary Magdalene and the other disciples confess the risen Lord by saying they have ‘seen the Lord’ (20.18, 25). Only Thomas calls him not only ‘Lord’ but also ‘God’. Jesus says to Thomas that it took seeing for him to believe and that ‘blessed are those who do not see and yet believe’ (20.29). There is a play on seeing going on in this chapter. Thomas has not believed on the basis of the eyewitness of others. Once he sees, though, Thomas significantly pushes forward the content of this belief. 19 These verses are transitional verses in John 14 that point back to the section in which Thomas appears, and specifically to Thomas, and forward to the second part of John 14. John 14.1-3 is the introduction to the whole piece, and the conclusion is in 14.25-31. The conclusion reprises 14.1-3 in 14.27-28 by some of the same words and by a direct reference. The former are the words mh_ tarasse/sqw u9mw~n h9 kardi/a and the latter occurs in 14.28a. At the same time as introducing the whole chapter, 14.1-3 also is a part of the first major section of this chapter, 14.1-14, which deals with belief in the Father and Jesus: six pisteu/w verbs appear in 14.1, 10, 11-12. The second major section comprises 14.15-24, and its focus is on love. For this basic focus of these two sections, see e.g., A. Wikenhauser, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1957), p.268; Brown, John XIII–XXI, p.623. The theme of the word of Jesus unites both sections; the word of Jesus is what the disciples should believe and keeping the word manifests their love for Jesus. Jn 14.1-2, 10-11, 15, 21, 23-24. The transition between these two sections is found at the beginning of the second one. John 14.15-17 begins with keeping Jesus’ commandments, the main concern of the second section, and it concludes with a linkage of knowing and seeing verbs such as is found in 14.7, 9.

90

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

he is with them and will be in them. Thomas and Philip are the two disciples who had just provoked Jesus’ responses in terms of this knowing and seeing imagery (14.7, 9). Although Jesus says in 14.17 that the disciples know the spirit of truth, Thomas has just been presented as the disciple who most resists the truth: the disciple to whom Jesus responded that He is ‘the truth’ (14.6). Thus, the Spirit of truth may be currently with the disciples and in the future will be in them, as Jesus says in 14.17, but Thomas is the disciple who has placed the most opposition to the Spirit of truth.20 When Jesus returns to all the disciples except Thomas, he breathes on them the Spirit (20.22). Thomas receives the Spirit of truth later. This is manifested in his exalted confession of Jesus in 20.28, which shows the teaching of the Holy Spirit (14.26). Thomas’ only receiving this spirit a week after the other disciples is, however, a sign that he is the disciple most resistant to the truth. Being most resistant to this spirit of truth, Thomas is the last of the original disciples to whom Jesus comes back and dwells in through the Spirit.21 The ‘spirit of truth’ does not come quickly to the one who has closed himself off to future possibilities beyond the grave.22

20 In this light, we are not told the reaction of the disciples to Mary’s witness to them of seeing the Lord and of what he said to her (20.18). This is unusual and highlights by its distinctiveness how Thomas bears the whole weight of the reproach of the risen Lord in this gospel because of his diametrically opposed pellucid rejection in 20.25b of the disciples’ claim to have seen the Lord. The lack of a reaction by the disciples to Mary’s witness is sui generis in the canonical gospel resurrection accounts. Even Mt. 28.17 provides a response in that the disciples go to the mountain in accordance with the Lord’s instruction to the women (28.10). Moreover, in every other canonical gospel one finds clear disbelief to the witnesses’ testimony on the part of the whole group or doubt at least on the part of some. (For the former see Mk. 16.9-11, 12-13, 14; Lk. 24.11, and for the latter see Mt. 24.17.) Only Thomas among the disciples is said to disbelieve in the FG. 21 Could the appearance to Thomas reflect an awareness of, and an allusion to, the Pauline tradition in 1 Cor. 15 of the resurrection appearances in order to portray Thomas against the backdrop of Paul? Paul speaks about the appearance of the risen Lord to him last because he is the least worthy to receive it on account of his persecution of the church (15.8-9). He continues by saying how by God’s grace he has worked harder than all (15.10). All of this prepares for Paul’s extended arguments against those Christians who claim that there is no resurrection (15.12-58). The FG depicts Jesus as appearing to Thomas last and Thomas as having the highest confession of Jesus among the disciples. Thomas is the Johannine disciple who opposes the idea of an afterlife. 22 The liminality of Thomas is also shown strongly in John 11.16; 14.5; 20.25b in relation to Jesus’ purpose of establishing a friendship with his disciples. One common characteristic attributed to friendship was two people thinking the same way. See e.g., 1 Sam 18.1; Homer, Odys. 3.126-29. This idea was sometimes expressed as two friends sharing ‘one soul’ (mi/a yuxh/), as in Aris., Eud. Eth. 7.6.10; Eth. Nic. 9.4.5; 9.8.2; Plutarch, Adul. amic. 96E; Acts 4.32. This characteristic comes to expression quite strongly when Jesus calls the disciples his friends (15.14). Jesus calls them such because he has made known to them everything that he heard from the Father (15.15). Jesus and his disciples can now think the same way. The Spirit of truth will come to solidify this unified perspective by continuing to reveal Jesus’ thoughts to the disciples (15.26-27; 16.13-15). Thus, from Jesus’ perspective of creating friends, Thomas stands opposed to one of the characteristics Jesus sees in friends. The two are clearly not of one mind.

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­91

The Twinning of Thomas with the Resurrected Lord, Judas Iscariot, and Nathanael The Resurrected Lord Out-Thomas’ Thomas and Enables Thomas to Do the Same In the prior two appearances of Thomas in the FG, Thomas responds to Jesus by using Jesus’ words but twisting them for his own meaning. The resurrected Lord turns Thomas’ rhetorical strategy against him in John 20. It is Thomas who speaks first in John 20.25, and Jesus who responds to him in 20.27 by twisting Thomas’ words upon themselves. Thomas has meant to articulate in 20.25 the conception that there is no way that he will believe that Jesus is alive. Jesus repeats these words ironically to say, in effect, ‘Go ahead and do what you need to do in order to believe’. Thomas and Jesus use the other’s words to parry these words themselves. The effect is jujitsu-like, where the force of the attack is used against the opponent. Jesus’ appearance enables Thomas to respond in kind. Jesus had just used in 20.27 Thomas’ words in 20.25b to invite him to believe. Thomas’ response in 20.28 is appropriate to the type of repetitive conversation in which the two have been engaged. Jesus had told Mary Magdalene not to touch him but rather to say to the disciples, ‘I am going to my Father and to your Father, to my God (qeo/n mou) and to your God’ (20.17). In 20.25b Thomas had used the language of touch found in Mary’s account of Jesus’ last words (20.25). Following Jesus’ taking up in 20.27 of Thomas’ haptic rhetoric, Thomas replies with a reference to the second thing Jesus had told Mary in 20.17. Thomas’ ‘my Lord and my God’ (o9 qeo/j mou) mirrors the form and some of the terminology of Jesus’ ‘my Father’ and ‘my God’ (qeo/n mou). By so doing, Thomas has assented to the journey that in 20.17 Jesus says he is about to make: the journey that Thomas opposed in 11.16; 14.5 and 20.25b as being impossible. The iterative give-and-take between Jesus and Thomas has one more element to it. In every reply of Thomas’ except the one in 20.28, Thomas has responded by negativing the comment of his interlocutor. Jesus reciprocates by making the culminating part of his reply to Thomas contain a negative element that reflects specifically on Thomas. Thomas’ belief is based on seeing says Jesus, but ‘blessed are those who do not (mh\) see and yet believe’ (20.29).23 Thomas and Judas: The Significance of ‘the Twelve’ Thomas leaves us with a strange aura perpetually cast about him. Thus, the use of ‘the twelve’, and particularly the phrase ‘one of the twelve’, to describe Thomas in Jn 20.24 suggests the poignancy of Thomas not being present with the ten other members of this group when Jesus appeared to them. This is 23 For a brief, but helpful, survey of some of the main ways of interpreting the distinction expressed in 20.29, see P. Judge, ‘A Note on Jn 20,29’, The Four Gospels (Volume 3; F. van Segbroeck, C. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden, eds; Paris: Louvain University Press, 1992), pp.2185–8.

92

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

the only place in which Thomas is designated in such a way. ‘The twelve’ is, in the FG, used to designate the core group under the stress and threat of defections and betrayal. Elsewhere in this gospel, in reference to people, its use is concentrated in John 6. First, Jesus addresses the twelve who remain after a mass defection of disciples (6.67). Next, he refers to their special status: the twelve were chosen by Jesus (6.70). Finally comes the pathos that even among these select disciples there will be a ‘devil’, referring to Judas’ treachery (6.71). In John 6 twelveness has been proven staunchness, but also thereby an opportunity for future betrayal. In John 20 the betrayal has already occurred and the number of disciples is down to eleven. Therefore, the use of ‘the twelve’ in 20.24 is anachronistic and by its temporal incongruousness calls Judas to the reader’s attention. This is especially the case as the phrase ‘one of the twelve’ is only used of Judas in 6.71 in reference to his betrayal and of Thomas in 20.24.24 This latter verse speaks about ‘Thomas, one of the twelve, the one called the twin’. The words ‘Thomas, the one called the twin’ are found in 11.16 and in 21.2. Separating, however, in 20.24 the name and the traditional designation that immediately follows it, ‘the twin’ by the phrase ‘one of the twelve’, highlights this phrase and its Johannine allusions.25 Mentioning the name ‘Thomas’ right before the phrase ‘one of the twelve’ links Thomas both to the potential for a poignant withdrawal of a disciple from the twelve and to the actual example of this in Judas. Overtones of disloyalty are brought into proximity to Thomas through this connection; ‘one of the twelve’ is a manner of identifying Thomas that simultaneously identifies him as one of the core group of disciples and questions his loyalty, a quality by which Thomas had defined himself (11.16; 14.5). The words immediately following ‘one of the twelve’ are the designation of Thomas as ‘the twin’. In this context, the conjunctive words ‘the twin’ fleetingly flash the possibility of a Judas-Thomas literary twinship. This idea is hammered home by the following verbal clause, ‘was not with them when Jesus came’. That ‘one 24 L. Devillers writes that the phrase ‘one of the twelve’ as applied to Thomas links him to Peter. He bases this assessment on the use of this phrase in John 6 and John 20. In John 6 its use in regard to Judas in 6.71 links to the presence of the words ‘the twelve’ in 6.67. In this latter verse, Jesus asks, immediately following the mass apostasy in 6.66, if the twelve also want to leave him and Peter steps into this dangerous situation to rescue the honour of the group with a confession of Jesus. It is in this light that Devillers views Thomas’ confession in 20.28. ‘Thomas, Appelé Didyme (Jn 11.16; 20,24; 21,2) pour une nouvelle Approche du Prétendu Jumeau’, RB 113 (2006), 72. The principal problem with this view is that the phrase ‘one of the twelve’ appears not in 20.26-29 when Jesus returns the second time, resulting in Thomas’ confession. It occurs in 20.24 in the brief section of 20.24-25 that highlights Thomas’ absence and disbelief. This placement makes the phrase link Thomas not to Peter but to Judas, as we will see. A. Gagné has argued that there is a comparison between Judas and Satan in this gospel. ‘Caractérization des figures de Satan et de Judas dans le IVe évangile’, SE 55 (2003), pp.263–84. 25 This separation argues for the foregrounding of the phrase ‘one of the twelve’ and by so doing argues against Dunderberg’s view that this phrase is simply analogous to the phrase ‘one of his disciples’ or ‘two of his disciples’, used elsewhere in John. Beloved Disciple in Conflict?, p.54.

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­93

of the twelve’ was ‘not with them’ evokes Judas’ image. The last time we read about a disciple not being with the rest of the disciples who are gathered together indoors is in 13.30. In this case, Judas leaves the group. John 13.30b says that when Judas goes out it is night, and according to 20.19 it is evening when Thomas is not present.26 ‘One of the twelve’ hands Jesus over to death, and another ‘one of the twelve’ consigns him to this realm. ‘One of the twelve’ departs from Jesus, and another departs from his central message of the power of God’s life over death.27 A Silent Chastening of Thomas: John 21.1-2 The words ‘After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples . . .’ in 21.1 call to mind Thomas’ recent obstinacy in not believing until he sees. The words ‘after this’ refer the reader to the prior episode, which was about this obstinacy of Thomas overcome.28 The indicator of another revelation to the disciples also connects the reader to the other resurrection appearances, the last of which involved Thomas so prominently.29 So Thomas’ recent experience is brought to the forefront in John 21, and it is done so specifically in relation 26 Given the pregnant light and darkness imagery in the FG, and especially its presence in 12.35-36 with its claim that the light is only with them for a short while and therefore they need to walk in the light and not the darkness so as to be ‘sons of the light’, the distinction between Judas going out at night but Thomas being apart from the group when it is evening may not be a happenstance. Thomas’ crepuscular absence suggests the danger but also possibilities for reclamation not supported by Johannine nocturnal imagery. C. Keener is correct in that a group could preserve ‘its numerical label’ even when the number no longer applied. Gospel of John, 2.1208, n.367. The connections between Thomas and Judas in reference to the darkness imagery and their absence and the breakup of the designation ‘Thomas, the one called the twin’ with the phrase ‘one of the twelve’ function, however, to indicate a comparison between Judas and Thomas. 27 Many linguistic scholars have noted the importance of the words that introduce the speech of a character, however brief this speech may itself be. These introductory comments are called ‘qualitative frame’, the ‘dialogue introducer’, or the ‘transitional formula’. C. Miller, The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (HSM, 55; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp.1–2, 4, 42; M. Shapiro, ‘How Narrators Report Speech’, Language and Style 17 (1984), p.71. John 20.24-25 is an example of an ‘adjacency pair’, in which the words of one character are responded to by another. The introductory comments to the first set of words tend to convey more information than do the ones to the second set. The information conveyed in the first introduction carries over to both parts of the dialogue. Miller, Representation, p.404. These introductory comments, or ‘qualitative frame’, in 20.24-25, are the words ‘Thomas, one of the twelve, the one called the twin, was not with them when Jesus came’ (20.24). The connection this frame makes between Thomas and Judas colours Thomas’ request for verification in the second part of the adjacency pair in 20.25b. 28 This is not to say that John 21 was originally part of the FG. In the final state of this gospel, however, this connection exists. 29 J. Hartenstein proposes that the seven specific disciples that are written about in John 21 may function as a senior group modelling successful cooperation among the leaders of the church. She notes how this would explain the mention of the ‘sons of Zebedee’ who are otherwise not written about in this gospel. Charakterisierung im Dialog, pp.223, 243. It is not clear, however, how this view would explain at least one of the two anonymous disciples, and possibly both of them if the Beloved Disciple is not intended to be one of them, written about in 21.2. How would this designation signify their special status?

94

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

to the experiences of Peter and Nathanael. These are the only three disciples who are identified by their names. They are the first three disciples mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. Thomas is the second named, connecting him proximately to both Peter and Nathanael. There are indicators that this order conveys a Johannine feature of commenting on Thomas by means of relating him to other characters. Let us begin with the propinquity established between Thomas and Peter before focusing on the Thomas-Nathanael dialectic. The two disciples who had most verbally championed loyalty to Jesus (6.66-71; 11.16; 13.3338; 14.5) and who had subsequently uttered the harshest words expressing their separation from Jesus (18.17, 25-27; 20.25) are brought into proximity precisely at the interstice of the come-uppance of each of them. Thomas is mentioned right after Simon Peter, the disciple who is most prominent in this chapter. It is Peter who is questioned three times concerning his love of Jesus (21.15-19). This alludes to Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus (18.17, 2527). Peter is rehabilitated but the cost is the recollection of his own apostasy. Placing Thomas’ name right after that of Simon Peter has the effect of linking the denials of both disciples (20.24-29; 21.15-19) and by so doing adding a reverberation of the denial by Thomas. John 20.25 is the third denial by Thomas of Jesus’ ability to give eternal life. Whereas Peter has three times denied any association with Jesus in order to save his own skin, Thomas has three times denied Jesus’ ability to save any of them beyond death. The hold that the power of death has on his consciousness blinds him to all but the most transparent sign, Jesus’ resurrection appearance. Let us now look at the similarities between Thomas and Nathanael. These stand out because of what occurs in the prior scene in which Thomas appears, separated from the reference to these two characters in 21.2 by only three verses. There are seven disciples written about in 21.2. Simon Peter is named first. Every other disciple mentioned is linguistically linked to another one. Thus, ‘two others of his disciples’ are linked in their anonymity; ‘the sons of Zebedee’ are connected by their filiation; both Thomas and Nathanael are named, mentioned back-to-back, and placed in a larger social context (‘the twin’ and ‘of Cana in Galilee’). That these similarities between Thomas and Nathanael are not a happenstance is shown by the original conclusion of the FG in 20.30-31. These verses say that the gospel was written that people may ‘believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God’ and have life through this belief. It is clear that these verses point, in part, to the prior contrast between Thomas and ‘those who have not seen’ (20.29): these other believers will have the FG as a means for belief. John 20.30-31 also point to Nathanael’s confession of Jesus in 1.49. Only in these two passages in the FG are titles denoting Jesus’ messiahship and status as ‘Son of God’ placed together. Moreover, that Nathanael calls Jesus ‘Rabbi’ before these two titles signifies that his belief is the result of having learned from Jesus’ testimony as expressed in 1.49b. Similarly, it is the testimony of the FG that in 20.30-31 is the basis of belief. Shortly following the statement in 20.29b that contrasts the basis of Thomas’

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­95

belief with the basis of the belief of future believers, the FG links two disciples who function for these believers as a negative and positive example in this regard. There are a number of overarching similarities between Thomas and Nathanael. First, these are the only two disciples who place preconditions on their belief. The first two disciples ask Jesus respectfully, ‘Rabbi, … where do you remain?’ (1.38). Andrew proclaims him to Peter as the Messiah. Simon Peter and Philip simply join the group gathered around Jesus without a response to Jesus’ summons. Nathanael poses first, however, a question to Jesus before acknowledging him as a divine representative, and Thomas will not believe until he sees the marks of death on the side of a resurrected Lord (1.48; 20.25b).30 A second similarity between the two disciples is that Jesus responds to each of them and to their reservations in the same way: a question on the basis of their belief that begins with the word o9ti (‘because’), contains the verb o9raw (‘to see’), and ends with the verb pisteuw (‘to believe’). Because you have seen me have you believed? Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree do you believe?

(20.29a) (1.50a)

One could demur that Thomas and Nathanael are not the only disciples to require more in order to believe: that the comment by Philip in 14.8 expresses the same. There is, however, a marked difference in tone between the comments by Nathanael and Thomas, on the one hand, and the one by Philip, on the other. As we will soon treat, the tone of Nathanael’s and Thomas’ question and comment is critical and dismissive. By way of contrast, Philip uses the respectful title of Lord when speaking to Jesus in 14.8. He asks for more than Jesus has given, but there is no sense that he makes his discipleship contingent upon Jesus’ response. This is not a deal-breaker for Philip any more than are the questions of Thomas and Jude in John 14. These three followers attempt in John 14 to reshape Jesus’ message without a hint of an ultimatum in their words. Philip’s claim that seeing the Father would be enough (a)rkei=) for them is probably best interpreted against the backdrop of Philip’s use of this term in 6.7. Having seen the superfluity of Jesus’ response in John 6, Philip tries for another display of munificence. By way of contrast, and as noted above, Nathanael in John 1 and Thomas in John 20 are initially dismissive and critical about the testimony to Jesus. In 1.46 Nathanael asks Philip if anything good can come out of Nazareth. This criticism continues in a muted way in Nathanael’s question to Jesus: ‘From where do you know me’ (1.48)? The first words of each question (Po/qen 30 Cf. R. Schnackenburg, St. John, p.331. He notes that there is a ‘derogatory remark’ in both cases.

96

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

and 0Ek) solidify the connection between them and in the process imbue the abrupt second question with the tincture of the critical first one.31 Nathanael’s criticism of Jesus is also implicit in the way he addresses Jesus. Nathanael’s address to Jesus is abrupt. There is no introductory address of ‘Rabbi’, as is the first word of the first two disciples to Jesus. Moreover, Philip identifies Jesus to Nathanael in five ways: with two honorifics and with the name of Jesus, his father, and his hometown (1.45). This makes it all the more jarring when Nathanael, who is brought to Jesus by Philip, soon meets Jesus and begins speaking to him without any title (1.48). Nathanael is not initially impressed. Thomas is also critical of the testimony he receives about Jesus. In John 20 Thomas initially does not even refer to the whole Lord himself. Rather, he speaks synecdochically to express his conviction that Jesus is no longer an integral person. Thomas will not speak about a living Jesus but only about parts of Jesus’ body and the marks death has left upon it (20.25b). Thomas states in no uncertain terms that Jesus is no longer living.32 Another similarity between Nathanael and Thomas is that both ultimately end up outdoing through titles the ways in which other disciples in 1.35-51 and 20.1-31, respectively, speak to or about Jesus. In the former passage, disciples refer twice to Jesus by a single title (‘Rabbi’ and ‘Messiah’ – 1.38, 41), and Philip calls him ‘the one about whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote’ (1.45). When Nathanael becomes convinced that Jesus is God’s representative, he confesses him with three titles comprising an introductory one and two subsequent ones in two separate sentences: ‘Rabbi, you are the son of God. You are the king of Israel’ (1.49).33 Nathanael’s confession of Jesus is different from the way the other disciples speak about Jesus not only by the number of titles he uses and the full expressions in which he places these titles. In a certain sense, Nathanael’s confession subsumes the prior titles given by disciples to Jesus. Both the first two disciples and Nathanael call Jesus ‘Rabbi’. An affirmation that Jesus is the messiah is placed on the lips of both Andrew and Nathanael, 31 The ‘where’ language in general in 1.35-51 points in this direction because the positive use of such imagery in 1.38-39, 45 changes to a negative use around a ‘Nazareth’ hinge. The last use of these terms are back-to-back: Philip’s positive affirmation of Jesus being a)po_ Nazare/t and Nathanael’s negative assessment of this locale in his question E 0 k Nazare/t du/natai/ ti a)gaqo_n ei]nai; (1.45-46). 32 Farelly struggles with the issue of Thomas’ disbelief. He notes that ‘it would be surprising’ if 20.25 manifests Thomas’ disbelief in the resurrection because this would mean that ‘Thomas was now to be considered as outside of the believing community’. As a result of this conundrum, Farelly says that 20.25 expresses ‘first and foremost’ Thomas’ lack of trust in the testimony of the disciples (my emphasis). Farelly concludes by claiming that Thomas is called not only to be joyful that Jesus has returned but also to trust the other disciples. Disciples in the Fourth Gospel, pp.124–5. This formulation does away with any disbelief in Jesus’ return on the part of Thomas and any consequent concern about whether he is inside or outside the group of disciples. In response, the claim that the apostolic witness should be believed is implicit in 20.29. The claim that Thomas should rejoice in Jesus’ return does not, however, express sufficiently Thomas’ disbelief in this return. In the conclusion, I argue that a liminal status is the key to the presentation of the Johannine Thomas. 33 The subject recognizes his ruler as the ruler had earlier recognized in Nathanael one of his subjects: ‘Behold, a true Israelite …’ (1.47).

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­97

the latter in the messianic title, ‘the King of Israel’. Nathanael’s claim that Jesus is the ‘Son of God’ reorients the five affirmations of Philip that end with Jesus being the ‘son of Joseph’. Similarly, Jesus is called simply ku/rioj (Ku/rie) or Rabbouni in John 20 with the exception of Thomas’ ‘my Lord and my God’.34 Thomas is the first person to state unambiguously that Jesus is God. A final similarity between Nathanael and Thomas consists in the type of prerequisite that each has before they will believe: an experience of the divine in their lives. Nathanael had confessed Jesus as a response to Jesus’ claim to have seen him under the fig tree. Trees often were considered to be sacred places. For example, Pliny wrote about how trees ‘formed the first temples of the gods, and even at the present day, the country people, preserving in all their simplicity their ancient rites, consecrate the finest among their trees to some divinity’.35 In the OT, Gen. 12.6 and Judg. 6.11 present theophanies occurring at trees. Thus, Jesus appears to be evoking for Nathanael a specific experience of the sacred that this character had under a fig tree.36 Thomas also seeks an experience of the divine, and it is of the very type that Nathanael is promised.37 Jesus promises Nathanael that he will see greater things: ‘the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man’ (1.51). This refers to the experience of Jacob’s dream at Bethel (Gen 28). The function of this dream is found in the concluding words of God to Jacob: ‘I will not leave you until I have done that of which I have spoken to you’ (Gen 28.15b). Jacob concludes from the dream and the message that this is a holy place and ‘the gate of heaven’ (28.17).38 The reappearance of Nathanael in John 21 concretizes Jesus’ prior promise to him in terms of the Bethel experience. Jesus has not left him until he did what he said he would do, which is to become the disciples’ ‘gate of heaven’. The descending redeemer will now function as the ascending one who prepares rooms in the Father’s house and then returns to take the disciples there (14.23). This is the significance of Jesus’ statement to Mary Magdalene in 20.17: a statement to which Thomas has responded in 20.25b.39 The appearance of the 34 Jn 20.2, 15, 16, 18, 25, 28. 35 Nat. 12.2. Sacred groves were found all over. For example, for Italy see Strabo, Geogr. 5.3.3, 8, 12. For Asia Minor see Herodotus, 5.119. 36 A. Lincoln notes the three major views on the fig tree as signifying either (1) security (1 Kgs 4.25; Mic. 4.4; Zech. 3.10), (2) the teaching of rabbis under fig trees, or (3) Israel (Jer. 8.13; Hos. 9.10; Mic. 7.1). The Gospel according to St. John (BNTC; London: Continuum, 2005), pp.120–21. Lincoln notes that the third is most probable if there is any significance in the fig tree. Nathanael, whom Jesus called a ‘true Israelite’, is under the tree, however, and not identified with it. Moreover, it is not likely that Jesus’ simple use of a scriptural image for Israel would have transformed Nathanael’s initial doubt into his subsequent confession. 37 In this light, it should be noted that Jesus exhibits a personal knowledge of Nathanael and Thomas. X. Leon-Dufour, Lecture de l’évangile selon Saint Jean IV: L’heure de la glorification (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1996), pp.246–7; Schnackenburg, St. John, p.331. See Bonney’s discussion of the Johannine knowledge of the hearts of other characters as well. Caused to Believe, pp.153, 165–6, 169. 38 Like Jacob, Nathanael has had an experience of the sacred associated with a place in nature (1.48). 39 See pp. 188–9.

98

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

name of Thomas right before the name of Nathanael, in conjunction with the words of Thomas that in 20.25 recently preceded it, juxtaposes the disciple whom Jesus promises to see ‘the gate of heaven’ with the disciple who will not believe in such an access until he sees it. I have argued that there are a number of similarities between the two disciples and a concern to bring these disciples together by naming them next to each other and by expressing the original conclusion of the gospel in terms that point to each of them. In this light, there is a major difference between them that is instructive. It has to do with their belief or lack of belief in relation to the testimony of others. Jesus’ initial words to Nathanael witness to an experience of the sacred that Nathanael has had in his life. Nathanael believes on the basis of this verbal witness to his experience of the divine in life. Moreover, Nathanael invites this witness by asking Jesus a question about how he has experienced the transcendent in his life: ‘From where do you know me?’ (1.48). It can be paraphrased as, ‘If you are God’s special representative, then reveal to me where I have encountered the divine’. On the other hand, Thomas closes himself off to the possibilities of the sign-disclosing witness of others. Thomas had not heard anything about the experience the other disciples had of the risen Lord, beyond their statement to have seen him, before he closes off witness with a summary statement. He interjects with words expressive of his disbelief. That one never reads of the other disciples recounting these events to Thomas does not signal that they were not conveyed prior to Jesus’ reappearance eight days later; rather, the lack of the mention of such witness intimates how closed Thomas was to it. Thomas’ intitial response contrasts with the initial response of Nathanael who, despite his demurral to Philip’s testimony, does accede to Philip’s exhortation, ‘Come (E 1 rxou) and see’ by himself coming (e0rxo/menon), thereby conforming to Jesus’ request to the initial disciples: ‘Come (  E 1 rxesqe) and see’ (1.39, 46-47). Thus, Nathanael and Thomas function at the end of the original conclusion of the FG and at the beginning of the one in John 21 to suggest positive and negative responses, respectively, to the witness of the FG that is intended to promote belief by opening people to the resurrection-disclosing signs in their own lives. The similarities in the portrayal of these characters function to show that they are actually antipodal. They each end up seeing the risen Lord. This vision by Thomas is, though, a concession to his lack of faith. The vision by Nathanael is a confirmation of the ‘greater things’ (1.50) that his faith has enabled him to see. The proximity of the mention of Thomas to the mention of Peter and Nathanael and the similarities between these disciples that we have treated cast Thomas in an unfavourable light. His denials are linked to Simon Peter’s denials. In the process, a tincture of the questioning of the extent of Peter’s love for Jesus (21.15-19) is transferred to Thomas’ character. These are the two disciples who professed to go to death with or for him (11.16; 13.37). Thomas is also negatively connected to Nathanael, the disciple for whom Jesus has had the most unveiled praise (1.47). There is guilt for Thomas both

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­99

by association and by opposition. In such ways, John 21 is a subtle reiteration of the criticism of Thomas’ response that is found at the end of John 20.

Breaking the Pattern The Signs, the Gospel, and the Faith of Thomas In contrast to two other characters, John presents Thomas as one who cannot benefit either from any sign less than a resurrection appearance or from the testimony to these signs. The first such contrast is between Thomas and the BD. Frequently 20.8 has been interpreted in the context of what it says about the narrative evaluation of the BD in regard to Peter. But it is noteworthy that of all the reactions to the empty tomb and to Jesus in John 20, it is only in relation to the first and last reaction, those of the BD and Thomas, that the language of belief expressly appears (20.8, 25b, 27, 29, 31). It is clear from what Mary and the other disciples say that they believe, but the term pisteu/w is not found in these places (20.18, 25a). Mary and the other disciples express their belief by saying that they have ‘seen the Lord’ (20.18, 25a). Thomas requires for belief that he see the resurrection-proving marks of death on a living body. The BD also sees and then believes, but what he sees is the napkin that had been on Jesus’ head and the linen cloths in which his body had been bound (21.6-7). The BD is contrasted to Thomas. The BD believes on the basis of seeing not the risen Lord himself but signs that the Lord has risen.40 These signs and the words that testify to them are what will provoke belief in future Christians (20.30-31). Unlike Thomas, Johannine Christians are exhorted not to seek resurrection appearances but rather, like the Beloved Disciple, to believe even without them.41 When Thomas is treated, pist words proliferate, whereas in the rest of the chapter that implies so much belief, there is only 40 Just what the BD believes is the subject of many studies. That he believes without seeing the risen Lord, however, is contrasted with Thomas’ requirement that sight come before faith. 41 Marianne Thompson argues that contrary to a common interpretation, Jesus’ words to Thomas in 20.27, 29 are not a rebuke of Thomas because his faith is based on seeing. She notes that the other disciples also express belief in the risen Lord following their seeing him. Further, it is not said that belief based on seeing is inadequate faith nor that those who believe without seeing are ‘more blessed’ (20.29). The Johannine narrative has shown that belief may come after seeing. The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), pp.75–6. It would appear, however, that there is a rebuke of Thomas, if an understated one at that. Both in 11.15-16 and in 20.24-31 Thomas is the foil of Jesus as the resurrection and the life. Thomas stands at odds to Jesus’ raising of Lazarus and to the resurrection, which, we will see, is presented in 20.31 as a sign. The raising of Lazarus provides visual and tactile confirmation of life beyond the parameter of death. This event does not, however, provide such confirmation to Thomas, who insists that the conquering of death be proven again. The raising of Lazarus and the resurrection are the most explicit of all the signs in revealing the life that Jesus has come to give. At the penultimate and ultimate moments of the revelation of this life that is light (1.4), the unenlightened Thomas appears. These factors lead to the conclusion that Thomas is rebuked in 20.29, but that it is a restrained reproof appropriate to Thomas’ response to Jesus.

100

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

one pist term, used in reference to the BD. Six times the word pisteu/w or pisto/j appears in 20.25-31 and once, the term a!pistoj. Thus, readers or auditors are encouraged to view their own belief or unbelief in the light of the experience of the BD and Thomas. Thomas appears when the most unambiguous signs of Jesus’ power to conquer death by giving life occur (the raising of Lazarus in John 11 and the resurrection appearances of Jesus in John 20) and where there is the clearest testimony to this power (John 14). He appears in order to contradict the testimony to these signs. He is the death-sayer, and his is the voice of final termination. After the words that Jesus would restore Lazarus from death to life (11.11, 14-15), after the clear assertion that Jesus would transcend this world and come back again to take the disciples to the Father (14.1-3), and after the disciples tell him, ‘We have seen the Lord’ (20.25a), Thomas says that death has the last word, that death has the victory. Focusing on a final termination, Thomas runs counter not only to all the signs and testimony to them but even to Jesus’ final cry of victory from the cross (19.30) which the words of Thomas would transmogrify into one of defeat. For Thomas, the subject and object of Jn 16.33 (‘I have overcome the world’) are transposed. The connections between the sign of Jesus’ resurrection appearance to Thomas and the other disciples, on the one hand, and the sign of the healing of the royal official’s son (4.46-54), on the other, cast shadows on Thomas. They also clarify that Jn 20.29 is not an exaltation of faith based on the word over sign faith, but rather an exhortation for a faith that is based on learning from the Gospel’s testimony to signs rather than requiring an appearance of the resurrected Lord. The similarities between the signs in 20.19-29 and 4.46-54 that invite an interpretation of them in the light of each other are as follows. The signs in both chapters concretely treat death and life: Jesus has died and the son of the royal official is at the point of death. Both 4.46-54 and 20.24-29 are directed towards a particular individual (the royal official and Thomas) while a larger group is involved (the Galileans and the other disciples). Both the royal official and Thomas stand in relief from their respective groups. Whereas the royal official ‘redeems’ himself from the group’s unbelief (4.48, 50b), Thomas emerges from the testimony of the disciples (‘We have seen the Lord’ – 20.25a) as the one voice of unbelief. Finally, the words of Jesus in 4.48 and those of Thomas in 20.25b mirror each other. Therefore, Jesus said to him, ‘Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will not believe’. (Jn 4.48) But he said to them, ‘Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe’. (Jn 20.25b)

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­101

Each verse begins with the words 0Ean mh\ (‘Unless’), continues with what needs to be seen (the verb o9ra&w used in each case) and end with the asseveration ou0 mh\ pisteu/shte (pisteu/sw): ‘You (I) will not believe.’42 Moreover, what the Galileans need to see in order to believe are ‘signs and wonders’, and what Thomas says he needs are wondrous signs: ‘Unless I see in the hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe’ (20.25b). Thomas has been deliberate and not unconscious in his prior adoption of sayings of Jesus, as is shown by the combination of his unambiguous use of these words with a clear skewing of them to Thomas’ perspective. This argues for a conscious adaptation by Thomas in 20.25b of Jesus’ words in 4.48.43 Another contrast between the basiliko\j and Thomas has to do with the commands of Jesus to go somewhere. In 4.50b the basiliko\j (‘royal official’) has accepted Jesus’ words and acted on them as a subordinate would do with the command of a superior. And Jesus’ words to the official are a command: ‘Go, your son will live’ (4.50a). The official believes Jesus’ words and follows his command (4.50b). We have seen how Thomas had defined himself in John 11 and 14 in terms of loyalty to Jesus. Yet every other disciple is sent out before he is (20.21b).44 The basiliko\j and Thomas also differ markedly on their openness to testimony. The basiliko\j shows such a high degree of belief in Jesus’ claim 42 While noting neither Jesus’ use of e0an mh\ in 4.48 nor the other similarities this verse has to 20.25b, Michaels notes that the Johannine Jesus utters e0an mh\ statements in 3.5; 6.44, 65; 8.24; 12.24; 13.8; 15.4. Gospel of John, pp.1015–16. 43 True to his mode of discourse and dripping with irony, Thomas uses a statement of Jesus from a sign that occurred this side of death; the notice that the official’s son ‘was about to die’ occurs just prior to Jesus’ statement, ‘Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe’ (4.48). Interestingly the character adept at citing Jesus’ words against Jesus’ purposes begins his statement in 20.25b with a contingent expression ( E 0 a\n mh\ - ‘unless, if not’) similar to the contingent expression (ei0 mh\ - ‘except, if not’) that are virtually the final words Jesus says specifically to Thomas in their last exchange: ‘No one comes to the Father except through me’ (ei0 mh\ di0 e0mou 14.6b). In 14.7 Jesus moves to addressing all the disciples with plural verbs. 44 His break with Jesus by not being with him at his death and by denying the report of his resurrection can be expected to have caused severe internal reactions in a character with such a raison d’être: the grievousness of which is reflected in the gruesome asperity of his comment in 20.25b. It would be consistent with such a character development if Thomas would seek to express his loyalty in a manner so as to undo as much of his disloyalty, which effaced his purpose, as possible (20.28). Undoing the unfavourable comparison that Thomas had himself made between the imperial official as loyal follower of Jesus and he himself as a disloyal one is what he can muster. This is not to claim that 20.28 reflects imperial terminology, much less such terminology addressed to Domitian or coming from Domitian. See Martial, Epig. 5.8.1; 7.34.8; 9.66.3; Suetonius, Dom. 13.2; Dio Cassius 67.4.7; 67.13.4; Dio Chrystostom, Or. 45.1. The combination of ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ was used at least six times before Domitian of Ptolemaic rulers and of Augustus, and there are six ‘approximate parallels’ to the combination of these terms to refer to God in the LXX and three in Philo: (applied to Ptolemaic kings) BGU VIII 1764.8; 1789.3; 1834.7; 1838.1; (applied to Augustus) P. Oxy. 1143; BGU VIII 1200.11; (applied to YHWH) Ps 34.23; Dan. 2.47; Tob. 13.4; Jdt. 5.21; 7.28; Sir. 23.4; Philo, Som. 1.159-60; Quis Her. 22; Quaest. In Gen. 2.53. F. Parker, ‘“Our Lord and our God” in Rev 4,11: Evidence for the Late Date of Revelation’?, Bib 82 (2001), pp.212–16, 221.

102

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

that his son will live that he does not press his claim for Jesus to accompany him to his son who is nearing death. He departs from the one he feels can help him, relying solely on Jesus’ word. Thomas has also experienced the signs, but they have not led to a faith in him based on testimony. Thomas closes down the testimony of what Jesus said to the disciples by himself interjecting that he needs to see certain signs in order to believe. This is consistent with his penchant in other places either to dissuade dialogue or to limit its scope. Thus, he positions his comment in 11.16 right after Jesus’ call to move from dialogue to action. There is no response to Thomas at this point, the moment of action having arrived. The comment by Thomas in 14.5 is phrased as a call for concrete instruction rather than for reflective rumination. In effect, Thomas says here, ‘If you want us to follow you, then you have to tell us clearly where you are going’. By way of helpful contrasts, the other two queries in this chapter, by Philip and Judas, are much more open-ended, inviting a longer response by Jesus: Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied. Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us and not to the world?

(14.8) (14.22)

In 20.25b, Thomas precludes the effectiveness of further testimony by the disciples by claiming that such testimony is not sufficient for him; he needs a personal experience of a very particular type.45 In a gospel intended to disclose the signs, which in turn disclose Jesus (20.31), this penchant to minimize witness is problematic. Thus, the contrast between Thomas and those who do not see and yet believe (20.29) is enlightened by another contrast in the gospel between Thomas and one who does not see and yet believes (4.43-54; 20.19-29). But although the royal official believes in the future sign of Jesus’ power of life over death (4.50b), he does not do so without the benefit of previous signs (4.48). The royal official was representative of the Galileans about whom Jesus says, ‘Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will not believe’ (4.48).46 This links the royal official to the Galileans as a whole, and in 4.45 we read that the Galileans saw the signs that Jesus had done in Jerusalem.47 This argues that the blessing in 20.29 of those who have not seen and yet believe is on 45 Thomas is the only one among the disciples who fails to remain open to the testimony and who claims that he will not believe without certain signs. 46 Unlike the rest of this group, however, the official has learned from these signs and is able to believe in future signs of God’s power for life over death. Ironically, the words of Jesus in 4.48 apply to Thomas rather than to the Galilean official who has followed Jesus’ order as he would the order of the emperor. 47 Brown notes the similarities between John 4.46-54 and Mk. 7.25-30, where the woman is clearly seen as representative of a group of people. The similarities suggest that the basiliko\j of 4.46-54 is also representative of his group, the Galileans. Brown, John I–XII, p.191.

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­103

those who can learn, like the royal official and unlike Thomas, from the ‘signs’ written in this gospel to live into a future of belief in God’s power of life over death without the most obvious sign to it, a resurrection appearance.48 Loyalty Answers Loyalty Yet Jesus makes Thomas his special reclamation project. This is shown both by the tenor of the Johannine resurrection appearances prior to the one in which Thomas is involved and by the focus of the last resurrection appearance in John 20 itself. Jesus appears to Thomas and to the other disciples ‘eight days later’. When he revealed himself to Mary Magdalene, there appeared to be a sense of urgency that is missing in the temporal index of ‘eight days’. Jesus appears to Mary early in the morning of the first day and tells her not to touch him because he has not yet ascended. The next appearance occurs in the evening of the same day (20.1, 19). In Lk. 24.29 there is the notice that the conclusion of the appearance to the two disciples who were going to Emmaus occurred ‘toward evening’. There is no feeling there, however, that the appearances are coming to a close. In fact, Acts 1.3 says that Jesus appeared to the disciples for forty days. Similarly, in neither Mark nor Matthew’s gospels is there a sense of drivenness in the resurrection appearances. Mark 16.12, 14 links these appearances by the temporally unspecific, meta_ de\ tau=ta and u3steron terms. Matthew allows sufficient time between appearances to travel from Jerusalem to Galilee (Mt. 28. 10, 16). On the other hand, the statement by the Johannine Jesus about not touching him because he has not yet ascended intimates that this journey is about to occur; otherwise, there would be time for touching, as Jesus invited the disciples to do in Lk. 24.39. When John writes in 20.19 that Jesus appears again in the evening of that day, there is a hint that this may be the final appearance: that the ascent, which was the reason for not touching Jesus in the morning of that day, is about to occur that evening. The connection between the two times is tighter in John than are the temporal links between the comparable events in the other canonical gospels. In all four gospels there are accounts of a woman or women going to the tomb early on the first day. Only in Matthew and John, however, is there actually a resurrection appearance at this time (Mt. 28.9-10; Jn 20.1417). In all of the other canonical accounts besides John, the women come to the tomb when it is light.49 In the FG, however, Mary Magdalene arrives ‘while it was still dark’ (20.1). The resumption of the darkness imagery in the evening of 20.19 creates a sense of closure to the resurrection appearances beginning in an experience in the dark that morning. This imagery is apt for a gospel that includes in Jesus’ summary of his ministry the statement, ‘I have come as light 48 J. Ramsey Michaels saw the royal official as representative of those who do not see and yet believe (20.29), but he noted neither that the royal official experienced other signs nor that the contrast is between the royal official and Thomas; rather, he saw the contrast as being between the royal official and the disciples in general. See John, p.80. 49 In Mk. 16.2, they arrive ‘when the sun had risen’; in Lk. 21.1, ‘at early dawn’; and in Mt. 28.1, ‘at dawn’.

104

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

into the world that whoever believes in me may not remain in the darkness’ (12.46). The light is ready to leave the world in the evening appearance to the disciples sans Thomas. Therefore, this disciple is in danger of being overtaken by the darkness, an image in 12.35b that seems almost tailored to apply to Thomas because it is followed by the words, ‘he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes’ (12.35c). The words ou0k oi]den pou= u9pa&gei in this clause have an echo in Thomas’ words, ou0k oi1damen pou= u9pa&geij in 14.5. Before John 21was included in the gospel, then, the narrative sends some signals that 20.19-23 may be Jesus’ final resurrection appearance. The appearance in 20.26-29 appears to be solely for the sake of Thomas. After his initial two-word greeting to all the disciples, Jesus confines his speech in this appearance to Thomas. Moreover, his words show both that he is aware of the response of Thomas to the other disciples’ claim to have seen the Lord and that Jesus has returned to address this response. Jesus reprises in 20.27 Thomas’ statement to the disciples in 20.25.50 The Johannine Jesus does not leave alone without faith the disciple who kept the group with Jesus when Jesus was in danger of going it alone (11.1-16). Loyalty answers loyalty. Jesus’ return after ‘eight days’ links Thomas to the experience of the resurrection day. The appearance to Thomas on this day shatters the temporal tyranny that held sway over this disciple by a concrete experience of resurrection time.51 Jesus reclaims the disciple who now appears quondam, a part of the world that has rejected Jesus. This perspective is rooted in the hues that 20.24-29 receives from the immediately prior verses that treat the appearance of the risen Lord to the other disciples (20.19-23). Jesus had just given these other disciples the Holy Spirit with the authority to forgive or retain the sins of people (20.22-23). The last time the Holy Spirit was linked to sin was in 16.711. There we read that the Counsellor will show that the world is wrong about sin, righteousness, and judgment.52 All three of these accusations link to the character of Thomas, as he is portrayed in 20.24-29. Let us take these three accusations in turn and deal with how they apply to Thomas in 20.24-29. First, in 16.8 the sin of the world is said to be its lack of belief in Jesus. In 20.25 Thomas proclaims that he will not believe without further proof. Second, in 16.10 the FG says that the Counsellor will show the world wrong about righteousness. The primary proof given in this verse for showing the world wrong about righteousness is that Jesus goes to the Father. This is the principal tenet of Jesus’ teaching that Thomas has been denying and that he denies in 20.25. Part of what he denies by his desire to touch Jesus is Mary’s claim that Jesus is not 50 W. Bonney has argued that the focus in 20.24-29 is not primarily on how Thomas comes to believe but on Jesus as bringing him to belief. The Doubting Thomas Story at the Climax of John’s Christological Narrative (BIS, 62; Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp.131, 139, 142. 51 The marks of Jesus also break the death-hold on Thomas’ views. Where Thomas thought to see the victory of death, he saw the reign of life. 52 The term e0le/gcei in 16.8 refers to the world being proven wrong, although there is no unanimity on the shadings of this term, on who will receive this proof, or on what will be the results of this proof. See,. e.g., Carson, John, pp.536–9; Brown, John XIII–XXI, p.705; Morris, John, pp.618–20.

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

­105

to be touched because he is going to the Father (20.17). 53 Thomas, and no other disciple, is largely defined by this denial. The third link between the character of Thomas in 20.24-29 and 16.8-11 is in terms of proving that the world was wrong in terms of judgment ‘because the ruler of this world is judged’ (16.11). This claim in 16.11 refers to the evaluation by unbelievers of Jesus’ being handed over to Pilate and sentenced to death. Through his passion and death, however, Jesus overcame Satan.54 Significantly, like 16.11, 12.31 treats the judgment of o9 a!rxwn tou= ko/smou tou/tou. Connected to this judgment in 12.31 is the claim in 12.32 of Jesus’ victory through his death. By his threefold, bitterly ironic assertion in 20.25 of the definite victory of death, Thomas shows that his own judgment is wrong. It is not Jesus who has lost his hold on life but Satan who has lost his hold on the world. The narrative function of these connections is to suggest that Thomas is the disciple who is proven wrong with the world on sin justice, and judgment Thomas is a paradigmatic figure of one who looks as though he should be excluded from Johannine communion. These disciples have had Jesus’ new life breathed upon them. In the FG, sin is primarily identified by lack of belief in Jesus (3.16-19; 16.8-9). Thus, it is the reaction of the world to the disciples who now share Jesus’ life that will signal whether the disciples recognize people’s sins as forgiven or as retained (20.23).55 Specifically, the reaction of people to their witness will be the criterion for inclusion into or exclusion from the family of God. Thus, when Thomas refuses to believe in the witness of the disciples to the resurrected Lord, he is doing exactly what, from an explicitly Johannine perspective, constitutes the basis for exclusion.56 The Johannine Jesus acts, however, to preclude any such action by those newly given the power to enact it. By so doing, the evangelist shows that the Johannine community couples with a strict criterion for group inclusion a sense of communal boundaries permeable to those who manifest courageous presence to their group.57 53 Perhaps the final clause in 16.10 (‘and you see me no longer’) alludes to Thomas. This clause explains the proof that the world is wrong about righteousness because Jesus goes to the Father with the claim that the ascension is clear to the disciples by their no longer seeing him. The final clause itself breaks up the threefold parallelism in vv.9-11 where a peri\ clause is followed by a o4ti one. In so doing, it calls attention to itself, pointing forward to the juxtaposition of those who do not see and yet believe and Thomas who requires sight for his belief (20.29). 54 Morris, John, p.620; Carson, John, p.538; Brown, John XIII–XXI, pp.713–14. 55 F. Gench, Encounters with Jesus: Studies in the Gospel of John (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), pp.135–6. 56 Thomas must bear the weight of disbelief that is apportioned much more evenly in the Lukan tradition. All the Lukan disciples have problems believing in the particular appearance of Jesus as narrated in Lk. 24.36-51. The burden of the disbelief in the Johannine story and Jesus’ disapprobation of this disbelief – a disapprobation not found in the Lukan account – falls squarely and solely on the Johannine Thomas. 57 In this regard, it should be noted that without positing the reason proposed here, some have noted that the disciples maintain fellowship with Thomas despite his refusal to accept their testimony. See A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948), p.360; Wengst, Das Johannesevangelium, p.296.

106

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

Thomas is the triumph of orthopraxy, which in its Johannine modulation is a courageous loyalty to Jesus. But before then, the disciple who alone had kept the group loyal to Jesus in John 11 is the last of them to encounter the risen Lord and the only one among them to express his opposition to this possibility.58 Thomas did not have a faith that could ultimately support his loyalty. Jesus provides him in John 20 with the faith that re-energized and supported his loyalty: ‘My Lord and my God’.59 Thomas’ high confession in 20.28 should be looked at in the light of the power of his words in 20.25b. One powerful utterance provides a new way of living toward Jesus that is a 180 degree turn from his prior intense response of denying life in Jesus to acknowledging him as the source of all life (20.25b, 28). By so doing, Thomas moves readers back from the narrative proper with its treatment of events in this world to the beginning of the prologue with its affirmations that through Jesus all things came to be and that in him was life (1.3-4). Thomas’ final acclamation of Jesus as ‘my God’ forms an inclusion to the final affirmation in 1.1, ‘and the Word was God’, an inclusion strengthened by other verbal echoes in 20.28, 31 to the prologue.60 The former death-sayer utters the most profound appreciation of the life force in Jesus.61 The character 58 Thomas continues to function as a warning against obduracy. But accompanying his obduracy is the tenacity with which he remains loyal to Jesus and to the disciples. This persistence becomes an example for subsequent Christians of the sphere of witness that may open one to the transforming experience of the life over death that engenders belief. The disciple who had so much difficulty with the signs, himself reaches us as multivalent sign. 59 Principally on the basis of 20.28, A. DeConick has argued that the Johannine Thomas represents the criticism of a faith based on ‘visionary mysticism’. She sees support for this perspective in the passages on no one but Jesus ever having seen, or having ascended to God (1.18; 3.13; 5.37; 6.46) and views this criticism as directed against the tradition of the sayings found in the Gospel of Thomas. A. DeConick, Voices of the Mystics (JSNTSS, 137; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); Idem, ‘John Rivals Thomas’, Jesus in the Johannine Tradition (R. Fortna and T. Thatcher, eds; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001); Idem, ‘“Blessed Are Those Who Have Not Seen” (Jn 20:29): Johannine Dramatization of an Early Christian Discourse’, The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration (J. Turner and A. McGuire, eds.; NHMS, 44; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp.381–98. The thesis would be more likely if it were grounded in the other passages in which Thomas appears in John’s gospel. 60 M. Martin has noted that both 20.30-31 and 21.25 are similar to types of epilogues that Aphthonius wrote about, arguing that the gospel originally ended in 20.30-31. John 20.31, says Martin, echoes the acclamation of Jesus as the Christ found in 1.17 in the conclusion of the prologue. ‘A Note on the Two Endings of John’, Bib 87 (2006), 523–5. It can be added that the image of Jesus as God’s Son in 20.28 is found in connection with the title Christ in both 1.18 and 20.31. See also J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), pp.127–8; J. Gnilka, Johannesevangelium (2nd edn; NTD; Würzburg: Echter, 1985), p.155; P. Dschulnigg, Jesus Begegnen, p.230; D. Lee, Flesh and Glory: Symbolism, Gender and Theology in the Gospel of John (New York: Herder and Herder, 2002), p.32; K. Wengst, Das Johannesevangelium, p.299. These considerations strengthen the view that Thomas’ confession is an allusion to the prologue. 61 Thomas is fixed in the realm of death by his comments in 20.25. The one who came back from this realm brings Thomas back with him. The one who conquers death conquers the death fixation of Thomas.

There Is (No) More: God from Beyond the Limits of Belief

107­

who denied the possibility of a transition between worlds leads readers in this transition by means of a textual jump to the prologue with its emphasis on the world beyond time that the prologue depicts.62

62 Several of the anonymous characters in this gospel exhibit a faith that is a model for the core group of disciples. Although seemingly on the periphery of the Jesus group, in contrast to those who accompany Jesus, many Samaritans believe in Jesus, as do the royal official and the man born blind (Jn 4.39, 41, 50, 53; 9.38). All of them exist at the margins of either acceptable Jewish society or of the Johannine group. This is noted in 4.9 and 9.2 in the cases of the Samaritan woman and the man born blind. In the case of the royal official, there is a denigration of him by his being said to be representative of the Galileans who had believed on the basis of ‘signs and wonders’ and by Jesus saying that ‘a prophet has no honour in his own country’ (4.44-45, 48). Even in the core group, anonymity is linked to stellar faith and to the background of the recognized (Petrine) foreground. Thus, the exemplar of Johannine faith is the Beloved Disciple who defers to Peter in 13.24-25; 20.68; 21.7, 20. The possibilities for faith that are found on the margins inform those in the community’s centre, and Thomas is the disciple in the core whose tendencies place him simultaneously in a marginal position. His confession in 20.28 functions as the greatest Johannine confession.

Chapter 4 The Johannine Thomas in the Contexts Cultural Topoi of PARRHSI/A and Friendship

of the

And hold that skill dear that most dares. Richard Eberhart, ‘Matador’ 0Erwthqei\j ti/ ka&lliston e0n anqrw&poij, e1fh, parrhsi/a. Having been asked what is the most beautiful thing among men, he replied, ‘Frankness’. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers 6.69 parrhsi/a de\ fili/aj suggene/j. Frankness is related to friendship. Philo, Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? 21

Thomas as a Boundary Figure

Having looked at the lineaments of Thomas within the context of the Johannine narrative, it remains to be seen if there is a classical matrix that can further clarify the portrayal of this character. How can his intrapersonal and interpersonal twinship be explained? The concept of Thomas as a threshold or boundary figure, treated in relation to Thomas’ role in John 11, will be explored in more detail. The support that Thomas gives to a position that is in opposition both to Jesus and to the other disciples places him in somewhat of a fringe position in relation to the community of the Johannine Jesus. It is argued that this opposition is understandable in terms of Thomas’ penchant for parrhsi/a: bold, open speech. The parrhsi/a of Thomas will be treated both in the context of the passages in which it is manifested and in the larger cultural context of the connection between parrhsi/a and friendship. There are a number of criteria for using comparative material as a heuristic device. The first is to distinguish the type of comparison one is proposing. Is it a historical or a typological one? The former consists of a direct or an indirect borrowing from a source while the latter is a matter of influence rather than borrowing.1 My comments will be restricted to typological comparisons as this is the type used in this study. The wider the field in which the comparative tradition is located 1 Meir Malul, The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (AOAT, 227; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), pp.13–19; 89–91.

The Johannine Thomas in the Context of Cultural Topoi

­109

the more likely it may have exercised an influence on the feature in the writing that one is studying. This does not preclude the possibility that a tradition that does not have a wide circulation may also exert an influence on a writer. The greater the number of witnesses to the tradition, however, and the more diverse types of writings in which it is found in the cultural heritage of the writer whom one is studying, the more comfortable the interpreter can feel about the possibility for a typological influence of the one on the other. The second through the fourth criteria also mark the responsible use of comparative material. Second, any comparison needs to be firmly grounded in an analysis of the primary text that is being studied. Before one looks for topoi that may have influenced the presentation of a literary feature, it is necessary to discern the lineaments of that feature in its own context. The fuller this contextual exploration, the better prepared one is to look for relevant comparative material that may have served as an influence. Third, one must allow for diversity within unity in any comparison.2 No example of a topos conforms in every way to every other example of it. Authors are influenced by previous presentations, but they also have varying degrees of independence to modify them conceptually or in their manner of expression. The distinctions between the materials may be as significant as the similarities. Fourth, the determination has to be made as to how probable it is that the author of the text that is under scrutiny had any connection with the material that is being used as a typological model to help interpret it. Are the pieces of literature that are being compared from the same geographical area or cultural sphere?3 These criteria ground both the choice of sources that treat parrhsi/a and their application to the interpretation of the Johannine Thomas. It will be helpful briefly to summarise, from the perspective of the resistance of Thomas, features that we have treated before. On the surface it appears as if Thomas’ statement in 11.16 puts him squarely on the side of Jesus. His statement of the purpose for going with Jesus is, however, in direct opposition to the purpose for the disciples’ accompaniment that Jesus himself articulates. (It is also a countercurrent to the implication in the comments by the other disciples that Jesus should avoid Judea [11.8, 12].) There is a battle of purpose clauses in 11.15-16. Jesus says that these events with Lazarus will be ‘in order that ( i3na) they may believe’ (pisteu/shte, 11.15). Pisteu/w is used elsewhere in John 11 to refer to belief in Jesus’ power of life over death.4 This argues that in 11.15 Jesus is claiming that the purpose of the journey is to increase the faith of the disciples on this very issue. By exhorting his fellow disciples to go ‘in order that’ ( i3na) they may die with Jesus, Thomas places himself in opposition to Jesus’ purpose; Thomas asserts death’s victory.

2 S. Niditch, Folklore and the Hebrew Bible (GBS; OT Series; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), p.11. 3 S. Talmon, ‘The Comparative Method in Biblical Interpretation’, in Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content – Collected Studies (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), p.17. 4 John 11.25, 26, 27, 40, 42, 45, 48.

110

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

We have seen how Thomas’ comment and question in 14.5 appear to manifest neither an ignorance of what Jesus is saying nor merely a doubt of its veracity, but a wilful rejection of it.5 In contrast, the comments by Peter, Philip and Judas on this occasion are respectful queries. (Peter’s questions are accompanied by an asseveration of loyalty). While maintaining a respectful tone – Thomas begins his comments with the address ‘Lord’ – there are in his words at this point the same admixture of loyalty and resistance found in his words in 11.16. There is loyalty as he wants to know the way to follow Jesus: ‘How can we know the way?’ (14.5b). There is opposition as he steadfastly refuses to accept Jesus’ message that he is going to the Father’s house (14.2-3): ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going’ (14.5a). The questions by Peter, Philip and Judas are not immediately preceded by comments from Jesus that anticipate and respond to their questions as is the case with Thomas’ question. Thomas is wilfully obstinate. Finally, in 20.24-29 this character’s willingness to take a stance counter to the group is graphically demonstrated in his not being present when the risen Jesus first meets them. His opposition to them continues when they announce that they have seen the Lord, and it is expressed in unequivocal terms (20.25). There is an individual assertiveness that this character possesses in opposition to the other disciples and Jesus while still maintaining an attachment to them.

Refracted Virtue: Parrhsi/a and the Johannine Thomas

It is proposed that this resistance that the Johannine Thomas demonstrates is presented by the evangelist as a type of open and bold speech that the Greeks termed parrhsi/a. Thomas’ speech refracts the parrhsi/a of the Johannine Jesus. Thomas’ speech arises as a response to Jesus’ parrhsi/a and it continues in this same vein although in such a way as to refract rather than to strictly mirror it. Let us begin by looking at the meanings, and New Testament uses of parrhsi/a as a background for our study. This term has several meanings. In the classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods through the first century CE it can mean frankness, freedom of speech, openness or, in a negative sense, an uncontrolled tongue. It can also denote either a freedom of action or a liberality. Finally, it can also mean either courage or confidence.6 Parrhsi/a 5 See above, pp.66–78. 6 See LSJ, p.1344; BAGD, pp.630–31. In LXX Job 22.26 and in a number of occurrences in Philo, Josephus and First John, for example, parrhsi/a means confidence before God. According to E. Peterson this type of use of the term is first found in Jewish literature. ‘Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von Parresia’, in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift (ed. W. Koepp; Leipzig: D. Werner Scholl, 1929), p.289. See Peterson, pp.295–6 for this use of parresia in the patristic writings. G. J. M. Bartelfink writes that at times in the martyr literature it is by their acts that the martyrs acquire parrhsi/a in the sense of confidence before God. ‘Quelques observations sur parresia dans la litérature paléochrétienne’, in Graecitas et Latinitas Christianorum Primaeva: Supplementa (C. Mohrmann, G. Bartelfink and L. Engels, eds; Nijmegan: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1970), p.36, n.4. Bartelfink argues

The Johannine Thomas in the Context of Cultural Topoi

­111

is used once by Mark, nine times by John, four times in The First Letter of John, twelve times in Luke (all in the Acts of the Apostles), ten times in the Pauline, Deutero-Pauline and Pastoral Epistles, and four times in the Letter to the Hebrews.7 In The First Letter of John it is used to refer to a confidence that the believer can have before God.8 The appearances of this term in the Gospel of John are, however, of a different type. Let us begin with the use of parrhsi/a in John 11.15. Jesus had recently left Judea because of attempts on his life there (7.32; 8.59; 10.31, 39, 40). In 11.7, he calls the disciples to go again to this area (11.7). His disciples recognize the danger and object to the proposed journey (11.8). In response, Jesus provides them both with sayings about the proper time for walking (11.910) and with the notice that he is going to wake Lazarus who ‘has fallen asleep’ (kekoi/metai, 11.11). Neither comfort nor euphemism sways the disciples, however, who still attempt to dissuade Jesus (11.12). It is at this point that Jesus speaks parrhsi/a|: ‘Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there so that you may believe. But let us go to him’ (11.14b-15). An effort is made in 11.9-11 to encourage the disciples to walk with Jesus into enemy territory. The rhetorical strategy has entailed not speaking of the danger but rather focusing on the safety both of the present time and of the proposed course of action. There are twelve hours of daylight, begins Jesus, and those who walk in the light do not stumble (11.9). This is a time of safety. It is only if you walk in the night that you stumble (11.10). Jesus had recently told them twice in Jerusalem that he is ‘the light of the world’ (8.12a; 9.5) and said, ‘Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life’ (8.12b). Thus, the image in 11.10 of someone stumbling if he walks in that in the patristic period parrhsi/a sometimes referred to a familiarity with God that is given to those who are martyrs or who practise virtue, mysticism or engage in monastic struggles (‘Quelques observations’, pp.12–34). 7 For the use of parrhsi/a in The Acts of the Apostles see W. C. van Unnik, ‘The Christian’s Freedom of Speech in the New Testament’, in Sparsa Collecta/2: 1 Peter. Canon. Corpus Hellenisticum generalia (vol.2; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980), pp.279–82; S. Winter, ‘Parresia in Acts’, in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (SNT, 82; John T. Fitzgerald, ed.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), pp.185–202. For the use of parrhsi/a in the Pauline tradition see P. Jouön, ‘Divers sens de parresia dans le Nouveau Testament, RSR 30 (1940), pp.239–42; A. Malherbe, ‘Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess ii’, NovT 12 (1970), pp.214–15; Idem, ‘Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles’, in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers (ed. W. E. March; San Antonio: Trinity University, 1980), pp.24–31; Idem, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp.81–94; D. Fredrickson, ‘Parresia in the Pauline Epistles’, in Friendship, Flattery and Frankness, pp.163–84. For parrhsi/a in The Letter to the Hebrews see A. Mitchell, ‘Holding on to Confidence: Parresia in Hebrews’, in Friendship, Flattery and Frankness, pp.185–202. Both H. Schlier and S. Marrow treat parrhsi/a in all of the New Testament documents in which this word occurs. Schlier, ‘Parresia, Parresiazomai’, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (G. Friedrich, transl. and ed. G. Bromiley; vol.5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), pp.871–96; Marrow, ‘Parrhésia and the New Testament’, CBQ 44 (1982), pp.431–46. 8 See 1 Jn 2.28; 3.21; 4.17; 5.14.

112

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

darkness ‘because the light is not in him’ is an allusion that the real danger lies in not following Jesus to Judea. John 11.9-10 paints a picture of safety for the disciples where they have seen only danger. The comfort (11.9-10) and euphemism (11.11) are wrapped in a literary veil of disassociation and ambiguity in an attempt to ease the transition of the disciples into Judea. Not once are the disciples mentioned when Jesus is speaking about safety and danger by means of the light and darkness imagery (11.9-10). It is the impersonal tij (‘someone’) and the corresponding third person singular verbs (he or she walks, does not stumble, sees) that are used. The disciples are verbally removed a step from the danger, which recedes behind the language of every man or woman. When the disciples are again referred to in 11.11 it is in the comforting image of Jesus going to wake ‘our friend’ from sleep. The ambiguity of the image is another way of placing death, about which the disciples have just expressed their fear (11.8), in the cloudy background. These attempts by Jesus to ease the transition to Judea fail, however, as the disciples employ the same euphemistic language as an argument against this journey: ‘Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will be all right’ (11.12). Jesus then abandons euphemism, ambiguity and disassociation and speaks parrhsi/a|. They are told bluntly that Lazarus is dead, and that they will benefit from the fact that Jesus was not there (11.14-15a). The situation regarding Lazarus is presented unambiguously, and the disciples are injected into this situation in a hopeful way. Then Jesus concludes, ‘Let us go to him’ (11.15b). Jesus speaks parrhsi/a| in John 11 when other attempts to move the disciples to go with him into a dangerous situation have failed. The parrhsi/a is a direct attack to break the resistance of the disciples where flanking manoeuvres have failed. It is tied to, and for the purpose of, promoting a courageous return to Judea in order to save the life of a friend. The other uses of parrhsi/a in this gospel also link openness and frankness to danger in a gospel where secrecy is the primary mode adopted for safety. Thus, in 7.4 Jesus’ brothers advise him to go to Judea and stop acting e0n kruptw~| if he wishes to be e0n parrhsi/a.| John 7.7 is clear that it is dangerous for Jesus to be e0n parrhsi/a.| According to 7.13, it is dangerous for anyone to even speak about Jesus parrhsi/a.| For Jesus himself to speak parrhsi/a| could be fatal, and according to his auditors he speaks precisely in this way (7.2526). In 10.24 the potential danger of Jesus speaking parrhsi/a| literally closes around him. The Jews surround (e0ku/klwsan) him, in the process asking him to say parrhsi/a| if he is the Christ. When he concludes his response with a fairly clear, ‘I and the Father are one’, his parrhsi/a results in the attempt to stone him (10.31a). The four remaining uses also participate in the Johannine linkage of openness to danger that is also reflected in the three statements that confessing Jesus leads to being expelled from the synagogue.9 John 11.54 says that Jesus no longer 9 Jn 9.22; 12.42; 16.2. John 16.2 adds that at a certain time ‘whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God’.

The Johannine Thomas in the Context of Cultural Topoi

­113

went about parrhsi/a| but rather retreated to ‘the country near the wilderness’. This follows hard upon the notice, ‘So from that day they took counsel on how to put him to death’ (11.53). In 16.25 Jesus tells the disciples that he has talked to them in ‘figures’ but will speak to them parrhsi/a.| This statement is fulfilled in 16.28 when Jesus says, ‘I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father’. The disciples claim that this statement demonstrates parrhsi/a (16.29). Then Jesus continues speaking in this same vein. The disciples will abandon Jesus and later experience tribulation (16.32-33). Speaking with parrhsi/a| involves making clear the dangers that await and the courage that will be needed to meet them (qarsei=te – ‘Be courageous’ – 16.33). Finally, in 18.20 Jesus speaks parrhsi/a| with the result that he is struck by an officer. Parrhsi/a is dangerous in this gospel. Thus, all of the Johannine passages involving parrhsi/a present this virtue as courageous witness. It is not only 7.26 and 18.20 that highlight this aspect of the term. Even in passages in which the term has the primary meanings of open presence or speech, the courageousness of such presence or speech is indicated directly or indirectly in the text. Although parrhsi/a is used to speak directly only about words or actions of Jesus, and although parrhsi/a occurs in proximity only to the first words of Thomas rather than to his second and third statements, it is proposed that a complex of factors argue that John also uses parrhsi/a to allude to a primary virtue of Thomas. These factors include the occurrence of this term at Thomas’ initial appearance in the narrative, the type of relation established between Jesus’ parrhsi/a in 11.15 and Thomas’ exhortation in 11.16, and the subsequent declarations to which Thomas responds, as well as his responses themselves. It is argued that both the confrontational stance that Thomas is willing to adopt toward Jesus and the disciples in John 11, 14, 20 and the anticipated, or possible, results of his statements demonstrate his willingness to speak parrhsi/a. Because characterization is often a matter of ‘showing’ rather than ‘telling’, the traits of a character must often be inferred from the narrative. These traits are indirectly manifested in the words and deeds of a character as well as in the spatio-temporal matrices with which he or she is associated. A more direct approach would involve the inclusion of the narrator’s views on the thoughts and beliefs of the character.10 John is reticent, however, to use this direct approach with the principal disciples who remain loyal to Jesus or to add any modifiers to their actions or words. Only once does the narrator intrude into the thoughts of the Beloved Disciple, and this with the laconic and cryptic ‘he believed’ (e0pi/steusen – 20.8); the lack of immediate clarity as 10 See M. Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? (GBS; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), p.54; W. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (2nd edn; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1983), pp.3–20; B. Uspensky, A Poetics of Composition: The Structure of the Artistic Text and Typology of a Compositional Form (V. Zavarin and S. Wittig, trs.; Berkeley: University of California, 1973), pp.8–100.

114

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

to what he believed is consonant with the reticence that the narrator displays in directly intruding into the thoughts and beliefs of the leading disciples. So too, it is only in John 21.17 that the narrator tells us that Peter was sad (e0luph/qh). Elsewhere the inner life of Peter is conveyed by his own words, actions and spatio-temporal matrices within which he moves. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the qualities of Thomas must also be induced. The parrhsi/a of the Johannine Thomas is akin to the parrhsi/a demonstrated in a number of the traditions about the Cynics in which (1) the term is absent but the idea is clearly present and in which (2) the willingness of Cynic philosophers to flout the opinions of the group is articulated. To the first category belong several passages from Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers and one from the pseudepigraphic Epistle 29 of Diogenes of Sinope.11 Diogenes Laertius writes that Diogenes of Sinope had a penchant for publicly speaking out against the views of others, including those of Philip and Alexander.12 He also writes about another Cynic, Crates who was called ‘Door-opener’ (Qurepanoi/kthj) because of his habit of going into every house and admonishing those in the household.13 In Epistle 29 of Diogenes of Sinoope we read that Diogenes tells one Dionysius that what the latter needs is not a flatterer, but rather an overlord who will whip him and ‘recall him to his senses and pay heed to what is lacking’. To the second category belong a number of passages in which Cynics transvalue the opinions that their contemporaries have of them. Thus, Antisthenes says that ‘it is a royal privilege to do good and be ill spoken of’ (‘basiliko&n,’ e1fh, ‘kalw~j poiou=nta kakw~j a)kou/ein’).14 Antisthenes was reputed to have claimed that ‘ill repute is a good thing’ (th/n t’ a)doci/an a)gaqo_n) and that the wise man in his public acts is guided by virtue and not by societal laws. Once, when he was informed that many men praised him, he replied, ‘Why? What wrong have I done?’15 The two final examples involve Diogenes of Sinope. In Epistle 7.5-7 Diogenes is purported to have described himself as ‘free from popular opinion (do/chj) to which all, Greeks and Barbarians are slaves’. Second, Diogenes developed a reputation for not giving any authority to convention and for preferring liberty (e0leuqeri/a) to everything else.16 11 Diogenes Laertius may preserve many older traditions of Diogenes of Sinope. Many of his anecdotes concerning Diogenes of Sinope are also found in a section (Epist. 1-29) of the pseudepigraphic Epistles of Diogenes that some consider to date from the first century Bce or earlier. See e.g., V. Emeljanow, ‘The Letters of Diogenes: Portions of Text in Greek and Latin’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1967), pp.3–6. 12 Diog. Laert. 6.24-25, 28, 38-39, 42-45, 68. 13 Diog. Laert. 6.86. 14 Diog. Laert. 6.3. This saying is found also in Plutarch, Alex., 41. 15 Diog. Laert. 6.8. 16 Diog. Laert. 6.71. Links have been proposed between the historical Jesus and Cynicism, and more specifically and germane to the topic of the present section of this book, between the Cynic and the Johannine uses of parrhsi/a. J. Crossan, B. Mack and F. Downing have described Jesus as a Cynic. See J. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper,

The Johannine Thomas in the Context of Cultural Topoi

115­

Thomas refracts rather than reflects Jesus’ parrhsi/a in a way similar to Thomas’ appropriation of Jesus’ message. Jesus’ ideas are not reflected in Thomas’ own ideas until the end of the gospel. Prior to this Jesus’ ideas are bent by this disciple. They will go to Lazarus not in order that they may believe (11.15) but in order to die with him (11.16). Jesus’ affirmation that the disciples know his destination (14.4) is met by Thomas with the claim that they have no idea where he is going (14.5). To the testimony by his fellow-disciples that they have seen the risen Lord (20.25a), Thomas responds sardonically (20.25b). In the light of this Thomasine deflection of Jesus’ ideas, it should come as no surprise that Thomas also refracts, rather than reflects, Jesus’ parrhsi/a. He does so by channelling his own parrhsi/a into his opposition to Jesus and/or the disciples. While Thomas’ speech is clear, his opposition is at first couched behind loyalty (11.16) and then later behind a plea of ignorance (14.5). In Jn 11.16 Thomas responds to Jesus in a manner that, as we have seen, parallels Jesus’ words in 11.14-15. Thomas jumps into the narrative at the place where Jesus speaks openly (parrhsi/a, 11.15) to his disciples about death. The frank and courageous statement by Jesus is responded to just as frankly and just as courageously by Thomas who claims that they are going to their death but exhorts all of the disciples to remain loyal to Jesus to this end (11.16). The similarities of style and content between the statement of Jesus in 11.15 and that of Thomas in 11.16 lead the reader to view this latter statement in the same way in which the former was characterized: as parrhsi/a. The double message of an explicit denial of Jesus’ view on the outcome of the journey and of a loyalty to death confirms this interpretation of 11.16 as courageous speech.

1991), p.421; B. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: Harper, 1993), pp.46–7, 114–15, 119, 162, 203, 212, 245; F. Downing, Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992). A number of scholars have argued against their proposals. See e.g., H. Betz, ‘Jesus and the Cynics’, JR 74 (1994), pp.460–62, 471; P. Eddy, ‘Jesus as Diogenes?: Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis’, JBL 115 (1996), pp.449–69; G. Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God (Wheaton, IL: Bridgepoint, 1995). Mack has argued that the social critique found in Q exemplifies the Cynic parrhsi/a and that this literary feature accurately represents a characteristic of the historical Jesus. William Klassen argued against Mack’s reasons for portraying Jesus as a Cynic and noted that there is a ‘different connotation’ to parrhsi/a in John’s gospel than there is in the Cynic tradition. Klassen claimed, however, that the widespread use of this term in the Cynic tradition is behind John’s use of it. The idea is not that John was aware of the Cynic use of parrhsi/a, but rather that the concept reached John through a Cynic diffusion of this term throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. See W. Klassen, ‘Parresia in the Johannine Corpus’, Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness, pp.245, 254. In response it should be noted that while an indirect application of parrhsi/a to Thomas is compatible with the same type of application to certain Cynics, the concept and the term parrhsi/a itself were in vogue among Epicureans (e.g., Philodemus), Middle Platonists (e.g., Plutarch) and Stoics (e.g., Musonius Rufus) as well. This should give us pause about using this virtue either to identify the historical Jesus as a Cynic or to account for its use in John’s gospel only by means of a Cynic diffusion.

116

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

The same combination of unambiguous opposition to the message of Jesus and the disciples and of courage in this opposition comes through in Thomas’ comments in John 14 and 20. It is noteworthy that Thomas responds in 14.5 and in 20.25b, 28 to statements as frank as the one in 11.15. It is when Jesus’ ambiguous statements about his departure (13.33, 36b), ambiguous because his destination is not mentioned, become clarified with two back-to-back claims that he is going to the Father (14.2-3) that Thomas openly claims to know neither Jesus’ destination nor the way there. Openness and directness are met by Thomas in the same fashion. The pellucid claim ‘We have seen the Lord’ (20.25a) is greeted by an equally clear and explicitly detailed statement by Thomas of what it will take for him to believe (20.25). Even his final confession of Jesus (‘My Lord and my God’ – 20.28) is the clearest affirmation of the identity of the Johannine Jesus that is found among any of the disciples in this gospel. He is clearly wrong or clearly right, but always he is clear. His comments in Jn 14.5 and in 20.25b are consistent with the courageous commitment to be loyal to Jesus to death (11.16) because by these subsequent oppositions he risks disaffiliation both from the master to whom he has so totally committed himself and from the small and ostracized group to which he belongs. He has in no uncertain terms expressed his belief that there was no existence after death (14.5) and no existence of the risen Lord (20.25b). Others in the Johannine narrative had expressed disbelief of Jesus’ power of life over death (6.60; 8.52-53). These disciples (6.60) and others who had believed in Jesus (8.31, 52-53) subsequently apostatized (6.66; 8.52-53, 59). There is a precedent for disbelief of this type placing one on a slippery slope that slants away from Jesus and his group. The fact that Jesus has already made belief in his power of life beyond death a litmus test for discipleship also highlights the bravery demonstrated in the repeated and unambiguous denials of this tenet by Thomas. This type of belief is presented as the touchstone for discipleship in John 6 and especially in 6.58-64. Responding to the disciples who demur (6.60) about his claim that the one who eats this bread will live forever (6.58), Jesus claims that these words are ‘spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe’ (6.6364). The reference to words of life in 6.63b picks up the ideas found in 6.35, 40, 47 that it is belief in Jesus’ words that gives life, and in John 6 these words are about the gift of eternal life.17 Thus, a disciple is one who believes in the gift of everlasting life in Jesus.18 The rejection of this tenet by Thomas is all 17 The evangelist writes in 6.33, 35, 50-51, 53-54, 58 about Jesus as the bread of life who gives eternal life to others. 18 In its final canonical position the words of life also refer to belief (6.63b) that ‘eating’ Jesus as the bread of life (6.51, 53-54, 58) brings eternal life. John 6.51-58 is often thought of as an addition to the original discourse. See e.g., Bultmann, John, pp.218–21; Brown, John I–XII, pp.285–91; J. Becker, Das Evangelium des Johannes (OTKNT, 4/1; Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1971), pp.219–21. The similar pattern found in 3.9-12 and in 6.60-63 and the linkage in 3.13-15 of Jesus’ ascent to the gift of eternal life argue that the questions in 6.61-62, which focus on Jesus’ ascension, are

The Johannine Thomas in the Context of Cultural Topoi

­117

the more striking, and exhibits his boldness all the more markedly, given the role of this tenet in determining the parameters of the group. What can we say about Thomas’ parrhsi/a from the cultural context of the ancient Mediterranean world? Resonance with ideas found in this larger matrix will be explored. The concern is not to delineate every nuance that parrhsi/a had in the ancient Mediterranean world, but rather to present those types of uses that show a similarity to the words of the Johannine Thomas and thus which may shed light on these words. It is not necessarily a question of direct borrowing but rather of indirect assimilation of the cultural heritage and intellectual ambiance with which we are concerned. Before treating the relevant background, a thumbnail historical sketch of parrhsi/a is helpful as a framework within which to situate the following discussion. In the second half of the fifth century Bce and throughout much of the fourth century Bce parrhsi/a denoted the right of free male citizens of Athens to speak their minds freely.19 After Athens succumbed to Macedonian domination, parrhsi/a was construed as a private virtue expressed among friends rather than as a right that was publicly and politically exercised.20 According to David Konstan, this change coincided with a new manner in which friendship was discussed. In the Hellenistic period more attention was given to the relations between the ruler or the wealthy person and those who accompanied them than to the relation between social equals. The danger that was perceived in the former type of relation is that a flatterer would mimic friendship for personal gain and to the detriment of the one being flattered. Although flattery (kolakei/a) and the flatterer (ko/lac) were treated by prior writers, the Hellenistic Age was the heyday for the treatment of this type of behaviour and this type of character.21 themselves connected to the statements on the gift of eternal life (6.58, 63-64) as together comprising a litmus test for discipleship: belief in Jesus’ power of life over death (6.33, 35, 40, 47, 50-51, 53-54, 58, 61b-64). Both in 3.9-15 and in 6.60-63 a question about Jesus’ teaching is followed first by Jesus’ questioning the questioner and then by Jesus’ explanation in terms of the ascension. 19 See e.g., Polybius. 2, 38, 6; Demosthenes, Or. 7.1; 9.3; 60.26; Euripides, Phoen. 392; Hipp. 421-22. Slaves and foreigners had no such right (Euripides Ion. 673) unless by way of exception (Demosthenes, Or. 9.3). See also A. Momigliano, ‘Freedom of Speech in Antiquity’, Dictionary of the History of Ideas (ed. P. Wiener; vol. 2; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973–4), p.258. Cf. Peterson, ‘Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von Parrhsi/a’, p.283, n.3. 20 See e.g., Bartelfink, ‘Quelques observations sur Parresia’, p.10. The temporal demarcation of these two types of uses of this term is not hard and fast. As Erik Peterson notes, already with Isocrates (436–338 BC) parrhsi/a was used of friends rather than as a political right (‘Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von Parrhsi/a’, pp.285–6). See also C. Glad, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (SNT, 81; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), pp.105–106. Thus, we need to think of a transition in the predominant use of this term occasioned by a different socio-political reality rather than of mutually exclusive periods. 21 D. Konstan, ‘Friendship, Frankness and Flattery’, in Friendship, Flattery and Frankness, pp.9–12. I note that for a prior treatment of flattery see e.g., Eth. Eud. 2.3.4, where Aristotle defines moral goodness as a middle state between the excess and lack of certain characteristics. In a list of the virtues he says that flattery (kolakei/a) is the excess of the emotion that properly moderated leads to the virtue of friendship (fili/a). The flatterer approves more than is fitting to approve (kai\ ko&lac me\n o( plei/w sunepainw~n h2 kalw~j e1xei – Eth. Eud. 2.3.8).

118

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

Parrhsi/a was presented often as the hallmark of the true friend and that which distinguished him from the flatterer.22 A common definition of the flatterer (ko/lac) was ‘one who speaks to please’ (o9 pro/j xa&rin le/gein).23 The flatterer has the Protean capacity to adapt his speech and deeds to please others.24 This malleability is sometimes used to conceal his own flattery. Thus, rather than being present at feasts and consuming much at them, the flatterer may conceal his flattery behind the ruse of a sober appearance and the gravity of a true friend. According to Plutarch, one way to discern such an ingenious deceiver is by realizing that this one is always cheerful and ‘never crosses or opposes’ (mhde\n antibai/nonta mhd’ enantiou/menon e9auto&n). The flatterer focuses on what gives someone pleasure and not with what displeases. To this end, he always agrees with the one he is flattering, even if the one who is being flattered reverses his or her opinion. At times the cajoler feigns parrhsi/a in order to give spice to his relations, but that the parrhsi/a is feigned is clearly signalled by its use: he criticizes only about insignificant matters in order to conceal his flattery; about matters of substance he finds no fault.25 Flattery can ruin the one who is its recipient. Diogenes of Sinope, being asked what creature’s bite is the worst, replied: ‘Of those that are wild a sycophant’s; of those that are tame a flatterer’s (ko/lac)’. Another Cynic, Crates, is purported to have said: ‘Those who live with flatterers … are as defenceless as calves in the midst of wolves; for neither have any to protect them, but only such as plot against them.’ Antisthenes, considered the founder of the Cynic movement, said: ‘It is better to fall in with crows than with

22 See e.g., Isocrates, Or. 2.3-4; Josephus, Ant. 15.217; Cicero, Lael. 91. Plutarch writes that it was commonly ‘said and thought’ (legome/nhn kai\ dokou=san) that parrhsi/a is the voice of friendship (How To Tell a Flatterer From a Friend 51C). Parrhsi/a and kolakei/a were frequently treated in conjunction with each other. See e.g., 1 Thess. 2.2, 5; Cicero, Amic. 91-99. In Amic. 25.91-95; 26.97-99 the flatterer is opposed to the true friend, and, as we will see, for Cicero parrh/sia is a key ingredient of friendship. The pioneering study on flattery in the ancient Mediterranean world is O. Ribbeck’s KOLAX: Ein Ethologische Studie (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1883). 23 See e.g., Athenaeus, Sophists at Dinner 238B; Philo, Plant. 104-106; Plutarch, How To Tell a Flatterer 55A, 55D; Maximus of Tyre, Disc. 14.1. 24 Athenaeus, Deipn. 258A. Commenting on the behavioural suppleness of the flatterer, Plutarch writes that this type of individual ‘adjusts and shapes himself, as though he were so much inert matter, endeavoring to adapt and mold himself to fit those whom he attacks through imitation’ (How To Tell a Flatterer 51C). Paradigmatic flatterers in antiquity include Gnatho in The Eunuch by Terence and Pyrgopolynices in The Bragging Soldier by Plautus. They agree to everything their masters say in order to make a living. 25 Plutarch, How To Tell a Flatterer 50A-E, 51B-53B, 59B-60B, 63C. Writing about the feigned forthrightness of the mealy-mouthed, Plutarch writes that ‘they wink and tickle’ (e/pillw&ptousan e0c a{fru/oj kai gargali/zousan). Elsewhere (How To Tell a Flatterer 59F-60A) Plutarch writes ‘For the flatterer is the sort of person who will not say a word regarding the actual discourse of a cheap and ridiculous speaker, but will find fault with his voice, and accuse him severely because he ruins his throat by drinking cold water’.

The Johannine Thomas in the Context of Cultural Topoi

119

flatterers (ko/lakaj); for in one case you are devoured when dead, in the other case while alive.’26 Parrhsi/a is both the remedy for the evils that kolakei/a can bring and the sign of the true friend. Thus, Demosthenes claims that frankness is opposed to making popular speeches (dhmogore/w), the latter of which leads to trouble. He also wrote about how parrhsi/a can rectify the dangers brought about by flattery.27 According to Cicero, ‘Some men are better served by their bittertongued enemies than by their sweet-looking friends; the former often tell the truth, the latter never.’ The friend must be like the enemy in this regard, but completely, and not just often, free in his speech.28 The same adamantine forthrightness is evident in the advice by a character in Euripides’ Erechtheus to have friends who are unyielding in their words (mh_ xalw~ntaj e0n lo&goij).29 Finally, Plutarch contrasts the flatterer, who attempts to be ‘pleasant and loyal’ (h9du\j a#ma kai\ pisto_j) by always concurring with the one he is coaxing, with the friend who shows his disapproval over the errors of his friends. The friend does not hesitate to be disagreeable when this is necessary for one’s good. He is motivated by what is good for the other and to this end will praise when it is warranted or use a stinging word (lo&gw| dh/kth|) and parrhsi/a when they are necessary.30 We can begin to see how the portrayal of Thomas makes sense against such an opposition of parrhsi/a and kolakei/a. Prior to his final declaration of faith, all of Thomas’ utterances are unpopular ones. He is unyielding in his message that death has the last word (11.16; 14.5; 20.25b). Far from concurring with what is said, he is repeatedly at odds with it and is clear about his opposition. His comment in 20.25b could be aptly characterized as a ‘stinging word’ (lo&gw| dh/kth|).31 There are four specific parrhsi/a topoi in antiquity that have parallels to the Johannine treatment of Thomas. The first is that it is dangerous to speak in such a way. Although a truism, it was a point nevertheless often made.32 Bold speech may cause a rift with others, social sanctions or even death.33 Josephus writes about how the parrhsi/a of Gurion led to his murder by 26 Diog. Laert. 6.4, 51, 92. These traditions may predate Diogenes Laertius by a number of centuries. Diogenes claims to have found the saying by Antisthenes in the Anecdotes (Peri/ Xrei/ai) of Hecato who was a pupil of the second-century BC Stoic, Panaetius. 27 Demosthenes, Or. 3.3; 9.3; 13.15. 28 Cicero, Amic. 13.44; 18.65; 24.88-90; 25.91. 29 Trag. Graec. Frag., Euripides, No. 362, xi. 18-20. 30 Plutarch, How To Tell a Flatterer 53C-E, 55A-C. Cf. the LXX of Proverbs 10.10 which reads that the one who reproves with parrhsi/a is a peacemaker (o( de\ e0le/gxwn meta_ parrhsi/aj ei0rhnopoiei=). 31 In Heir 302-304, Philo contrasts flatterers, liars, cheaters and misleaders, on the one hand, with the frank person, on the other. The speech of the former is obscure (a)sa&feia, a!dhlon), whereas the speech of the latter, transparent (a)ri/dhloj). 32 See e.g., Demosthenes, Or. 4.51; 6.31; 9.3; 10.53-54; Lucian, Pisc. 20; Peregr. 32; Hermot. 51; Demonax 50; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.19. 33 Isocrates, Or. 8.38-39; Ep. 4.7; Josephus Ant. 18.346.

120

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

the Zealots.34 In a pseudepigraphic Socratic letter it is said that Socrates could have saved himself if he had resorted to flattery and petition, but this would have been unworthy. Instead, he spoke the truth even at the cost of his life.35 Thus, there is inherent danger in parrhsi/a, and this danger acts as a check against the expression of this virtue, which is essential to human well-being. ‘Complaisance gets us friends, the truth, hate’ (obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit).36 The Johannine Thomas is exposed to all of the dangers traditionally ascribed to the exercise of parrhsi/a: estrangement, collective censure and death. We have seen that because of his words Thomas runs the risk of a separation between himself and the rest of the group. Nevertheless, he remains loyal to Jesus and the disciples and by so doing remains ostracized from the larger society: he is one of those who because of their confession of Jesus is a)posuna&gwgoj (Jn 9.22, 34; 12.42; 16.2). Finally, his parrhsi/a is coupled with his risking death for the sake of Jesus (11.16).37 In this regard, sometimes ancient authors wrote about the willingness to die for one’s friend or about Greek pairs in which one braved dangerous situations for the other: Damon and Pythias, Orestes and Pylades, and Achilles and Patroclus.38 A second topos involving parrhsi/a that is found in John’s gospel, and one that logically follows upon the preceding topos, is that only a few have the courage to speak boldly and freely.39 Thus, Lucian writes about the trouble that came upon Demonax because of his free speech and about the courage he needed to continue this type of speech.40 The degree of courage necessary in the practice of this virtue is illustrated in excerpts from Dio Chrysostom and Demosthenes. Dio Chrysostom uses what was perhaps the quintessential military story about courage in the ancient world in his portrayal of the degree of determination needed by those who practise parrhsi/a. He compares them to the Spartans at Thermopylae who fought to the last man even after Ephialtes betrayed them. The struggle to speak freely is a more stubborn battle than even these Spartans faced.41 Parrhsi/a is a sign of manliness (a)ndrei/a) and

34 Josephus J.W. 4.364. 35 Ps. Soc., Ep.14.4-5. See A. Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition (SBLDS, 12; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), p.22. 36 Terence, Andr. 1. 1. 41. 37 See supra, pp.17–32. 38 See e.g., Xenophon, Mem. 2.4.6; Diog. Laert. 10.120; Diogenes, Lives 7.102-7; Euripides, Orest. 804-06; Aeschylus, Orest.; Plutarch, Amic. Mult. 93E; 39 See e.g., Plutarch, How To Tell a Flatterer 66A; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.11, 21. 40 Lucian, Demon. 7, 11. Cf. Ps. Soc. Ep. 1, dated to the first century AD, in which the pseudonymous author treats both how insults can cause one to retreat from society and how parrhsi/a is everyone’s foundation for a righteous life. For the dating of this letter see J. Sykutres, Die Briefe des Sokrates und die Sokratiker (SGKA, 18; Paderborn: F. Schoningh, 1933), p.111; Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, p.27. 41 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 77/78.37, 40-41, 45.

The Johannine Thomas in the Context of Cultural Topoi

­121

of high-mindedness (megalofrosu/nh). Only a few choose the difficult life that it entails. A piece of advice given by Demosthenes indicates the courage necessary for parrhsi/a by underscoring the social support that is helpful for the articulation of this virtue. In an attempt to silence any opposition to Philip that may arise among the Thebans, Philip has marshalled his forces at Elatea. Demosthenes advises the Athenians to send all men of military age to Eleusis along with a deputation offering military aid to those Thebans who oppose Philip. This support, claims Demosthenes, will embolden them to speak frankly about what are the right things to do (parrhsia&zesqai peri\ tw~n dikai/wn).42 The dovetailing of courage and parrhsi/a found in these writers also occurs in the statement by Thomas in Jn 11.16 which clearly expresses both his views on the outcome of Jesus’ proposed course of action and his resolve to follow Jesus to death. Moreover, Thomas speaks forthrightly without any support other than his own character. Cut off from the larger web of social relations because of his allegiance to Jesus, his parrhsi/a to Jesus and to the group exposes him to the risk of a double rejection.43 A third parrhsi/a topos is that exercising this virtue to rulers and others with power is especially dangerous, necessary and admirable. The danger of this practice is referred to in 3 Bar. 9.8 where we read that servants cannot speak in this way to kings. The first-century Stoic Musonius Rufus writes that slaves, for reasons of their own safety, should not exercise this virtue. Another example involves Josephus’ account of the frankness (parrhsi/a) of the old soldier Tiro in his criticism of King Herod’s treatment of his two sons. All who heard him were glad because he said what they would have said had they not been concerned with their safety (a0sfa/leia). Tiro prefers, 42 Demosthenes, De Cor. 171-77. See Josephus, Ant. 2.116 for another linkage of parrhsi/a to courage. 43 In his ethical works Aristotle wrote about the great-souled person (megaloyu/xoj). Among the characteristics of such a person are two that bear some resemblance to the Johannine portrait of Thomas. First, the great-souled person is frank and not a flatterer. This one is open in his loves and hates: ‘Concealment shows timidity.’ This person is more concerned with the truth than with the opinion of others to whom he displays a disdain. So great is his independence (au0ta&rkeia) that he cannot live according to the will of another unless it is that of a friend (Eth. Nic. 4.3.28-29, 33-34). Second, the great-souled man is not fond of danger but for a great cause he is ready to sacrifice his life. One cannot, writes Aristotle, imagine the great-souled man fleeing full speed from a battle (Eth. Nic. 4. 3. 15 – there are other translations of the pithy ou0damw~j g0 a!n a(rmo&zoi megaloyu/xw| feu/gein parasei/santi, oud 0 a)dikei=n). The military image is found in the translation by H. Rackham, Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1945). One cannot but think of the Johannine Thomas in terms of an independence (au0ta&rkeia) that manifests itself in repeated objections and that conceals nothing of his own opinions. Yet he subordinates himself to the will of Jesus and is willing to go to die with him (11.16). It is not being asserted that the megaloyu/xoj is behind John’s portrayal of Thomas. The Aristotelian concept is presented to show how the treatment of parrhsi/a and courage in relation to the megaloyu/xoj is consistent with many other ancient treatments of parrhsi/a. It is with this larger topos that the Johannine portrayal of Thomas shows similarities. For other characteristics of the great-souled person see Eth. Nic. 4. 3. 8-9, 15-16, 18, 35-38.

122

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

however, parrhsi/a to his own safety (a0sfa/leia). Unfortunately he goes too far and is killed by Herod. He is a model, though, of a soldierly bluntness (stratiwtikh=| ... parrhsi/a)| .44 Although a dangerous venture, parrhsi/a from subordinates is necessary for leaders. Isocrates writes that princes, rulers and governments are threatened by numerous dangers and can only stand if there are those who will speak to them frankly about what are the best courses of action.45 So necessary is this virtue to leaders that Philo, citing a verse from Menander, castigates the servant who does not speak to his master in such a way: ‘The servant who has learned to be silent whatever happens/ will be evil’ (a@n pa&nq’ o( dou=loj h9suxa&zein manqa&nh| / ponhro_j e1stai).46 Those in authority are in such need of honest counsel that they are advised to also give their prudent friends the right of parrhsi/a in their presence.47 Finally, it is not only rulers who need this virtue in their acquaintances but all in a position of power who have this need. Dio Chrysostom advises the frankness (parrhsi/a) that ‘shows no reluctance or yielding in words’ (mhde\n a)poknou=nta mhde\ u9fie/menon e0n toi=j lo&goij) to all, including one’s father.48 Amazing stories about parrhsi/a before the greatest masters of the day were a popular way of extolling this service to leaders. Thus, Diogenes of Sinope spoke out against the views of both Philip and Alexander. Another story involves Chaereas, a citizen of Alexandria. Threatened by Ptolemy he replied, ‘Be King of Egypt; I care not for you – A fig for all of your anger’. This story serves as an example that ‘noble souls (ai9 eu0genei=j yuxa_i) … have something kingly (ti basiliko/n) about them which urges them to contend on an equal footing with persons of the most massive dignity and pits freedom of speech (parrhsi/a) against arrogance’. Still another anecdote concerns the Indian philosopher Calanus. Alexander wished to compel Calanus to accompany him throughout Asia and Europe in order to display the wisdom of the philosopher. Both in speech and in letter Calanus frankly opposed the world conqueror. These actions are said to be signs of an independent and indomitable spirit. Philo writes that the patriarchs Joseph and Judah also display exemplary parrhsi/a before rulers. Right after Joseph has been released from prison by Pharaoh, he speaks to Pharaoh with such parrhsi/a (coupled with modesty) as to make it seem as if Joseph were king and Pharaoh the subject. Judah’s subsequent request of Joseph, then second in command in Egypt, to let him be Joseph’s slave in exchange for Benjamin’s freedom is explicitly interpreted as a demonstration of his boldness, courage and frankness (tolmhta&n ... qarrale/on, parrhsi/an).49 44 See C. Lutz, ‘Musonius Rufus, “The Roman Socrates”’, YCS (1947), pp.73–5; Josephus, War, 16.377-79, 385-94. 45 Isocrates, Ep. 4.6. 46 Philo, Heir 5-6. 47 Isocrates, Ep. 2.28; Cf. Ep. Arist. 125.3 48 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 77/78.45. 49 Diog. Laert. 6.43, 68; Philo, Om. Prob. Lib. 95-96, 125-26; Idem, Jos. 107, 222-28.

The Johannine Thomas in the Context of Cultural Topoi

­123

Parrhsi/a was also expressed before other great men and before God. In Philosophies for Sale, Lucian parodied the greatest philosophers of antiquity. Responding to the protest that this work generated, Lucian personifies ‘Frankness’ (Parrhsiadh/j) to defend him before these philosophers in The Dead Come to Life or The Fisherman. Finally, Philo writes about the parrhsi/a that Moses displayed before God to the extent that Moses reproaches God four times.50 Thus, Thomas’ frank expression of his views to (11.16; 14.5) and about (20.25b) his teacher participate in a cultural tradition honoured by (1) the identities of the recipients of this virtue, (2) the necessity of this virtue’s articulation, and by (3) the dangers incumbent upon the practice of parrhsi/a.51 The fourth parrhsi/a topos that is relevant to our appreciation of the Johannine Thomas’ resistant nature is the psychagogic one of tailoring parrhsi/a to the individual and to the particular circumstances in order to do someone the most good. (This is part of a mild, temperate strain of parrhsi/a exhortation in antiquity.)52 Thus, Seneca advises the teacher to heal human nature by the use of words, and these of the milder sort, as long as he can, to the end that he may persuade someone to do what he ought to do, win over his heart to a desire for the honourable and the just, and implant in his mind hatred of vice and esteem of virtue. If this fails, the teacher should pass next to harsher language, in which he will still aim at admonition and reproof. As a last resort, the teacher should resort to punishment, yet still making it light and not irrevocable.53 According to Philodemus and Plutarch, too, one should adapt frankness to the individual to whom it is directed. According to Philodemus, an encouraging type of frankness is preferable when this type will be efficacious; some people are recalcitrant, however, and require a more forceful application of this virtue.54 Plutarch also wrote that there is a time when frankness should be severe and emphatic but that this is ‘when matters of great concern are at stake’. Frankness ought not to be applied to matters of little import lest the hearer grow tired of such speech and not take one seriously. Like Philodemus, Plutarch thinks that as a rule 50 Philo, Heir 19-21. Philo cites Exod. 5.22-23; 32.32; Num. 11.12, 13, 22 as the four instances of Moses’ reproaches. He notes that these reproaches manifest a daring (eu0tolmi/a) and that they are coupled with proper respect. Philo also commends frankness to masters in Heir 5. 51 Philo writes that courage (qa&rsoj) and frankness (parrhsi/a) are rooted in a)reth/, which enables servants to display these qualities even before their masters (Om. Prob. Lib., 148-51). 52 Abraham Malherbe treats a concern among the Stoics to combine parrhsi/a with gentleness in order that it do the most good. He contrasts this with what he considered the usually harsher parrhsi/a of the Cynics, noting however, that there is a milder Cynic tradition of parrhsi/a represented by Crates (‘Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles’, pp.26–31). Donald Dudley and John Rist among others have also noted a gentler strand of Cynic parrhsi/a. D. Dudley, A History of Cynicism (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1967), pp.158–62; J. Rist, Human Value: A Study in Ancient Philosophical Ethics (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982), p.65. 53 Seneca, On Anger 1. 6. 3. Cf. Philodemus, Lib. 86, 91. 54 Philodemus, Lib. VIIb, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 68. Cf. A. Malherbe, ‘Pastoral Care in the Thessalonian Church’, NTS 36 (1990), pp.378–81; Idem, Paul and the Thessalonians, p.86. Dio Chrysostom advocates gentle and harsh forms of parrhsi/a but did not write about the latter as a final recourse (Or 77/78. 38).

124

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

parrhsi/a ought to be given with kindness and in a gentle manner. One ought to be frank to one’s friends in a way that is not offensive or untimely, and in a way so as not to cause undue pain if the frankness is to be effective. It is wrong to think that abuse can benefit anyone.55 The Johannine treatment of the relationship between Jesus and Thomas manifests this topos of matching parrhsi/a to the characteristics demonstrated by the individual. Both practise a controlled increase in their frankness to or about each other. Thus, Thomas first exhorts the disciples to accompany Jesus, and then he asserts that this will lead to death (11.16). This assertion is couched, however, in a purpose clause. The primary clause is the direct call to stick with Jesus; the secondary clause indirectly expresses the criticism of the wisdom of this course of action. Jesus does not respond to Thomas at this point in the narrative; there is no objection registered as to Thomas’ oblique criticism. It is enough that Thomas will accede to Jesus’ summons for the disciples to accompany him to Judea and that Thomas himself encourages the disciples to act in such a way. It is the continual presence of the disciples (Thomas’ first clause) that is more important for Jesus at this time than is their weakness in trusting in Jesus’ power of life over death (Thomas’ second clause). Twice Jesus calls for the loyalty of the disciples (11.7, 15b). Belief is, on the other hand, something that will be strengthened by their continued presence: ‘and I rejoice in order that you may believe because I was not there’ (11.15a). The criticism by Thomas is not as guarded in John 14 as it was in John 11, and correspondingly Jesus does not pass over it in silence. There is less reason for Thomas’ problem with life beyond death in John 14 than there was in John 11.16 because between these two points in narrative time Jesus has demonstrated his power of life over death (11.43-44). Moreover, statements about Jesus as the life that conquers death are much clearer in John 14 than they are in John 11. Little room for the misunderstanding of this doctrine is left by its twofold repetition in 14.2-3. (The images in 14.2-3 can stand alone whereas the ones that Thomas does not understand in 11.9-10 can only be fully interpreted in the context of the use of these images at earlier times in the narrative.) Yet in John 14 Thomas still asserts that he knows neither where Jesus is going nor the way there (14.5). Thomas has become more obstinately frank the closer Jesus gets to his death. His encouragement to the disciples with its veiled critique of Jesus’ course of action (11.16) is replaced by a direct denial of Jesus’ claim that the disciples know where he is going and the way there (‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’). Flying in the face of Jesus’ clear description of where he is going (14.2-3), Thomas’ words in 14.5 are a thinly veiled rejection of Jesus’ itinerary. John 14.5 manifests a verbal trenchancy on Thomas’ part as a response to an unabated resolve by Jesus to continue actions that will lead to his death. Now an example has been produced (11.43-44); now clear testimony has been given (14.2-3). Thomas has manifested a certain obstinacy, and this time Jesus does not allow it to pass without a response. The words ‘I am the way … and the 55 Plutarch, How To Tell a Flatterer 66B-68C, 69E, 71B, 73A-E.

The Johannine Thomas in the Context of Cultural Topoi

­125

life’ are directed at Thomas’ claim to know neither the way to where Jesus is going nor where Jesus is going. This answer by Jesus is punched both by its repetition in 14.6b (‘No one comes to the Father except through me’) and by the claim that Jesus is ‘the truth’, placed between the epithets ‘way’ and ‘life’. This claim to veracity is understandable in the light of Thomas’ obstinacy. In John 11 Jesus’ ambiguity on the point of his power of life over death (11.9-10) is followed by a linguistically ensconced denial (11.16b) on the part of Thomas that is allowed to be the final word. In John 14 clear affirmations (14.2-3) build on a prior convincing demonstration (11.43-44). This new situation is the reason why the second denial, now less hidden as Thomas responds to Jesus’ last words in 14.2-3 (‘and you know the way where I am going’) with a direct denial (‘Lord, we do not know where you are going’ – 14.5), is succeeded by frank restatements on Jesus’ part (14.6). A decided resistance on the part of Thomas is met with an equally resolved forthrightness on the part of Jesus. In John 20.25b Thomas’ criticism is no longer accompanied by verbal (11.16) and lived expressions (his accompanying Jesus to Lazarus in 11.17-44) of loyalty; it is no longer cloaked in ignorance (‘Lord, we do not know where you are going’ –14.5a). It is unambiguous and unadorned. When metaphors are left behind and blunt language is used to speak about Jesus’ life beyond death (‘We have seen the Lord’ – 20.25a), Thomas counters with an equal directness: one that picks up the testimony of the disciples and frankly articulates the difficulties that he has with it. All subtlety is put aside when the course of action that Thomas tactfully dissuaded has led to the outcome that Thomas has envisioned. The claim of the other disciples to have seen the Lord is met head on by Thomas who claims that he would need to see and feel the wounds in order to be convinced (20.25). Thomas declaims an explicit denial of Jesus’ life-giving power. This unambiguous frankness is applied in equal measure by Jesus who uses the same obstinate words of Thomas in his response to this disciple. Thus, the Johannine Jesus and the Johannine Thomas increase the degree of forcefulness of their parrhsi/a as the persistence of opposite courses of action and viewpoints becomes manifest. Another aspect of tailoring parrhsi/a to the individual and to the particular situation is the perseverance in this virtue that is necessary when one’s words go unheeded. In fragment 63 of Philodemus’ work On Frankness the frank person is compared to a physician.56 What should a physician do when there are indicators of a patient’s need for an enema and the physician prescribes one only to find out that he has erred in his prescription? Will he not apply the remedy again when another sickness occurs if he feels that it is needed? It is implied that he will do so by the comparison of the physician to the one who speaks frankly. The latter will speak frankly again. According to fragment 64 repeated applications of frankness are necessary if the student fails to listen. The physician image is employed in a slightly different way in this fragment than it was in fragment 63. In fragment 64 we read that the physician will prescribe an enema again if a prior one has not had the desired effect. Although the same prescription is found in each fragment, 56 This work purports to be an epitome of the lectures of Zeno of Sidon.

126

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

the implication in fragment 64 is not that the prescription was incorrect but rather that the right remedy has not yet had the desired effect. Finally, this message of perseverance in parrhsi/a toward one who disregards one’s words is repeated in fragment 67. The words of the Johannine Thomas appear at home in this type of ideological matrix. He is repeatedly frank in his claim that death is the final reality. His initial diagnosis that the journey to Lazarus would lead to death was incorrect (11.16).57 Nevertheless, he continues to reassert death as the final outcome to which Jesus’ course of action leads. We may question his qualifications for making such assertions, but his loyalty in providing the best analysis of which he is capable is beyond doubt. He consistently provides his assessment of the situation. One more aspect of the topos of adapting parrhsi/a to the particular individual and his or her situation is a part of the relevant cultural background to the parrhsi/a demonstrated by Thomas. In On Frankness 79, 84 we read that one must be careful in using frankness to correct someone’s errors if others are present. Fragment 84 may also suggest that a frank statement to a member of the group ought not to be made when outsiders are present. The basis for this interpretation is as follows. The fragment begins by saying that in the presence of more friends frankness ought to be given with excessive hesitancy and not freely. ... k?a)ntau=qa e?0pi\ fi/l?wn ple?io&nwn u9?p[ero]knoum?[e/nh]n e3cei th_n p?[ar]rh?[si/]an ka?i\ pa&lin a)n? e[leuqe/]r?wj:59

58

and here before more friends he will be frank very hesitantly and again not [speak] freely.

There follows two e0f’ w{n clauses that are about those in whose presence one should neither admonish (n[ou]qet[h/sei]) nor censure ([e0]pitimh/sew[j) a member of the group: ... kai\ e0f’ w{n ou0k e0 xrh= n[ou]qet[h/sei], e0f’w?{n [d’ e0 tu[xen t]h=j [e0]pi?timh/sew[j met[as]t?h/setai:60 59

and with those before whom it was necessary not to rebuke (one), and with those whom one happens to meet, from censure he will refrain.

57 One could argue that in the larger sense Thomas was correct in that it is Jesus’ raising of Lazarus that causes the authorities to begin the process of making concrete plans to capture him and to put him to death. It should be remembered, however, that Thomas bluntly echoes the thoughts about the danger that the collective group of disciples have (11.8). Their concern has to do with the specific journey to Lazarus in Judea that Jesus is advocating (11.7). The comment by Thomas takes up this concern. 58 The text reconstructions are from A. Olivieri, ed., Philodemi: PERI PARRESIAS (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1914). 59 Lib. 84.5-8.

The Johannine Thomas in the Context of Cultural Topoi

­127

The first clause does not specify in whose presence one should refrain from admonishment. The second e0f’ w{n clause, if Olivieri’s reconstruction is correct, specifies those before whom one should not frankly correct someone as those whom one meets: when tugxa&nw is used in relation to persons it often indicates a randomness, a certain chance happening.60 This may suggest people who are not part of the local Epicurean community. The differing strategies – a variation of the degree of reticence in expressing a frank opinion – regarding parrhsi/a when many friends are present on the one hand and when the people signalled by the e0f’ w{n constructions are present on the other also points to the latter group(s) being different from the Epicurean friends. The words of the Johannine Thomas resonate with the advice to use parrhsi/a with caution when others are present. In John’s gospel those who criticize Jesus publicly are either enemies, those who are not disciples, or those who, soon after believing, fall away from Jesus without ever having joined the group of disciples.61 This also appears to be the case in the synoptics, although I have not systematically read through the synoptics with an eye to this feature. The Johannine Thomas is an unusual character in that he alone of the disciples dares to criticize Jesus. Judas Iscariot’s criticism is of Mary’s actions (12.3-5), and in the only place where Peter stands in direct opposition to Jesus he does so out of respect for Jesus (‘You will never wash my feet’ – 13.8). The other disciples may question Jesus about the danger of the proposed trip to Lazarus (11.8), but Thomas unequivocally declares that death will be the outcome of this trip. This declaration comes, moreover, not prior to the Lord’s assurance that the concern of the disciples is unfounded (11.9-10), but rather after this assurance. As we have seen, his are also the only words in the series of responses by the disciples in John 14 that reflect an opposition to Jesus’ message. It is interesting, then, that the one disciple who exhibits frankness within the group always does so not only when outsiders are absent but also in such ways as not to criticize Jesus before the disciples. Thomas’ words are models of the subtle frankness espoused in On Frankness 84. His words to Jesus are frank to this Lord, but oblique to the rest of the group who perceive a stalking horse of loyalty (11.16) or ignorance (14.5).62 60 LSJ, 1832-33. . 61 See Jn 6.35-43, 51-52; 7.12, 41b-42, 47-49, 52; 8.13, 30-59; 9.16a, 24; 10.20, 33. In John’s gospel even when some of the disciples apostatize (6.66) the impression is that their complaints were not expressed to the larger public. Thus, in 6.41 and in 6.52 the crowds complain about Jesus’ teachings as do many of his own disciples in 6.60. Jesus responds all three times to their concerns. It is only in response to the objection by the disciples, however, that John writes that Jesus ‘had known in himself (e0n e9autw~)| that his disciples were grumbling about this’. When Jesus responds to the crowd there is no mention that he knew ‘in himself’ what they were saying. The account is of a free give and take between Jesus and the crowd. The comments of those disciples who are about to defect from the group appear more guarded. 62 Another interesting correlation between the Johannine Thomas and the model of parrhsi/a presented in Philodemus’ Lib. has to do with the very fact that it is a disciple, Thomas, who is frank to the leader of the group. In Lib. 36 we read that for the sake of saving each other it is good and

128

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

The Distinctiveness of the Johannine Thomas

The Johannine Thomas runs counter to all other early Christian literary characters; his virtue of parrhsi/a is different in its origin and significance from other New Testament and early Christian examples. According to Stanley Marrow, while parrhsi/a retains the meaning of free and open speech that it has in the larger Greco-Roman world, the Christian sense of this term that underlies its use in the New Testament is that it is a gift from God in Christ. Thus, in The Acts of the Apostles those who display this gift do so after the Holy Spirit has come upon them (Acts 2.29; 4.13, 31) and pray to God for this virtue (Acts 4.29). Marrow also finds parrhsi/a in the New Testament epistolary literature to have this gifted nature.63 For Marrow, helpful to listen to one who has not matured to the degree of the one who is being admonished. Frankness was not a one-way street from teacher to pupil, but a two lane one. See also C. Glad who thinks that this was a practice of the community and called it ‘participatory psychagogy’. (Paul and Philodemus, pp.8, 10–12, 101, 124, 129–30, 157 n.5, 160. In addition, fragment 45.1-6 may also witness to an admonishment of leaders by disciples: ‘We will admonish others with great confidence, both now and when they have become prominent, the offshoots of our teachers.’ The referent of the ‘we’ passages in Lib. is, however, a matter of debate. E.g., M. Gigante views the ‘we’ passages as referring to the teachers. Ricerche Filodemee (2nd edn; BPP, 6; Naples: Gaetano Macchiaroli, 1983), pp.80–120. On the other hand, N. de Witt thinks that the ‘we’ in these passages refers to a group lower than the teachers. ‘Organization and Procedure in Epicurean Groups’, CP 31 (1936), pp.205–11. 63 S. Marrow, ‘Parrhésia and the New Testament’, pp.439, 443–6. W. C. van Unnik also argues that the Christian use of parrhsi/a was distinct from its usage in Hellenistic literature. He claimed that for Christians it referred to the clear testimony of God’s revelation in Christ (‘The Christian’s Freedom of Speech’, p.288). The preaching of Paul is characterized by this virtue in Acts. The close connection between the infusion of the Spirit and Paul’s preaching is perhaps indicated by the following feature. After Paul receives the Spirit (9.17), Luke writes that ‘immediately (eu0qe/wj – 9.18) something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his vision’. He is with the disciples in Damascus for some days (9.19) and ‘immediately’ (eu0qe/wj – 9.20) he begins his preaching in the synagogue. The eu0qe/wj terms may link the preaching to the gift of the Spirit. The term parrhsia&zomai (to speak frankly) in 9.27 is used to describe the preaching written about in 9.20-22. Subsequent references to Paul’s bold preaching (13.46; 14.3; 19.8; 26.6; 28.31) occur after Paul begins his missionary journeys, and it is notable that these missions are called for by the Spirit (Acts 13.2, 4). The epistolary instances of parrhsi/a are Phil. 1.20; 2 Cor. 3.12; 7.4; Phlm. 8; 1 Thess. 2.2; Eph. 3.12; 6.19; 1 Tim. 3.13; Heb. 3.6; 4.16; 10.19. (The term is also used once to describe Jesus’ words in Mark.) I find Marrow’s explanation of how parrhsi/a in 2 Cor. 7.4 is a gift to be less suasive than his treatment of other non-Johannine instances of this term. To show such a relation, Marrow cites a comment from E. Lohse that since Paul ‘can turn to God in undisguised openness, he can also associate with men in total freedom and fearlessness’. Colossians and Philemon (W. Poehlmann and R. Karris, translators; H. Koester, ed.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), p.198. I would suggest the following connection between parrhsi/a and the divine origin of this quality as it is expressed in 2 Cor. 7.4. This verse refers to Paul’s confidence (parrhsi/a) in his readers and is accompanied by declarations of his pride (kau/xhsij), comfort (para&klhsij) and joy (xara&) in them as well. According to 2 Cor. 7.9-12, a previous letter to them occasioned a ‘godly grief’ (7.1011) that caused them to repent. The result is that the very feelings that Paul links to his parrhsi/a in 7.4 (pride, comfort and joy) are found in Paul and his coworkers (7.13-14). Moreover, another word

The Johannine Thomas in the Context of Cultural Topoi

­129

then, Christians express parrhsi/a because it is a gift and not because it is theirs by nature. The same can be said about the other uses of this term in early Christian literature of the first three centuries CE.64 The one exception, I note, is the Johannine Thomas. Thomas stands in marked contrast to this New Testament and postNew Testament trajectory. He displays parrhsi/a, but he does so before he is empowered with the Spirit. He anticipates this ecclesial virtue, while his misguided attempts to support Jesus by means of parrhsi/a make its expression something less than a Christianized virtue. It is the outpouring of a noble friend and disciple rather than a gift bequeathed to a loyal follower.65 Parrhsi/a is Thomas’ by nature. Thus, in the origin and significance of his parrhsi/a Thomas runs counter to other disciples in John’s gospel, in the New Testament and in post-New Testament works of the first centuries CE.66 There is Johannine irony in that parrhsi/a was looked upon as a requisite virtue precisely in order to enlighten others, but the only Johannine disciple who displays it is the one who is most in the dark about a central teaching of the Johannine Jesus.

expressing Paul’s confidence, qarrw~, is used in 7.16 to indicate another result of the repentance of the Corinthians. Thus, it appears that Paul’s parrhsi/a, kau/xhsij, para&klhsij and xara& are based on the conduct of the Corinthians, which itself is based on a ‘godly grief’ (qeo\n lu/ph – 7.10). The preceding considerations suggest that ‘confidence’ may be the best translation of parrhsi/a in 2 Cor. 7.4 and not ‘frankness’ as Marrow intimates (‘Parrhésia and the New Testament’, p.445). The qualities mentioned in verse 4 in conjunction with parrhsi/a are feelings that square with ‘confidence’ better than they do with ‘frankness’. 64 See the various meanings and uses of this term in G. Bartelfink, ‘Quelques observations’, pp.6–57. 65 Plutarch wrote that the friend, unlike the flatterer, is the first to insist to help one when danger or expense or labour is involved if the deed be honourable (How To Tell a Flatterer 64D-F). Recall Thomas’ willingness and exhortation to follow Jesus to death (11.16). Philo wrote that the servant speaks frankly to his master for the master’s own good: that it is love of the master that is behind frankness (Heir 6, 14). 66 M. Labahn concludes that in the Gospel of John Jesus’ parrhsi/a functions to encourage the addressees by his words and deeds. ‘Die parrhsi/a des Gottessohnes im Johannesevangelium: Theologische Hermeneutik und philosophisches Selbstverständnis’, Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums (J. Schegel, U. Schnelle, and J. Frey, eds; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp.360–61. In this light it is interesting that the refracted parrhsi/a in Thomas works to discourage by means of upholding death’s power.

Conclusion

The Twinning of the Johannine Community

This chapter concludes the study with a discussion of how the characterization of Thomas affects the communal self-understanding created by the Johannine narrative. The twinship of Thomas, it will be argued, is a literary motif that creates a link between those in the confessional centre, and those in the confessional periphery of the Johannine community.

Thomas in the Johannine Ambit: Multiple Dislocations

The prior chapter has attempted to demonstrate that Thomas is a border figure in relation both to the larger society and to the group of Jesus’ disciples. He is a double countercultural character because he has undergone separation from the larger society by his affiliation with Jesus, and he is the only disciple who is willing to compound his problems by taking positions that may distance him from Jesus and/or the community of disciples. No other Johannine disciple adopts this unique position. Judas leaves the group (13.30) but becomes integrated into the larger dominant group (18.2-5). The other disciples act remarkably in concert with each other. One disciple calls another (1.40-51). Andrew and Philip act together (6.7-9; 12.20-22), and although the BD may outshine Peter, they work co-operatively (13.23-25; 18.15-16; 20.1-10; 21.7). Only Thomas occupies positions that place him in opposition to both the larger Jewish society and the Jesus community while still maintaining an allegiance to this latter community. This is striking in a gospel that emphasises the ostracism experienced by the Johannine community. The strength and starkness of this experience is reflected in the Johannine presentation of the otherworldly origins and destination of Jesus, in the otherworldly destination of the disciples, in the depiction of the rejection of Jesus and his disciples by their larger society and in the emphasis on the outcasts in the ministry of Jesus. John’s primary depiction of Jesus is as the eternal, pre-existent Word (1.1-4). His origins are from beyond this world (1.9; 8.23a; 16.28a; 17.14, 16). While he is in this world he is not accepted by most people (1.11) and is in fact even hated (15.18a, 25) and menaced (8.59; 10.31, 39; 15.20). Even many who were favourable or who were his disciples end up leaving him (6.14-15, 41, 52, 60, 66. 7.4-9, 19, 25, 32, 44-47; 8.59; 13.30). He is treated as a stranger in a world largely inimical to his presence.

Conclusion

131

While he has a task to accomplish in this world, he is clearly focused on leaving it and returning to the Father (7.33-34; 8.21, 23; 13.33; 14.1-3; 17.11). This understanding is corroborated by Jesus’ frequent definition of his work in terms of ‘the hour’, referring to the time for his return to the Father: ‘Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father …’ (13.1).1 Corresponding to this social displacement that the Johannine Jesus experiences is his propensity for focusing on the outcasts of society. Those in the sphere of accepted and acceptable Judaism are addressed but not with the same enthusiasm as are the pariahs. Thus, his mother must initiate the miracle of the water changed into wine at the marriage of the Jewish couple in Cana, and he balks initially at this request (2.1-11). It is Nicodemus, the ruler, who comes to Jesus (3.1-15) and not vice-versa. Jesus is upset at the state of the temple (2.16), at Nicodemus’ comments (3.10-12), and at the state of the people in Jerusalem (3.19). The Galileans and the royal official who represents them are given an initially cool treatment by Jesus: ‘Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe’ (4.48).2 Both the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (6.1-14) and the bread of life discourse (6.26-65) occur when the multitude finds Jesus (6.5, 25).3 Finally, Jesus hesitates about going to Jerusalem for the festival of Booths (7.6-8). While there he defends (7.19-24) his prior healing of a man (5.9), one whose infirmity exposes him to the critique of being religiously as well as socially on the fringe (cf. 9.2). Although there are invitations to come to Jesus (7.17, 37-38; 8.12, 31) and some favourable reactions to Jesus (7.41a, 46, 50-51; 8.30), the overall tenor of the discussion between Jesus and the those who attend the festival, including the authorities, in these chapters is adversarial (7.19-20, 27-28, 34; 8.13-24, 37-58) and the portents (7.30, 34) and eventual outcome, hostile (8.59). By way of contrast Jesus actively seeks out and initiates actions for the benefit of those who are beyond the pale. Jesus begins the discussion with the Samaritan woman (4.7). The evangelist makes it clear that the Jews and

1 The dominant model of Jesus in John’s gospel is that of the one who has come from God into the world to gather the children of God and then to return to God. Norman Petersen has noted that ‘different conceptual systems’ are used to express this descending-ascending model. He identifies these as the prophet, the light, the messiah, the incarnate Word, the son whom the Father sends and the descending and ascending Son of man systems (Gospel of John, pp.4–6). See the seminal study of the ascending-descending redeemer by W. Meeks. ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 (1972), pp.44–72. 2 The verbs ‘to see’ and ‘to believe’ use the second person plural suffix. Because Jesus is in Cana of Galilee (4.46) when this request is made the plural ‘you’ in these words probably refers to Galileans. 3 I take this discourse through 6.65, even though from 6.60-65 the crowd recedes and the treatment is of Jesus and many disciples, because in his response to these disciples Jesus continues using the image of life (6.63) that is found throughout 6.26-65. By way of contrast, in 6.66-71 it is Peter (6.68) and not Jesus who picks up themes and images found in the discourse.

132

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

the Samaritans did not associate with each other (4.9).4 Jesus is energized by this discussion, so much so that although he stopped in Samaria to rest from his journey (4.6), he brushes aside the encouragement by the disciples that he eat with the claim that his food is to do the will of the Father (4.31-34). Another example of this move to the outsiders is Jesus’ question to the disciples in 6.66. Prior to this point in John 6 Jesus’ discourse had been in response to comments and questions by the multitude (6.25, 28, 30-31, 34, 41-42, 52) or by the many disciples who defected (6.60). When ‘the twelve’ (6.70) are a truncated group around an abandoned Lord, Jesus reaches out to them. Jesus also takes the initiative for his healing of the men in John 5 and John 9. The outcast status of both is reflected in the question of the disciples in 9.2 about whether the man or his parents sinned ‘that he was born blind’. Jesus himself begins the conversations with the man who had been ill for thirty-eight years and with the blind man, both of whom he heals (5.2-9; 9.1-7). Moreover, he finds them after the former has been accused of violating the Sabbath (5.9-10, 14) and after the latter has been expelled from the synagogue (9.34-41): when they are in potential (5.9-10) or actual (9.34) vulnerable positions. The parable and discourse on the good shepherd in John 10.1-18 is a manifesto on Jesus’ total commitment to the outcast. It should be remembered that there is no change of setting at 10.1. What is implied in the narrative is that Jesus is still with both the man who had been excluded from synagogal fellowship and with some of the Pharisees who had expelled him (9.35-41). This setting colours the interpretation of the twice-articulated claim in 10.34 that the good shepherd leads his sheep out. The sheep represent the blind man and all like him who have been cast out of the synagogue for their faith in Jesus. For these outcasts Jesus will lay down his life (10.11, 15, 17, 18 [twice]). Finally, John 11 and John 12 also witness to this concern for the ostracized. In John 11 Jesus goes to one who suffers the most extreme form of alienation, death. Moreover, the otherwise virtually implacable Johannine Jesus has his deepest emotions involved in the plight of Lazarus and his sisters (11.33, 35, 38). In John 12.20-23 it is the hearing of the arrival of outsiders, the Greeks, which causes Jesus to set in motion the events leading to his hour. This is consonant with the claims of Jesus in 10.15-18 that he lays down his life for his sheep, but that some of them are not of this fold and must be gathered. The arrival of the Greeks represents the access to Jesus of those beyond the fold. Until access is provided to outsiders Jesus does not initiate the hour for which his whole life has been aiming. The disciples, too, are outcasts. They are representative of later Johannine Christians who have been expelled from the synagogue, and their very lives 4 Although the note ‘For the Jews and the Samaritans do not associate with each other’ (4.9b) is missing from Codex Bezae and from the original reading of Codex Sinaiticus, it has strong manuscript support. Further, this idea of disassociation comes through in the undisputed 4.9a in which the Samaritan woman incredulously asks how Jesus, being a Jew, can ask her, a Samaritan woman, for a drink.

Conclusion

­133

may be in danger (9.22; 12.42; 16.2). They are not of this world any more than is Jesus (15.19; 17.6, 9, 14, 16, 24). They are, moreover, given the same type of mission to the outcasts that is a hallmark of the career of the Johannine Jesus. The command for them to love one another by laying down their lives for their friends (15.13) takes over the words used by the Johannine Jesus in John 10.11, 15, 17, 18 (ti/qhmi th\n yuxh/n) to indicate a total commitment to the outcast Johannine community. Finally, the destination of the disciples is the same as that of Jesus: an otherworldly abode with the Father (14.2-3; 17.24).5 The experience of separation from the Jewish community was complemented by the sense of resistance among Johannine Christians to the political matrix. The community had to negotiate imperial claims of the divinity of the emperor, the imperial use of crucifixion as a symbol of Roman domination, and the brute fact of Roman power. The titles ‘Son of God’ and ‘Saviour of the World’ were used of the emperor. Their presence in the FG may be construed by the earliest recipients of this gospel, in part, against this backdrop as a rebuttal of, and a response to, these imperial appellations. So, too, the Johannine treatment of the ‘lifting up’ of Jesus subverts the Roman use of crucifixion as a symbol of their absolute control. The discussion on authority in the trial narrative is also in part a means of negotiating and transcending imperial claims. This ‘rhetoric of distance’ from imperial claims reveals an experience of political isolation within the Johannine community.6 It is striking that given these intense divisions between the disciples and the political matrix in which they lived and the religious matrix within which they evolved, disjunctions exacerbated by the rhetoric of separation expounded by the Johannine Jesus, there exists a character who is willing to live in a still more exacerbated state of separation. In this regard, the courage of Thomas is highlighted when viewed with the tradition, which we looked 5 From a number of such observations stemmed the reconstructions of the Johannine community as alienated from the larger Jewish matrix in which it originated. See e.g., the following seminal works. J. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979); R. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979); G. Richter, ‘Präsentische und futurische Eschatologie in 4 Evangelium’, Gegenwart und Kommendes Reich (P. Fiedler and D. Zeller, eds; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975), pp.117–52. The precise causes of the literary sense of exclusion and whether or not the community’s response to it was a sectarian one may be indiscernible. In this latter regard, R. Bauckham may have a point in that early Christian writings were intended to be shared with other Christian communities. ‘For Whom Were the Gospels Written’, The Gospel for All Christians (R. Bauckham, ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp.9–48. This could lead to the creation of other affiliations through literary filaments rather than to a sectarian perspective of pulling up the drawbridges. Even if the NT books were shared early on, however, a writer writes out of his own communal experiences. These local experiences reflect in John’s gospel a sense of perceived marginalization. 6 See W. Carter, John and Empire: Initial Explorations (London: T & T Clark, 2008); R. Cassidy, John’s Gospel in New Perspective: Christology and the Realities of Roman Power (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1992), pp.27–39. L. Richey, Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John (CBQMS, 43; Washington, D.C.: CBA, 2007); T. Thatcher, Greater than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008).

134

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

at earlier, about Demosthenes advising the Athenians to send every man of military age to Eleusis to embolden those Thebans who oppose Philip to speak their minds frankly. Demosthenes saw this policy as a counterweight to the marshalling by Philip of his forces against the Thebans.7 Frankness in the face of powerful opposition is very difficult without powerful support. We have in the Johannine Thomas one of literature’s strongest counter characters. The Johannine depiction of the ostracism experienced by the group is the backdrop for the appreciation of the parrhsi/a of one of its members. Parrhsi/a may be a virtue extolled in the ancient Mediterranean world, but John has portrayed a situation in which the exercise of this virtue is especially difficult.

Exemplary Character: Shouldering the Weights of Cultural and Social Psychology

We have seen how Thomas functions as an example of courage within the Johannine group, how he demonstrates parrhsi/a, and how highly this virtue was prized in the Greco-Roman world. Thomas’ willingness, expressed in 11.16, to die with Jesus would have been considered especially laudatory in the light of the tradition of the noble death. There are a number of Jewish accounts from the Hellenistic period of people who faced death in a noble manner.8 Often this noble death was buttressed by promises of a resurrection.9 Even though Thomas did not die for Jesus, his willingness to risk death in order to remain with Jesus would appear to have imbued him with a good degree of honour. The willingness to die rather than compromise one’s principles was said to excite admiration even among the enemies seeking to put these people to death.10 Besides the many stories of the courage unto death by soldiers in the GrecoRoman literature, there are also such stories of civilians in this corpus, the story of Socrates’ death being paradigmatic for a number of subsequent ones.11 Philostratus wrote about how Apollonius of Tyana could flee or go up to Rome as the Emperor Domitian had ordered him because he had been accused of conspiracy. Apollonius justifies going there by it being a law of nature and ‘the divinest of human privileges’ to lay down one’s life for one’s friend.12 Other stories of nobles or philosophers standing up to a king include those found in the Acta Alexandrinorum and in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers.13 In addition, there are a number of stories about citizens taking 7 Demosthenes, De Cor. 171-77. 8 See e.g., 1 Macc. 2.37; 2 Macc. 6.18-20; 7.1-42; 4 Macc. 5.29-32; Josephus, Ant. 12.256, 274, 373; 18.59; Apion 2.233-34. The account of the death of Eliezer in 2 Macc 6 is specifically portrayed as an example for all Jews (6.28, 31). By his example, Eliezer is said to have strengthened the people’s ‘loyalty to the law’ (7.9). 9 See e.g., Dan 12.1-3; 2 Macc 7.9, 14, 23, 29. 10 2 Macc 7.12; Josephus, JW 7.406. 11 See e.g., Plato, Apol.; Idem, Phaed.; Xenophon, Apol.; Epictetus, 2.2.15; 4.1.165. 12 Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 7.14. 13 Diog. Laert. 9.26-28, 58-59.

Conclusion

­135

their own lives for the sake of the city-state, confederation of Greek citystates, or empire.14 Social psychological and social anthropological perspectives may be used to indicate how powerfully Thomas would model courageous opposition for Johannine Christians. In the process of exploration from these perspectives, the question as to the relevance of psychological data garnered in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries to first-century CE recipients of the Mediterranean world will be addressed by correlating this data with social anthropological work on the ancient Mediterranean world. Studies of conformity and autonomy demonstrate the power to conform that groups exert over their members. In some expirements, this pressure even caused people to change their previously correct answers to questions to incorrect ones so as to conform to an incorrect group opinion.15 This power of the group to constrain the individual was particularly powerful if the individuals had to respond in the presence of the group. A meta-analysis of 133 conformity studies from a number of countries has shown that the pressure to conform to the group is greater in collectivist societies than in individualist ones.16 Social anthropological studies have shown the collectivist nature of the ancient Mediterranean world of the Roman empire.17 The character of Thomas is articulated within a type of society that expects a high degree of conformity. Social identity theory has demonstrated that the social pressure to agree, and to behave in conformance, with other members of an in-group is stronger than is the pressure to conform to the opinions of people outside of that group.18 Members of a group with a sectarian mindset, as the Johannine community has, would be particularly vulnerable to the pressure of in-group conformity because this group must fulfil much of the social needs of members who feel alienated from the larger society. In a number of studies, however, the presence of someone who publicly disagreed with the group’s opinion had a galvanizing effect on others in the group to hold on to their own views. One study found this effect to be particularly powerful when the individual who dissented from the group did so consistently and over a period of time.19 Aristotle had noted that courage 14 For a listing and brief presentation of representative samples, see J. van Henten and F. Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity (London: Routledge, 2002), pp.14–21, 31–8. 15 The classic study is by S. Asch, ‘Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One against a Unanimous Majority’, PM 70 (1956), pp.1–70. 16 R. Bond and P. Smith, ‘Culture and Conformity: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) Line Judgment Task’, PB 119 (1996), pp.111–37. See also K. Larsen, ‘Cultural Conditions and Conformity: The Asch Effect’, BBPS 35 (1982), p.347. 17 B. Malina, The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels (London: Routledge, 1996), p.85; Idem, Timothy (PSN; Collegeville: Liturgical, 2008), pp.1–20. 18 D. Mackie, M. C. Gastardo-Conaco and J. Skelly, ‘Knowledge of the Advocated Position and the Processing of In-group and Out-group Persuasive Messages’, PSPB 18 (1992), pp.148–51; D. Wilder and P. Shapiro, ‘Roles of Out-group Cues in Determining Social Identity’, JPSP 47 (1984), pp.342–8. 19 C. Nemeth and C. Chiles, ‘Modelling Courage: The Role of Dissent in Fostering Independence’, EJSP 18 (1988), pp.275–80.

136

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

‘is accompanied’ by ‘perseverance and endurance’.20 By his consistent speaking against the views of Jesus or the group (until he himself experiences the resurrected Lord), Thomas is a narrative inducement to the Johannine community to counter groupthink whenever it may not demonstrate the heroic resolve necessary to maintain a group at odds with its larger socio-cultural matrices. Thomas already acts within the gospel narrative itself to promote in others new types of heroic life. Peter’s offer of laying down his life for Jesus, unable though he is to make good on this offer, comes only after Thomas’ exhortation to the other disciples to die with Jesus (11.16; 13.37). At the core of the community’s formation, embedded in its foundational document as a figure who is represented as having held the community together when its core group was in danger of dissolving, Thomas would be a powerful symbol of stalwart dissent for Johannine Christians. The ancient topoi involving parrhsi/a and the noble death would have strengthened this exemplary function of Thomas for the earliest recipients of the Gospel.

Exemplary Character: Breaching the Johannine Borders

If both the alienation experienced by the Johannine community and the cultural and social psychological realities in and to which Thomas responds accent the pluck of the Johannine Thomas, they also help to explain the latitude which the evangelist gives to this character. Courage and loyalty were preconditions both for entering into the Johannine community and for remaining as a part of this group. These are the very virtues that Thomas manifests both in his continual opposition and in his commitment to accompany (11.16) and to follow (14.5) Jesus. Thomas was too much possessed of virtues highly prized by the Johannine Christians to be irreclaimable. Speaking of Alexander’s feeling toward the Cynic Diogenes, Dio Chrysostom writes ‘for it is somehow natural for the courageous to love the courageous’ (kai\ ga/r pwj pefu/kasin oi( me\n qarrale/oi tou\j qarrale/ouj filei~n). He continues by stating that what is most agreeable to the courageous are truth and frankness (parrhsi/a), and that they willingly listen to such speech.21 The evangelist’s experience of the community as a group of outsiders and of the courage needed to continue in such a state is writ small in his portrayal of Thomas. Such a community knows both of a Jesus who does not neglect boundary figures and of the possibilities for faith found in such figures. In A Room With a View E. M. Forster described a character as having the potential to be ‘heroically good, heroically bad – too heroic perhaps, to be good or bad’.22 The tone, if not the exact qualities, resonates with the Johannine Thomas. One remembers that Thomas helped lead the disciples over to Lazarus and beyond. Again one remembers that while all of the disciples are 20 Virtues and Vices 4.4,1250a. 21 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.15. 22 (New York: Vintage International, 1989), p.107.

Conclusion

­137

gathered in a room ‘for fear of the people’ (20.19) Thomas is not with them. The rest are both given the Holy Spirit and sent out at that time. Thomas is conspicuously absent. His refusal to believe is a dogged one, but upon seeing Jesus he quickly utters the most exalted confession of Jesus in the gospel (‘My Lord and my God’ – 20.28) and the one that is most apt given the message of the Johannine Jesus. Somehow this character in his heroic breadth stretches the categories of discipleship, perhaps so much that we are forced to question our own understandings of it. In the end his character is that of a threshold figure in his relationship to Jesus and to the other disciples, as a figure whose courage and resistance to belief in Jesus’ power of life over death stretches Johannine Christians to be more open to those on the ecclesial fringes.23 The twin twins the community: the literary character disposes generations of Johannine Christians to be more tolerant to those at their communal borders. Thomas is the evangelist’s point of greatest communal elasticity. Thomas represents the group’s ability to tolerate questionings of its central doctrines from those on its periphery because Thomas is the disciple who stood in opposition to a primary doctrine of the community: that Jesus has the power of life over death. The respect accorded Thomas for demonstrating a virtue so estimable in the Johannine community, courageous loyalty, would also, for members of this community, encourage tolerance by association for those members who share in his weakness. The excellence makes the lack endurable. In Thomas the group sees its own struggle to understand Jesus and its development in this understanding writ with all the stubbornness and resistance that it can manage. Recall that the other disciples also have to grow in their understanding of the Johannine Jesus.24 In Thomas the difficulty of the acceptance of the message, even by those in the group, is honestly acknowledged.

23 In twentieth-century literature the Rangers in J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Bloodguard in Stephen Donaldson’s The Illearth Wars are shadowy boundary figures with immense possibilities. 24 See Jn 13.9; 14.8, 22; 16.17-18, 28-30. Jerome Neyrey has claimed that Johannine insiders are in the know whereas the opponents of Jesus are not. Neyrey blends, however, the readers of the fourth gospel, who are placed in a knowing position, with Johannine disciples when describing the insiders. ‘Encomium versus Vituperation’, especially pp.542–3. Like the opponents, however, the Johannine disciples are also frequently in the dark, particularly in matters where Jesus is ambiguous. Most strikingly this similarity exists between Thomas and Jesus’ antagonists in their responses to Jesus’ views about eternal life, even when Jesus is pellucid about this in 14.1-3. The disciples must grow in their knowledge; at times they differ from outsiders in that they have not closed the door on Jesus. Of all the insiders, though, Thomas appears to have begun to swing the door shut. Neyrey proposed that the knowledge of the origins and destination of Jesus so strictly separated outsiders and insiders as to be a ‘wall which cannot be spanned or crossed’. ‘Spaces and Places’, p.68. Thomas is, however, the instantiation of the permeability of the group in a part of the central component of their beliefs that is the destination of Jesus.

138

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

Thomas is always more than himself. He is always seen in relation to other characters. Thomas is expansive in his commitment (‘Let us also go that we may die with him’– 11.16; ‘My Lord and my God’ – 20.28) and restrictive in his ability to allow the new experience of Jesus to stretch his perceptual horizons, until the risen Lord shatters these horizons. In the dual expression of his character Thomas calls forth an expansive belief system in the reader: one that leaps both the boundary of death (‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe’ – 20.29) and the boundaries of ecclesial politics. The twinning of the community comes through the presence of the twin within it: the stretching of the community through the one who courageously and loyally questioned it. Thomas also functions for those at the confessional periphery as an example of their difficulties: as a negative example of how to overcome them (by faith and not by sight), and as a positive example of their possibility for faith. The disbelief and the courage of Thomas, his weakness and his strength, knit those who believe and those who struggle to believe. The liminal disciple functions as a figure through whom the community’s threshold may be traversed.

The Basis of Thomas’ Individuation

Thomas’ ability to utter the profoundly un-Johannine ideas that he does is of a piece with his ability to stand alone. His psychological individuation allows him both to come together with the other disciples and to depart from them. This comfort at being a fringe figure allows him to critique the group’s actions and views. It may be surmised from his statements that this combination of independence and commitment results from a fundamental loyalty to Jesus. He is committed to the disciples for the sake of their commitment to Jesus. When he feels that their commitment to Jesus is wavering (John 11), threatened (John 14), or no longer possible (John 20), or when he feels that Jesus’ proposals threaten Jesus (11.16) and their solidarity with him (14.5), he speaks up clearly in opposition to the group and/or to Jesus. The shift of Thomas’ speech from the first person plural in John 11 and 14 to the first person singular perspective in John 20 signals the personal loyalty that is at the root of his individuation. In John 20 Thomas’ words to the disciples and to Jesus are about, respectively, what he himself needs to believe or a statement of who the resurrected Lord is for him (20.25, 28). His declaration ‘My Lord and my God’ is interesting from the perspective of its articulation in the first person singular. As we have seen, this declaration mirrors Jesus’ own double ‘my’ formulation in 20.17.25 But in the whole Gospel this is the only time that a disciple or would-be disciple addresses Jesus with the possessive adjective ‘my’ before a title. Otherwise Jesus is called by the less personal title itself, whether this title is ‘Lord’ or ‘teacher’. Mary Magdalene does 25 See p.91.

Conclusion

­139

refer to Jesus as ‘my Lord’ once, but this is when the angels ask her why she is weeping (20.13). The function of the adjective ‘my’ in this instance is to explain the sorrow on the basis of the close relationship. When Mary soon recognizes Jesus, however, she calls him simply ‘Rabboni’ (20.16). Even when Peter is speaking about himself, and not the whole group, following Jesus, he uses twice the generic ‘Lord’ (13.36-37). In John 21, Peter responds in a repentant manner to allusions by Jesus of Peter’s former denials. Three times in this chapter Peter simply uses ‘Lord’ where one might surmise a more personal address would be forthcoming. Thomas’ address to Jesus in John 20 is sui generis in this gospel, and the possessive adjective ‘my’ is repeated twice to make an impression. The shift in Thomas’ speech from the first person plural in John 11 and 14 to the first person singular in John 20 suggests that his commitment to Jesus and the disciples is at the root of his willingness to stand alone. It is the quintessential goal of collectivist cultures that undergirds Thomas’ individualism. In Thomas the group-goal adhered to in its most noble form allows for departures from the group. Thomas’ support of Jesus and the group is based on his personal allegiance to Jesus. This loyalty allows him a distance from their proposals that facilitates his critique of them. Thomas is the Johannine gadfly, encouraging the ethos of the community to be a selfcritical one based on sticking with Jesus.26 The final reproof in 20.29 that Jesus gives Thomas is not censorious but one conducive to inspiring the audacity of Johannine Christians. After a reprimand for requiring sensual data in order to believe, Jesus focuses his message not on Thomas’ deficiencies but rather on the possibilities present for Christians beyond the core group: ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe’ (20.29). It is a muted criticism of Thomas because none of the disciples, with the exception of the BD, expresses belief after Jesus’ death until they see the resurrected Lord.27 By concluding his remarks to Thomas with words about future blessedness to those whose faith is unaccompanied by a resurrection appearance, Jesus stresses future possibilities rather than past failures. Moreover, these prospects are expressed in a way that holds out the possibility for a heroic faith. There is one among the core group who has expressed belief in the wake of Jesus’ death without seeing Jesus, and this one is the Beloved Disciple. Johannine Christians beyond the core group of disciples who accompanied Jesus are given through Jesus’ final words to Thomas the potential to exhibit this same type of audacity of belief only present among the first disciples in its most exemplary disciple.

26 Even in John 20 he functions as a negative example of this principle. His refusal to believe in 20.25 is the result of his thinking that there is no Jesus left with whom to remain. 27 Jn 20.6-10, 15-18, 25.

140

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

Double Twinship: Thomas Didymus and Janus Geminus

There is another muted criticism of Thomas that also functions positively by pointing future believers away from him and to Jesus. John presents Thomas as having Janus lineaments. The plan in this section is to first deal with the major features attributed to Janus in ancient GrecoRoman times and to see how these characteristics are tied together into an overarching portrayal of the significance of this Roman deity. Next, we will look at how Thomas is defined by these very characteristics. Third, there will be an examination of why the original Johannine auditors would probably pick up on these connections. Finally, I will deal with the question of how these Janus-attributes lead readers to derive from both the positive and negative characteristics of Thomas an assurance based on the Johannine Jesus. There are five major characteristics of Janus: (1) he is a twinned god of two faces; (2) he is a god of doorways and, importantly, he is the gatekeeper of heaven; (3) he is a god of journeys; (4) he is a god of peace; and (5) he is a god of time, particularly of new beginnings, and in this regard is associated with light. First, then, Janus was depicted as having two faces, and there are a number of epithets given to him to indicate this two-sidedness of the god: geminus, bifrons, biceps, anceps, and biformis.28 Second, the word, ‘ianua’ (“gate”) is said to take its name from Janus, who is also named qureo&j and said to be the ‘patron of all doorways’.29 By further metaphorical extension, Janus is looked upon as the opener of everything, the first of which is said to be heaven (‘caelum’).30 Specifically, Janus was the heavenly gatekeeper. Janus guards the gates of Heaven: Jupiter himself moves forth and back because of Janus’s working.31 Through him there is access to the desired deity.32. His name is said to appear first in the worship of the gods because all prayers come through his doors.33 Third, by extension of his providing access through doors, Janus presided over all journeys.34 There are traditions that the etymology of Ianus is ire (‘to go’).35 Connecting the two functions of doorkeeper and presider over journeys are the keys and the staff that Janus was said to possess: the keys for his role

28 For bifrons, see Vergil, Aen. 7.180; 12.198; Servius, Aen. 7.607; Prudentius, Sym. 1.233; Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.9. 4, 13; Augustine, De Civ. Dei 8.7-8. For biceps, see Ovid, Ex Pont. 4.4, 23. For anceps, see Ovid Met. 14.334. For biformis, see Ovid, Fast. 1.89; 5.424. 29 Cicero, Nat. d. 2.67; Johannes Lydus, De mensibus 4.1; Scholiasta Veronensis, Aen. 5.241; Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1.9.7. 30 Ovid, Fast 1.117-18. 31 Ovid, Fast 1.125-26. 32 Cicero, Nat. d. 2.67 33 Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.9. 34 Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.9.7. 35 Cicero, Nat. d. 2.67; Ovid, Fast. 1.126-27; Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.9.11.

Conclusion

­141

in opening and shutting entrances and the staff symbolizing Janus’ protection and guiding during journeys.36 Fourth, these functions and symbols are consonant with the view that Janus enabled peace in the home, on journeys, and throughout the empire.37 This imperial peace was signified in terms of the gates of the shrine of Janus Geminus. The shrine was purportedly built by Numa, the second king of Rome. Although there are no remains of the shrine, there are numismatic depictions of the shrine of Janus Geminus and literary accounts of it. It reputedly had two gates with a bronze statue of Janus within it and was located at the bottom of the Argiletum.38 The gates were said to be open during times of war and closed during times of peace.39 According to Ovid, the closing of the gates is so that peace cannot leave the city.40 Reputedly they were closed during the reign of Numa but since then had only been closed, before Augustus, after the first Punic war and by one account also for a brief period during the counsulships of Marcus Atilius and Titus Manlius.41 They were closed three times during the reign of Augustus.42 Janus was not only a god of peace. Janus was also a figure representing time itself.43 According to Pliny, the fingers of his statue in the shrine of Janus Geminus in Rome were arranged so as to indicate the days of the year.44 Pliny derives from this that Janus is ‘the god of time and duration’. In this regard, Janus was said to see into the past with one face and into the future with the other.45 Probably from his association with doors and journeys, Janus was looked upon specifically in terms of new beginnings. These beginnings were linked to light. He has a connection to mornings.46 Horace called him ‘Morning Father’.47 He was associated with the Kalends, the first day of each month, the day of the new moon.48 The first month after the winter solstice, January when longer days were perceptible, was named after Janus.49

36 Ovid, Fast. 1.99, 253-54. 37 For peace in the home, see Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.9.7. For peace on journeys, see Ovid, Fast. 1.121-22. For peace in the empire, see Ovid, Fast. 3.879-82: ‘Janus is to be worshiped together with mild Concord and Safety of the Roman people and the altar of Peace.’ In Fast. 1.68, 72-72, 709-24, Ovid begins and ends his first book by attributing peace to Janus and by praying for peace to Janus. 38 Livy 1.19.1-4. 39 Plutarch, Num. 20.1-2; Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.9.17-18; Ovid, Met. 14.781-799; Fast. 1.259-276; Vergil, Aen. 7.607-15; Servius, Ad Aen.1.291; 8.361. 40 Ovid, Fast. 1.278-81. 41 Livy 1.19.1-4; Plutarch, Num. 20.1-2. 42 Suetonius, Aug. 22.1-5, Livy, I.19; Plutarch, Num. 20.1-2; Res Gestae Divi Augusti 13. 43 Lydus, De Mensibus 4.1-2. 2. 44 Pliny, Nat. 34.16.7. 45 Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.9.8-9. 46 Horace, Sat. 2.6.20-23; Ovid, Fast. 1.71. 47 Horace, Sat. 2.6.20. 48 Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.15.19. 49 Ovid, Fast. 1.162-66.

142

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

Janus is, then, the god of peaceful transitions. Both this overarching significance of Janus and the particular characteristics that contribute to it lead to the question of whether Thomas has Janus features. After all, it is by making a transition with Jesus in returning to Judea in 11.16 and in asking how to accompany Jesus on the journey he speaks about in 13.33, 36 and in 14.2-4 that Thomas has attempted to express his loyalty. Moreover, it is the transition of Jesus to a new life that is what Thomas initially and adamantly refuses to accept in John 20. The particular characteristics that Thomas and Janus share, sometimes in the relation of a negative to a positive image, lend support to a Janus-featured Thomas. Both are called ‘twin’: Didymus and Geminus. As mentioned above, both are defined in terms of journeys. Although there is no ire-like etymology of Thomas as was proposed of Janus, a terminological stress on going is the matrix for Thomas’ first two remarks, as verbs expressing going are found 16 times in the passages in which Thomas articulates his desire to go with Jesus.50 Moreover, whereas Janus was perceived as the god who opens all dimensions of space and the god of time, what engenders Thomas’ opposition to Jesus is his perception of spatial and temporal constraints to life beyond death. Thomas sees Judea as a place that will terminate life, and he can conceive of no entrance into the heavenly Father’s house (11.16; 14.2-5). Recall that Janus was portrayed as the heavenly gatekeeper. It is in Jn 20, though, that Janus’ roles of doorkeeper, bringer of new beginnings and peace, and god of light appear in conjunction with Thomas most strongly and that the significance of all these Janus similarities are found. In sixteen accounts of resurrection appearances in the NT, there are only four addresses and three greetings that precede the actual words of Jesus to the disciples. The greetings are in Mt. 28.9 and in Jn 20.19, 21. In Mt. 28.9 the resurrected Lord greets them with the traditional Greek greeting, Xai/rete. Only the Johannine Jesus twice greets the disciples with the traditional Hebrew greeting, ‘Peace be with you’ (Jn 20.19, 26).51 On one level, this greeting functions to strengthen the disciples’ appropriation of Jesus’ gift to them, in 14.27, of peace. In this verse, Jesus had exhorted them, in connection with the gift of peace, ‘Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid’. Before Jesus greets them with ‘peace be with you’ in 20.19 the evangelist writes about ‘fear of the Jews’. When in 14.27 Jesus contrasts his gift of peace with the peace the world gives, the auditors of John would think of this latter peace in terms of the Pax Romana, an important part of the ideology that Augustus fostered. This peace was the absence of wars with enemies of the empire. Augustan writers showed 50 The term u9pa&gw is found five times, e1rxomai, two times, a)kolouqe/w three times, poreu/omai three times, and a!gw three times in 11.7, 8, 11, 15-16; 13.33, 36; 14.2-5. 51 Accounts of the appearances of Jesus occur in Mt. 28.9-10, 16-20; Mk. 16.9-11, 12-13, 14-19; Lk. 24.13-35, 36-51; Jn 20.14-17, 19-23, 26-29; 21.4-22; Acts 1.3-9; 9.3-6, 17; 22.6-10; 1 Cor. 15.5-8. Addresses are found in Jn 20.15; 21.5; Acts 9.4; 22.7. In the appearances of angels or mysterious, unidentified men testifying to Jesus’ resurrection, addresses are found in Jn 20.13 and in Acts 1.10 but there are none in Mt. 28.2-7; Lk. 24.5; Mk. 16.5-7.

Conclusion

­143

how important was the Janus symbolism of this peace, in terms of closing the gates to the shrine of Janus, by writing of this closing several times in Augustus’ reign or by writing about the shutting of the gates without limiting it to certain times in Augustus’ reign.52 Cassius Dio recounts that, of all the honours extended to Octavian after the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra, ‘the action which pleased him more than all the decrees was the closing by the senate of the gates of Janus, implying that all their wars had entirely ceased’.53 The spread of this particular Janus symbolism of peace was guaranteed by its appearance in Res Gestae Divi Augusti 13. Thus, when in John 20 Jesus appears twice with the doors closed and greets the disciples with peace in the context first of the highlighted absence, and then of the noted presence, of Thomas, a Johannine disciple with Janus-features, the auditors have been prepared to interpret this greeting both as an appropriation of the imperial use of Janus imagery to express Jesus’ peace and as a further manner of portraying Thomas negatively in the light of Janus. In Jn 20 Thomas is not there in the morning when Mary Magdalene meets Jesus, and he is not there the evening of that day either when Jesus meets the rest of the disciples. Both are transitional times associated with the new day. The Jewish day begins at sunset, and at that time Jesus greets the disciples with the traditional Jewish greeting, ‘Peace be with you’. Janus was the god associated with new beginnings. Only John says that it is eight days later, again on the first day of the week, when Jesus appears. Thomas has lost his Janus-like qualities, being out of touch with new beginnings associated with mornings, evenings, and the first day of the week. In this regard, it is interesting that whereas Janus was associated with light, it was argued earlier that Thomas partially illustrates the disciple of 11.10 who walks in the darkness. Jesus brings the Janus-like peace associated with the closed doors of the Janus Geminus enclosure. Four times Jesus had called himself the door to the sheepfold through which new life is possible.54 The features just treated in John 20 treat Jesus as the door in terms of Janus imagery, in the process claiming this imagery from the disciple most coloured by it who proved unable to be open to new life. Through Janus symbolism the disciple most closed-off to the possibilities of a transition beyond time has this new door, this new passageway, patently revealed to him. Whereas in Lk. 24.37-43 Jesus’ consumption of the fish shows that he is not a disembodied spirit, the Johannine twofold appearance through closed doors demonstrates with apt Janus imagery that a seemingly uncrossable threshold has been crossed, the one between death and life that Thomas considered impassable. The Janus imagery has been modified, however, in order to express the type of peace that the Johannine Jesus gives. The closed doors do not indicate a lack of strife. 52 For the former, see Suetonius, Aug. 22.1-5, Livy, 1.19. For the latter, see Horace, Carm. 4.15.4-9. 53 Cassius Dio, 51.20.4. English translation from E. Cary and H. Foster, Dio’s Roman History (London: W. Heinemann, 1914). 54 Jn 10.1-2, 7, 9.

144

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

The reason they were closed is because of fear that those on the outside might do them harm (20.19). Jesus’ gift of peace in the enclosed room conveys the overarching security in the midst of difficulties that enables their hearts not to be troubled or disturbed (14.27): ‘In the world you will have tribulation, but be brave; I have overcome the world’ (16.31). We have seen that Thomas is the figure who facilitates both the ingress of people into the Johannine community and who eases pressures that could lead to egress from it. Interested outsiders find in Thomas an extreme outsider, in that he opposes both Jesus and the disciples, who is accepted as an insider. Insiders, Johannine Christians themselves, who may be questioning Johannine tenets find through Thomas a safe home in a questioning mode within Johannine Christianity. Thomas had been defined in John 11 and 14 as the transition-enabler, the journey-supporter. By means of Janus imagery, John shows Thomas to be, by himself, unqualified in both capacities. In 20.19-29 John portrays a Janus-faced Thomas and Jesus, the former looking initially toward the past that seems closed off by death and the latter toward the future of believers who will believe without seeing the resurrected Lord.55 The Johannine Jesus does not leave Thomas. He comes back eight days later and speaks specifically to Thomas. The effect of the Johannine Jesus’ Janus-like liberation is to enable Thomas, and by extension all believers, to transcend the greatest of barriers through belief. Thomas professed a love as strong as death (11.16). Thomas was, however, unable to remain with Jesus at Jesus’ death. For John it is the love that believes in the life that conquers death that is strong enough to remain faithfully with a friend unto death.

55 After my research on Thomas in terms of Janus symbolism, I came across the article by L. Devillers in which he briefly mentions several of Janus’ characteristics. He does not treat how applicable these traits are to the Johannine Thomas, beyond their similar appellations of Didymus and Geminus, but rather simply proposes that in John 20 Thomas is, like Janus, two-faced; he has one visage turned toward the past of the group of disciples of which he is a part and one turned toward future disciples. By this Devillers means that Thomas is Janus-like in John 20 in that he represents both the disciples Jesus gathered and future believers. ‘Thomas Appelé Didyme’, pp.71, 73, 75. Thomas has a foot in both worlds, being both one of the core group and one who initially is called to believe without seeing Jesus. It is unclear, however, how he represents each group in John 20, as he stands at odds with the rest of the disciples in 20.25b and Jesus uses him as a foil to future disciples in 20.29. These oppositional characteristics are antithetical to the image of peaceful transitions that Janus conveys. I have argued for a Johannine appropriation of Janus imagery as a toned-down criticism of Thomas.

­

Appendix Brief Comments on the Basis of This Study Concerning the Question of the Relation of the Gospel of John to the Gospel of Thomas There is debate over what the traditions about Thomas in the Gospel of John, on the one hand, and in the Gospel of Thomas, on the other, tell us about the relation of these communities to each other. Some claim that the communities were in conflict.1 Others have been critical of this hypothesis.2 This topic is beyond the scope of this book. From the perspective of the material presented in this book, though, the following few points may be suggested for consideration when evaluating a potential relation between these communities. In the Gospel of Thomas, Thomas is the means through which Jesus conveys to others the sayings about how to enter eternal life. This is striking in the light of the feature in John 20 that it is the other disciples who must transmit the witness of such life to a recalcitrant Thomas. In the FG Thomas stands in opposition to words of Jesus until the end of the gospel. The GT asserts, ‘Whoever discovers the meaning of these statements will not taste death’ (GT 1). Thomas in the FG is convinced that there is nothing beyond this taste. The figure who in the FG is so focused on the power of death is, in the GT, the one through whom the teaching that the very world is a corpse is mediated (GT 56). Philip Sellew has argued that the context of the saying ‘Become a passer-by’ in GT 42 is the common address in epitaphs to passersby and that in GT 42 the saying is an exhortation not to become enmeshed in

1 See e.g., A. DeConick, Voices of the Mystics; Idem, ‘John Rivals Thomas’; G. Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered; E. Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2003); Idem, ‘Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John’, JBL 118 (1999), 477–96. A. Marchadour sees the Johannine presentation of Thomas as a response to a Syrian Christian emphasis on Thomas as manifested in the Gospel of Thomas and in the Pistis Sophia. Les personages, p.130. 2 See e.g., I. Dunderberg, The Beloved Disciple in Conflict; P. Sellew, ‘Thomas Christianity: Scholars in Quest of a Community’, The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas (J. Bremmer, ed.; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), pp.11–35; E. Popkes, ‘“Ich bin das Licht” – Erwägungen zur Verhältnisbestimmug des Thomasevangeliums und der johanneischen Schriften anhand der Lichtmetaphorik’, Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (J. Frey, U. Schnelle, and J. Schlegel, eds; WUNT, 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp.641–74; R. Uro, Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas (London: T & T Clark, 2003); C. Skinner, John and Thomas.

146

Thomas – Love as Strong as Death

the world, which is a realm of death, on the way to eternal life.3 In the FG, Thomas is also concerned with being on the way (11.16; 14.5), but it is a way that in Thomas’ mind ends with death. These features may suggest that at least one of the two Johannine and Thomasine communities engaged in pointed literary dialogue with either the founding document of the other, or with the traditions found in this document, by means of the character of Thomas. This could have either taken the form of conflict or of formulation of the views of one’s own group through dialogue with those of the other.

3 ‘Jesus and the Voice from Beyond the Grave’, in Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, eds J. M. Asgeirsson, A. De Conick, and R. Uro (NHMS; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp.61–73.

­

Bibliography Aletti, J. N., ‘The Rhetoric of Romans 5-8’, in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture (S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht, eds; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp.294–308. Allison, Jr, D., ‘The Eye is the Lamp of the Body (Mt. 6:22-23 = Lk. 11:34-36)’, NTS 33 (1987) pp.61–71. Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981). ——— The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985). Amit, Y., Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001). Asch, S., ‘Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One against a Unanimous Majority’, PM 70 (1956), pp.1–70. Attridge, H., The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989). Auerbach, E., Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (W. R. Trask, trans.; Princeton: Princeton University, 1953). Austen, J., Pride and Prejudice (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2010). ——— Sense and Sensibility (New York: Anchor Books, 2011). Bakhtin, M., The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (C. Emerson and M. Holmquist, trans.; M. Holmquist, ed.; Austin: TX: University of Texas Press, 1981). Bar-Efrat, S., Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSS, 70; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St. John (2nd edn; Louisville: Westminster, 1978). Bartelfink, G., ‘Quelques observations sur parresia dans la litérature paléochrétienne’, Graecitas et Latinitas Christianorum Primaeva: Supplementa (C. Mohrmann, G. Bartelfink and L. J. Engels, eds; Nijmegan: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1970), pp.5–57. Bauckham, R., ‘For Whom Were the Gospels Written’, The Gospel for All Christians (R. Bauckham, ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp.9–48. Beasley-Murray, G., John (WBS, 36; Waco: Word, 1987). Becker, J., Das Evangelium nach Johannes (OTKNT, 4/1; Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1971). Berlin, A., Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1984). ——— The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington, IN; Indiana University, 1985).

148

Bibliography

Bernard, J., A Critical and Exegetical Gospel according to St. John: Volume I (ICC, 29; NY: Scribner’s, 1929). Betz, H. D., ‘Mt. 6:22-23 and Ancient Greek Theories of Vision’, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (H. D. Betz, ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), pp.71–87. ——— ‘Jesus and the Cynics’, JR 74 (1994). Bond, R. and P. Smith, ‘Culture and Conformity: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) Line Judgment Task’, PB 119 (1996), pp.111–37. Bonney, W., The Doubting Thomas Story at the Climax of John’s Christological Narrative (BIS, 62; Leiden: Brill, 2002). Booth, W., The Rhetoric of Fiction (2nd edn; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1983). Boyd, G., Cynic Sage or Son of God (Wheaton, IL: Bridgepoint, 1995). Brant, J.-A., Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004). ——— John (PCNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011). Bridges, J., Structure and History in John 11: A Methodological Study Comparing Structuralist and Historical Critical Approaches (DDS; San Francisco: Mellen, 1991). Brodie, T., The Gospel According to John (New York: Oxford University, 1993). Brown, R., The Gospel According to John I–XII (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966). ——— The Gospel According to John XIII–XXI (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1970). ——— The Community of the BD (New York: Paulist, 1979). Bryan, S., ‘The Eschatological Temple in John 14’, BBR 15 (2005), pp.187–98. Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John (G. Beasley-Murray, R. Hoare and J. Riches, translators; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971). Burnett, F., ‘Characterization and Reader Construction of Characters in the Gospels’, Characterization in Biblical Literature (E. Struthers Malbon and A. Berlin, eds; Semeia, 63; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp.1–28. Busse, U., Das Johannesevangelium (BETL, 162; Leuven: Peeters, 2002). Byrne, B., Lazarus: A Contemporary Reading of John 11:1-46 (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1991). Carson, D., The Gospel According to John (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). ——— ‘Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel’, TynBul 33 (1982), pp.59–91. Carter, W., John and Empire: Initial Explorations (London: T & T Clark, 2008). Cassidy, R., John’s Gospel in New Perspective: Christology and the Realities of Roman Power (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1992). Charlesworth, J., The BD: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1995).

Bibliography

­149

Chatman, S., Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NT: Cornell University Press, 1978). Coleridge, S., Biographia Literaria (J. Shawcross, ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954). Coloe, M., God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2001). ——— Dwelling in the Household of God: Johannine Ecclesiology and Spirituality (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2007). Conway, C., ‘Speaking through Ambiguity: Minor Characters in the Fourth Gospel’, BI 10 (2002), pp.324–41. ——— Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization (SBLDS, 167; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). Crossan, J., The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991). Culler, J., Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975). Culpepper, R. Alan, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (FF; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). ——— The Gospel and Letters of John (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998). Dana, H. and J. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan, 1957). Darr, J., On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992). DeConick, A., Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature (JSNTSS, 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). ——— ‘John Rivals Thomas’, Jesus in the Johannine Tradition (R. Fortna and T. Thatcher, eds; Loouisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), pp.303–11. ——— ‘“Blessed Are Those Who Have Not Seen” (Jn 20:29): Johannine Dramatization of an Early Christian Discourse’, The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration (J. Turner and A. McGuire, eds; NHMS, 44; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp.381–98. Devillers, L., ‘Thomas, Appelé Didyme (Jn 11.16; 20,24; 21,2) pour une nouvelle Approche du Prétendu Jumeau’, RB 113 (2006), pp.65–7. Dietzfelbinger, C., Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Teilband 1 – Johannes 1–12 (ZB; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2001). Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968). Downing, F., Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992). Dschulnigg, P., Jesus Begegnen: Personen und ihre Bedeutung im Johannesevangelium (Münster: LIT, 2002). Dudley, D., A History of Cynicism (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1967). Duff, T., Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999). Duke, P., Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985).

150

Bibliography

Dunderberg, I., The Beloved Disciple in Conflict? Revisiting the Gospels of John and Thomas (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). Du Rand, J., ‘The Johannine “Group” and “Grid”’, Miracles and Imagery in Luke and John: Festschrift Ulrich Busse (BETL, 218; J. Verheyden, G. Van Belle and J. Van Der Watt, eds; Paris: Peeters, 2008), pp.125–39. Eddy, P., ‘Jesus as Diogenes?: Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis’, JBL 115 (1996), pp.449–69. Ellis, P. F., The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1984). Emeljanow, V., ‘The Letters of Diogenes: Portions of Text in Greek and Latin’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1967). Ensor, P., Jesus and His ‘Works’: The Johannine Sayings in Historical Perspective (WUNT, 85; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996). Estes, D., The Temporal Mechanics of the Fourth Gospel: A Theory of Hermeneutical Relativity in the Gospel of John (BI, 92; Leiden: Brill, 2008). Ewen, Y., Character in Narrative (Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Hapoalim, 1980). Farley, E., Deep Symbols: Their Postmodern Effacement and Reclamation (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996). Farrely, N., The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). Fenton, J., John (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970). Fischer, G., Die himmlischen Wohnungen: Untersuchungen zu Joh. 14.2f. (EH Series 23, 38; Bern: Herbert Lang, 1975). Fitzgerald, J., ed., Friendship, Flattery and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (SNT, 82; Leiden: Brill, 1996). Fokkelman, J. P., Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999). Forbes, C., ‘Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric’, NTS 32 (1986), pp.1–30. Forster, E. M., Aspects of the Novel (New York: Penguin, 1962). ——— Room with a View (New York: Vintage International, 1989). Gagné, A., ‘Caractérization des figures de Satan et de Judas dans le IVe évangile’, SE 55 (2003), pp.263–84. Gench, F., Encounters with Jesus: Studies in the Gospel of John (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007). Gigante, M., Ricerche Filodemee (2nd edn; BPP, 6; Naples: Gaetano Macchiaroli, 1983), pp.80–120. Glad, C., Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (SNT, 81; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995). Gnilka, J., Johannesevangelium (2nd edn; NTD ; Würzburg: Echter, 1985). Gowler, D., Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in LukeActs (ESEC, 2; New York: P. Lang, 1991). Greimas, A. J., Sémantique structurale (Paris: Librairie Larousse, 1966), pp.176–80. Gundry, R., ‘In My Father’s House Are Many Monai’, ZNW 58 (1967), pp.68– 72.

Bibliography

­151

Gunn, D. M. and D. N. Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (OBS; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). Haenchen, E., John 1 (R. Funk, trans.; R. Funk and U. Busse, eds; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). ——— John 2 (Hermeneia; R. Funk, trans.; R. Funk and U. Busse, eds; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). Hamid-Khani, S., Revelation and Concealment of Christ: A Theological Inquiry into the Elusive Language of the Fourth Gospel (WUNT, 120; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Harrington, D., John’s Thought and Theology (GNS, 33; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990). Harris, J., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). Hartstine, S., ‘Un-Doubting Thomas: Recognition Scenes in the Ancient World’, PRS 33 (2006), pp.435–8. Hartenstein, J., Charakterisierung im Dialog: Maria Magdalena, Petrus, Thomas und die Mutter Jesu im Johannesevangelium (NTOA, 64; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). Harvey, W. J., Character and the Novel (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1965). Henten, J. van and F. Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity (London: Routledge, 2002). Hofius, O. and H.-C. Kammler, Johannesstudien: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des vierten Evangeliums (WUNT, 88; Tübingen: Mohr, 1996). Howard-Brook, W., Becoming Children of God: John’s Gospel and Radical Discipleship (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1994). Humble N., ‘Why the Spartans Fight So Well’, Sparta and War (S. Hodkinson and A. Powell, eds; Swansea: Classical Press, 2006), pp.219–34. Iser, W., The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978). Jouön, P., ‘Divers sens de parresia dans le Nouveau Testament’, RSR 30 (1940) pp.239–41. Judge, P., ‘A Note on Jn 20,29’, The Four Gospels (vol.3; F. van Segbroeck, C. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden, eds; Paris: Louvain University Press, 1992), pp.2183–92. Keener, C., The Gospel of John (vol.2; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). Kennedy, G., A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). Kerr, A., The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John (JSNTSS, 220; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002). Koester, C., Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). Kraft, E., ‘Die Personen das (sic) Johannesevangeliums’, ET 16 (1956), pp.18– 32.

152

Bibliography

Kugel, J., The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven: Yale University, 1981). Labahn, M., ‘Die parrhsi/a des Gottessohnes im Johannesevangelium: Theologische Hermeneutik und philosophisches Selbstverständnis’, Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums (J. Schegel, U. Schnelle, and J. Frey, eds; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp.321–63. Lagrange, M.-J., Évangeile selon Saint Jean (EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1947). La Potterie, I. de, La Vérité dans Saint Jean: Tome I (AnBib, 73; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977). Larsen, K. S., ‘Cultural Conditions and Conformity: The Asch Effect’, BBSP 5 (1982), p.347. Lee, D., ‘Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalena and Thomas in John 20’, JSNT 58 (1995), pp.37–49. ——— Flesh and Glory: Symbolism, Gender and Theology in the Gospel of John (New York: Herder and Herder, 2002). Leon-Dufour, X., Lecture de l’évangile selon Saint Jean IV: L’heure de la glorification (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1996). Leroy, H., Rätsel und Missverständnis: ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des Johannesevangeliums (BBB, 30; Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1968). Lightfoot, R., St. John’s Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957). Lincoln, A., The Gospel according to St. John (BNTC; London: Continuum, 2005). ——— Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000). Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (NCB; repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Lohse, E., Colossians and Philemon (W. Poehlmann and R. Karris, trans.; H. Koester, ed.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). Loisy, A., Le quatrième évangile (2nd edn; Paris: Nourry, 1921). Lowth, R., De Sacra poesi Hebraeorum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1753). Lutz, C., ‘Musonius Rufus, “The Roman Socrates”’, YCS 10 (1947), pp.3–147. Mack, B., The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: Harper, 1993). Mackie, D. M., M. C. Gastardo-Conaco and J. Skelly, ‘Knowledge of the Advocated Position and the Processing of In-group and Out-group Persuasive Messages’, PSPB 18, (1992), pp.145–51. Malherbe, A., ‘Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess ii’, NT 12 (1970), pp.203–17. ——— The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition (SBLDS, 12; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977). ——— ‘Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles’, Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers (W. E. March, ed.; San Antonio: Trinity University, 1980), pp.19–35. ——— Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). ——— ‘Pastoral Care in the Thessalonian Church’, NTS 36 (1990), pp.375–91.

Bibliography

153

Malina, B., The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels (London: Routledge, 1996). ——— Timothy (PSN; Collegeville: Liturgical, 2008). Malul, M., The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (AOAT, 227; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990). Marchadour, A., Les personages dans l’évangile de Jean: miroir pour une christologie narrative (LB, 139; Paris: Cerf, 2005). Marrow, S., ‘Parrhésia and the New Testament’, CBQ 44 (1982), pp.431–46. ——— The Gospel of John: A Reading (New York: Paulist, 1995). Martin, M., ‘A Note on the Two Endings of John’, Bib 87 (2006), pp.523–5. Martyn, J. L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (NTL; Nashville: Abingdon, 1979). McCaffrey, J., The House with Many Rooms: The Temple Theme of Jn. 14,2-3 (An. Bib., 114; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988). McPolin, J., John (NTM, 6; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1979). Meeks, W., ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 44-72. Merelanthi, P., ‘Characters in the Making: Individuality and Ideology in the Gospels’, Characterization in the Gospels (D. Rhoads and K. Syreeni, eds; JSNTSS, 184; Sheffield: Shefield University Press, 1999), pp.49–72. Michaels, J., John (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989). ——— The Gospel of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). Miller, C., The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis (HSM, 55; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Moloney, F., Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). ——— ‘The Faith of Martha and Mary’, Bib 75 (1994), pp.471–93. Momigliano, A., ‘Freedom of Speech in Antiquity’, Dictionary of the History of Ideas (P. Wiener, ed.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973–4), p.258. Morris, L., The Gospel According to John (NICNT; rev. edn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Most, G., Doubting Thomas (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2005). Moulton, J., A Grammar of New Testament Greek (vol.1; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908). Mueller, C. G., ‘Der Zeuge und das Licht: Joh 1,1-4,3 und das Darstellungsprinzip der su/gkrisij’, Bib 84 (2003), pp.479–509. Nemeth, C. and C. Chiles, ‘Modelling Courage: The Role of Dissent in Fostering Independence’, EJSP 18 (1988), pp.275–80. Neyrey, J., ‘Dyadism’, Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning (J. Pilch and B. Malina, eds; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993). ——— The Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). ——— ‘Spaces and Places, Whence and Whither, Homes and Rooms: “Territoriality” in the Fourth Gospel’, BTB 32 (2002), pp.60–74.

154

Bibliography

——— ‘Encomium versus Vituperation: Contrasting Portraits of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 126 (2007), pp.529–52. Niditch, S., Folklore and the Hebrew Bible (GBS, OT Series; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). Olivieri, A., ed., Philodemi: PERI PARRESIAS Libellus (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1914). Orchard, H., Courting Betrayal: Jesus as Victim in the Gospel of John (JSNTSS, 161; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Pagels, E., Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2003). ——— ‘Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John’, JBL 118 (1999), pp.477–96. Painter, J., The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature, and Theology of the Johannine Community (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993). Pamplaniyil, J., ‘The BD and Thomas’, Vid 68 (2004), pp.560–78. Parker, F., ‘“Our Lord and our God” in Rev 4,11: Evidence for the Late Date of Revelation?’, Bib 82 (2001), pp.207–31. Petersen, N., The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1993). Peterson, E., ‘Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von Parresia’, Reinhold-SeebergFestschrift (W. Koepp, ed.; Leipzig: Scholl, 1929), pp.283–97. Popkes, E., ‘“Ich bin das Licht” – Erwägungen zur Verhältnisbestimmug des Thomasevangeliums und der johanneischen Schriften anhand der Lichtmetaphorik’, Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (J. Frey, U. Schnelle, and J. Schlegel, eds; WUNT, 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp.641–74. Powell, M., What Is Narrative Criticism? (GBS; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). Propp, V., Morphology of the Folk Tale (PAFSBSS, 9; L. Scott, trans.; S. Pirkova-Jacobson, ed.; 2nd edn; Austin, TX: UP, 1968). Rackham, H., Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1945). Reinhartz, A., ‘Why Ask My Name?’: Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Resseguie, J., The Strange Gospel: Narrative Design and Point of View in John (BIS, 56; Leiden: Brill, 2001). Ribbeck, O., KOLAX: Ein Ethologische Studie (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1883). Richey, L., Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John (CBQMS, 43; Washington, DC: CBA, 2007). Richter, G., ‘Präsentische und futurische Eschatologie in 4 Evangelium’, Gegenwart und Kommendes Reich (P. Fiedler and D. Zeller, eds; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975). Ricoeur, P., ‘Philosophy and Religious Language’, JR 54 (1974), pp.79–80. Ridderbos, N., Die Psalmen: Stilistische Verfahren und Aufbau (BZAW, 117; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972).

Bibliography

155

Riley, G., Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). Rist, J., Human Value: A Study in Ancient Philosophical Ethics (PA; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982). Robbins, V., The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, society, and Ideology (London: Routledge, 1996). ——— Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996). Rose, V., ed., Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1886). Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Johannes (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948). Sanders, J. and B. A. Masten, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1968). Schlier, H., ‘Parresia, Parresiazomai’, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (G. Friedrich, ed.; transl. and ed. G. Bromiley; vol.5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), pp.871–96. Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel According to St. John (C. Hastings, trans.; HTNTC; vol.2; New York: Herder and Herder, 1968). ——— The Gospel According to St. John (C. Hastings, trans.; HTNTC; vol. 3; New York: Herder and Herder, 1968). Schwankl, O., ‘Die Metaphorik von Licht und Finsternis im johanneischen Schrifttum’, Metaphorik und Mythos im neuen Testament (K. Kertelge, ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1990). ——— Licht und Finsternis (HBS, 5; Freiburg: Herder, 1995). Seim, T., ‘Roles of Women in the Gospel of John’, Aspects on the Johannine Literature (L. Hartman and B. Olsson, eds; CBNTS 18; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell, 1987). Sellew, P., ‘Jesus and the Voice from Beyond the Grave’, Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity (J. Asgeirsson, A. De Conick, and R. Uro, eds; NHMS; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp.37–73. ——— ‘Thomas Christianity: Scholars in Quest of a Community’, The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas (J. Bremmer, ed.; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), pp.11–35. Shapiro, M., ‘How Narrators Report Speech’, Language and Style 17 (1984), pp.67–78. Shakespeare, W., The Riverside Shakespeare (G. Evans et al., eds; 2nd edn; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997). Shelley, P. B., ‘The Defence of Poetry’, Shelley’s Literary and Philosophical Criticism (J. Shawcross, ed.; London: Humphrey Milford, 1932), pp.120–59. Simoens, Y., Selon Jean (IET, 17; Brussels: Éditons de l’Institut d’études Théologiques, 1997). Skinner, C., John and Thomas – Gospels in Conflict?: Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question (PTMS; Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009).

156

Bibliography

Smith, D. M., John (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999). Sternberg, M., Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. ——— The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (ILBS; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). Stibbe, M., ‘A Tomb with a View: John 11.1-44 in Narrative-Critical Perspective’, NTS 40 (1994), pp.38–54. ——— John (RNBC; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993). Swetnam, J., ‘The Meaning of pepisteukotas in John 8,31’, Bib 61 (1980), pp.106–109. Sykutres, J., Die Briefe des Sokrates und die Sokratiker (SGKA, 18; Paderborn: F. Schoningh, 1933). Sylva, D., ‘Nicodemus and His Spices’, NTS 34 (1988), pp.148–51. Talbert, C., Reading John (RNTS; New York: Crossroad, 1994). Talmon, S., Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content – Collected Studies (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993). Thatcher, T., The Riddles of Jesus in John: A Study in Tradition and Folklore (SBLMS, 53; Atlanta: SBL, 2000). ——— Greater than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008). Thompson, M., The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). Unnik, W. C. van, ‘The Christian’s Freedom of Speech in the New Testament’, Sparsa Collecta/2: 1 Peter. Canon. Corpus Hellenisticum generalia (vol.2; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980) pp.466–88. Uro, R., Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas (London: T & T Clark, 2003). Uspensky, B., A Poetics of Composition: The Structure of the Artistic Text and Typology of a Compositional Form (V. Zavarin and S. Wittig, trans.; Berkeley: University of California, 1973). Walsh, J., Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2001). Wengst, K., Das Johannesevangelium: 2 Teilband (TKNT, 4, 2; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2001). Westcott, B., The Gospel according to St. John (London: J. Clarke, 1958). Whitacre, R. A., John (IVPNTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999). Wikenhauser, A., Das Evangelium nach Johannes (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1957). Wilckens, U., Das Evangelium nach Johannes (NTD, 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2000). Wilder, D. and P. Shapiro, ‘Roles of Out-group Cues in Determining Social Identity’, JPSP 47 (1984), pp.342–8. Williams, J., Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Character as Major Figures in Mark’s Gospel (JSNTSS, 102; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).

Bibliography

­157

Williams, R., Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2002). Wilson, A., ‘Send Your Truth: Psalms 42 and 43 as the Background to Jesus’ Self-Description as “Truth” in John 14.6’, Neot 41 (2007), pp.220–34. Witherington, B., John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995). Witt, N. de, ‘Organization and Procedure in Epicurean Groups’, CP 31 (1936), pp.205–11. Woll, B. D., ‘The Departure of “the Way”: The First Farewell Discourse in the Gospel of John’, JBL 99 (1980), pp.225–39. Woolf, V., Mrs Dalloway (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1925). Worline, M., ‘Dancing the Cliff Edge: The Place of Courage in Social Life’ (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, U. of Michigan, 2004). Xavier, A., ‘Thomas in the Fourth Gospel’, ITS (1993), pp.18–28. Yellin, K., Battle Exhortation: The Rhetoric of Combat Leadership (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2008). Zahn, T., Das Evangelium des Johannes (repr.; KNT; Wuppertal: R.Brockhaus, 1983).

­

Index of Protocanonical, Deuterocanonical, Pseudepigraphical, and New Testament References Genesis 12.6 28 28.17 28.15

97 97 97 97

Exodus 5.22-23 32.32

123 123

Jeremiah 8.13

97

Daniel 2.47 12.1-3

101 134

Hosea 9.10

97

Micah 4.4 7.1

97 97

Tobit 13.4

101 101 101

Numbers 11.12 11.13 11.22

123 123 123

Judges 6.11

97

1 Samuel 18.1

90

Judith 5.21 7.28

2 Samuel 13.31

55

Wisdom 11–19

4

1 Kings 4.25

97

Sirach 23.4

101

Job 22.26

110

3 Baruch 9.8

121

Psalms 34.23 42 43 Proverbs 10.10

101 78 78 119

1 Maccabees 2.37 134 2 Maccabees 6 6.18-20 7.1-42 7.9

134 134 134 134

7.12 7.14 7.23 7.29

134 134 134 134

4 Maccabees 5.29-32 134 Matthew 6.22-23 10.1-4 11.12-19 14.23 17.1-13 21.15-16 24.17 26.3-5 26.3 26.6-13 26.10 26.11 26.12 26.13 26.37-46 26.55-61 26.57 26.58-75 26.59-66 27.12-13 28.1 28.2-7 28.9-10 28.9 28.10 28.16 28.17

46 1 18 30 30 18 90 60 60 52 52 52 52, 53 52 30 30 60 30 60 61 85, 103 142 30, 103, 142 85, 142 86 86 83, 90

Index of References

160 Mark 3.13-19 6.46-47 7.25-30 9.2-13 11.18 14.3-9 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 14.33-42 14.54-72 14.55-64 15.3-4 15.40 15.43-47 16.1 16.2 16.5-7 16.9-13 16.9-11 16.11 16.12-13 16.13 16.14-19

1 30 102 30 17 52 52 52 52, 53 52 30 30 60 61 30 30 85 103 142 30 86, 90, 142 83 142 83 142

Luke 1–2 6.12-16 6.12 6.13 7.18-35 7.36-50 7.38 7.47 7.50 9.28-37 16.9 19.47-48 21.1 22.54-62 23.2 23.4 23.5 23.50-56 24.1-11 24.1

5 1 30 30 18 52 54 53 53 30 70 17 103 30 61 88 61 30 83 85

24.4-11 24.5 24.11 24.13-35 24.22-23 24.29 24.34 24.36-51 24.37-43 24.37 24.39-43 24.39 24.41 John 1.1-18 1.1-4 1.1-2 1.1 1.3-4 1.4-5 1.4 1.5

86 142 83, 90 30, 142 83 103 83 105, 142 143 83 86 86, 103 83

70 30 72 106 106 50 99 40, 41, 49, 50 1.9-13 8, 49 1.9-11 70 1.9 40, 49, 130 1.11 130 1.12 79 1.14 70 1.15-36 23 1.18 106 1.19–12.50 11 1.19-28 19 1.23 68 1.35-51 17, 96 1.35-38 23 1.37-51 30 1.37-50 51 1.38-39 96 1.38 25, 75, 95, 96 1.39 17, 27, 98 1.42 1 1.44 1 1.45-46 96 1.45 96 1.46 95

1.47 1.48 1.49 1.50 1.51 2–10 2–4 2.1-11 2.2 2.11 2.13 2.16-17 2.16 2.18 2.19-20 2.19 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.25 3–4 3 3.1-15 3.1 3.3-4 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.7-10 3.8-9 3.8 3.9-15 3.9-12 3.9 3.10-12 3.10 3.13-15 3.13 3.14-15 3.14 3.16-21 3.16-19 3.16-17 3.16 3.18-20 3.19

1, 96, 98 95, 96, 97, 98 25, 94, 96 98 97 17 17, 19 30, 33, 131 27 17, 32 30 79 69, 131 17, 20 17, 79 18, 71, 74 79 30 17, 18, 29, 31 28 18 71 17, 18, 131 1 79 71, 73, 74 18 101 71 74 71 117 117 18 131 71 18, 117 106 73 40 18 105 69 49 49 131

Index of References 3.21 3.22 3.26 3.30 3.33-36 4.1 4.2 4.3-6 4.3 4.6-8 4.6-7 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.29 4.31-34 4.31-33 4.31 4.33 4.39 4.41 4.42 4.43-54 4.44-45 4.45 4.46-54 4.46 4.48 4.50 4.53 4.54 5–10 5 5.1-47 5.1-15

49 18 17, 29 18 69 18, 19, 29 29 30 18, 27 74 72 132 131 27, 30, 72 107, 132 72 20 83 83 83 83 83 17 132 72 25 27 107 17, 107 17, 29 30, 102 107 102 28, 29, 33, 100, 102 131 17, 18, 100, 101, 102, 107, 131 18, 100, 101, 102, 107 17, 18, 32, 107 17 58 22 29 33

5.1 5.2-9 5.9-10 5.9 5.16 5.17-18 5.17 5.18 5.19-47 5.19-22 5.25-26 5.26 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.42 5.44 5.46-47 6 6.1-15 6.1-14 6.1 6.3 6.5-6 6.5 6.7-9 6.7 6.9 6.14-15 6.15-22 6.15 6.16-21 6.25 6.26-65 6.27 6.28 6.30-31 6.32-35 6.32-33 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.35-43 6.35 6.37-38 6.40 6.41-42

27 132 132 131 19, 20 69 19 19, 69 19 69 69 78 40 72 106 19, 47 19 19 19 19, 92 33 131 19, 27 27 68 131 130 95 27 19, 130 23 27, 30 33 25, 132 131 69, 74 132 132 74 69 73 116, 117 132 127 73, 116, 117 69 116, 117 20, 79, 132

­161 6.41 6.44 6.45-46 6.46 6.47 6.50-51 6.51-58 6.51-52 6.51 6.52 6.53-54 6.58-64 6.58 6.60-66 6.60-65 6.60-63 6.60 6.61-64 6.61-62 6.63-64 6.63 6.65 6.66-71 6.66-67 6.66

6.67-69 6.67 6.68-70 6.68-69 6.68 6.69 6.70 6.71 7–10 7.1–10.31 7.1–10.28

19, 73, 127, 130 101 69 106 116, 117 116, 117 116 127 73, 74, 116 19, 20, 73, 127, 130, 132 116, 117 116 116, 117 27 131 116, 117 19, 20, 29, 116, 127, 130, 132 117 116 116, 117 116, 131 29, 101, 131 94, 131 31 8, 19, 29, 31, 44, 77, 92, 94, 116, 127, 130, 132 31 19, 44, 92 31 28, 44 27, 131 32 31, 92, 132 92 19, 20, 24 28 20, 44 20, 21, 22, 66, 67, 68, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78

Index of References

162 7 7.1 7.2-10 7.3-5 7.3 7.4-9 7.4 7.5-36 7.6-8 7.7 7.10 7.11-13 7.12 7.13 7.14-8.59 7.14-43 7.14 7.15-17 7.16-18 7.17 7.19-24 7.19-20 7.19 7.20 7.23 7.25-27 7.25-26 7.25 7.26 7.27 7.28-29 7.28 7.30 7.32-36 7.32 7.33-36 7.33-34 7.33 7.34 7.35 7.37-38 7.40-43 7.41-42

20 19, 20, 27, 77 20 27 2, 30, 31 130 112 79 19, 20, 45, 77, 131 112 19, 20 20 127 77, 112 20 20 22 48 66, 72 131 66, 72, 131 21, 131 48, 77, 130 20 48 20 20, 21, 112 77, 130 113 48 72 66 20, 21, 42, 77, 131 69 21, 77, 111, 130 72 66, 70, 72, 75, 131 72 131 72, 74 131 20 127

7.41 7.44-52 7.44-47 7.44 7.45-46 7.45 7.46 7.47-49 7.47 7.48-49 7.50-52 7.50 7.51 7.52 7.53 8–10 8.1-2 8.6-57 8.11 8.12-59 8.12 8.13-24 8.13 8.14-20 8.14 8.17-19 8.17-18 8.19 8.20 8.21-24 8.21-22 8.21 8.22 8.23 8.24 8.26-27 8.27 8.28-29 8.30-59 8.30 8.31-59 8.31-36 8.31-33 8.31-32 8.31

48, 131 20 130 20, 21, 77 21 77 20 127 53 20 20 1, 53 18 127 79 23 27 79 21 20 38, 39, 40, 47, 48, 49, 111, 131 131 20, 21, 127 69 66, 76 79 48, 69 20, 66, 69 21, 77 76 72 66, 70, 131 21 66, 68, 130, 131 66, 101 66 69 69 127 20, 21, 131 20, 21, 76 78, 79 72, 74 67, 76 8, 21, 31,

8.32 8.34-36 8.35-36 8.35 8.37-38 8.37 8.40 8.41 8.42-46 8.42 8.44 8.47 8.48 8.51-52 8.51 8.52-53 8.52 8.55 8.56 8.58 8.59

9 9.1-41 9.1-34 9.1-7 9.1-2 9.1 9.2 9.4-5 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.14 9.16 9.17 9.22.34 9.22 9.24

66, 67, 76, 77, 79, 116, 131 74, 76, 79 79 67, 76 67, 79 74 47, 67, 76 21, 76 74, 76 76 69 21, 74, 76 76 20 76 76 116 72 76 72 67, 76 8, 14, 20, 21, 31, 67, 77, 111, 116, 130, 131 133 33 22 133 44, 48 27 25, 27, 75, 107, 131, 133 43, 49, 65 22, 39, 42 38, 40, 43, 47, 111 48 22 127 22 83 22, 83, 112, 120, 134 22, 127

Index of References 9.30-34 9.30-33 9.33 9.34-41 9.34 9.35-41 9.35 9.36-38 9.37 9.38 9.39-41 10 10.1-18 10.1-2 10.1 10.3-4 10.7 10.9 10.10-15 10.11 10.15-18 10.15 10.16 10.17-18 10.17 10.18 10.20 10.22-42 10.22-39 10.23-33 10.23-24 10.23 10.24-38 10.24 10.30-33 10.30 10.31-33 10.31 10.33 10.39 10.40-41 10.40 10.41-42 10.42 11

22 83 22 133 22, 83, 120 133 27 27 83 30, 83, 107 22 60 22 143 132 132 143 143 61 59, 132, 133 132 59, 60, 132, 133 60 40 132, 133 132, 133 127 44 20 22 22 27 12, 22 112 61, 67 69 20 14, 26, 44, 111, 112, 130 127 20, 111, 130 23 19, 23, 27, 111 23 23 11, 17, 58,

11.1-44 11.1-16 11.1-6 11.2 11.3 11.4-16 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.8-16 11.7-16 11.7-15 11.7-8 11.7

11.8

11.9-15 11.9-11 11.9-10

11.9

11.10-15 11.10

80 33 17, 50, 56, 104 45 51, 52, 56 1, 51, 56 32 26, 28, 32, 51 15, 26 51 57 16, 24, 26, 34, 44, 45 51 26 15, 24, 26, 28, 31, 34, 44, 45, 49, 59, 111, 124, 126, 142 8, 12, 14, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 39, 40, 43, 44, 44, 57, 59, 75, 79, 80, 109, 111, 112, 126, 127, 142 75 111 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 111, 112, 124, 125, 127 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 59, 111 14 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48,

­163

11.11-16 11.11

11.12-14 11.12

11.14-15 11.14 11.15-16 11.15

11.16

11.17-53

49, 50, 64, 111, 143 25 26, 32, 34, 44, 45, 49, 57, 59, 75, 100, 111, 112, 142 32, 74 12, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 57, 59, 73, 109, 111, 112 24, 100, 111, 112, 115, 116 57 15, 33, 87, 99, 142 15, 24, 28, 31, 32, 34, 45, 49, 57, 59, 75, 109, 111, 112, 113, 115, 124 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 45, 47, 49, 50, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 75, 77, 79, 80, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 98, 102, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 134, 136, 138, 142, 144 34

Index of References

164 11.17-45 11.17-44 11.17-19 11.17 11.18 11.19 11.20-44 11.20-28 11.20-27 11.20 11.21-27 11.21-22 11.21 11.22 11.23-25 11.23-24 11.23 11.24 11.25-26 11.25 11.26 11.27 11.29 11.31 11.32 11.33 11.35 11.37 11.39-40 11.39 11.40 11.42 11.43-44 11.45-53 11.45-46 11.45 11.46-53 11.46 11.47-53 11.48 11.49 11.50-52 11.50

51 30, 31, 125 56 15, 29 56 55, 56 51, 55 51 56, 57 55, 56 56 51, 57 52, 57 51, 52, 55, 57 73 79 57 55, 57 52, 57 52, 57, 109 58, 109 52, 55, 57, 58, 109 51 51, 55, 56, 79 51, 52, 54, 55 51, 55, 132 55, 132 33, 55, 56 51 51, 55 109 109 124, 125 59 56 28, 32, 51, 56, 109 28, 32 56 14, 54, 56 59, 109 1, 59, 60 54 59, 60

11.51 11.52 11.53 11.54

59 60 59, 113 14, 19, 27, 28, 112 12.1-11 30, 51 12.1-8 51 12.1 14, 27, 28 12.3-5 127 12.3 51, 52, 53, 55, 79 12.4-8 31 12.4-5 77 12.5 53 12.6 55 12.7-8 55 12.7 52, 53 12.8 52, 54 12.9 28 12.12 14, 53 12.14 28 12.19 29 12.20-23 132 12.20-22 130 12.20 83 12.23 32, 39, 53 12.24-26 13 12.24 101 12.27 39 12.31-34 79 12.31 105 12.32 40, 73, 74, 105 12.35–13.20 30 12.35–13.12 30 12.35-36 8, 30, 39, 48, 49, 50, 64, 93 12.35 48, 64, 65, 104 12.36 30, 48, 65, 77 12.42 29, 112, 120, 133 12.44-50 30 12.46 49, 104 13–21 11 13 54

13.1–18.27 13.1 13.5 13.6 13.7-9 13.8 13.9 13.14-17 13.21 13.23-25 13.23 13.24-25 13.25 13.27-30 13.30

64 30, 131 30 63, 75 75 101, 127 137 54 27, 67 130 1 107 75 8 40, 50, 53, 93, 130 13.33–14.7 66, 69 13.33-38 94 13.33-35 80 13.33 27, 63, 64, 67, 69, 70, 74, 116, 131, 142 13.34-35 75 13.34 60, 68 13.35–14.31 74 13.36-38 73 13.36-37 79, 139 13.36 27, 63, 64, 67, 75, 76, 116, 142 13.37-38 64 13.37 59, 65, 68, 75, 98, 136 13.38 53, 64, 67 13.46 128 14–15 70 14 65, 66, 71, 79, 89 14.1-14 89 14.1-7 71, 73, 76, 81 14.1-5 70 14.1-3 76, 77, 78, 85, 89, 100, 131, 137 14.1-2 89 14.1 70, 89

Index of References 14.2-5 14.2-4 14.2-3

14.2 14.3-4 14.3 14.4-7 14.4-6 14.4-5 14.4 14.5-7 14.5-6 14.5

14.6-7 14.6

14.7-9 14.7 14.8-14

142 63, 78, 142 27, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 79, 97, 110, 116, 124, 125, 133 63, 68, 69, 70, 77, 79 64 63, 64, 70, 88, 128 79 77, 78, 79, 80 78 15, 65, 68, 74, 75, 77, 78, 115 74 77, 78 1, 7, 8, 12, 15, 37, 49, 53, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 102, 104, 110, 115, 116, 119, 123, 124, 125, 127, 136, 138 63 25, 52, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 90, 101, 125 73 73, 74, 80, 89, 90, 101 79

14.8 14.9 14.10-11 14.10 14.11-12 14.12-14 14.12 14.15-24 14.15-17 14.15 14.17 14.18-21 14.19 14.21-24 14.21-22 14.21 14.22 14.23-24 14.23 14.24-25 14.25-31 14.26 14.27-28 14.27 14.28 14.30 14.31 15.4-5 15.4 15.12-14 15.12-13 15.13 15.14 15.15 15.18 15.19 15.20 15.25 15.26-27 16.2 16.7-11 16.8-11 16.8-9

53, 73, 80, 95, 102, 137 52, 80, 89, 90 89 89 89 65 70 89 65, 89 89 90 65 65 73 79 73, 89 1, 73, 75, 102 89 70 70 89 90 89 27, 142, 144 89 27 27 42 101 60 13 59, 133 90 90 130 133 130 130 90 112, 120, 133 104 105 105

­165 16.8 16.9-13 16.10 16.11 16.13-15 16.16-19 16.16-18 16.16 16.17-18 16.25 16.28-30 16.28 16.29 16.31 16.32-33 16.32 16.33 17.6 17.9 17.11 17.12 17.14 17.16 17.19 17.23 17.24 17.26 18.1-7 18.1 18.2-5 18.3 18.6 18.8 18.13 18.15-17 18.15-16 18.17 18.19 18.20 18.24-28 18.24 18.25-27 18.27-28 18.28 18.30 18.33-38 18.37

104 30 104, 105 105 90 73 79 71, 73 71, 137 113 137 70, 71, 113, 130 71, 73, 113 144 113 53 100, 113 133 133 70, 131 44, 53 130, 133 130, 133 88 42 133 42 50 27 130 53 29, 40 53 1, 60 30 130 88, 94 53 113 60 60 60, 61, 94 53 60, 61 61 80 80

Index of References

166 18.39–19.16 19.25-27 19.26 19.30 19.38-42 19.38-39 19.39 20–21 20.1-31 20.1-17 20.1-10 20.1 20.2 20.5-7 20.6-10 20.6-8 20.8 20.11-17 20.11 20.13 20.14-17 20.15 20.16 20.17-18 20.17 20.18 20.19-29 20.19-23 20.19 20.20 20.21-23 20.21 20.22-23 20.22 20.23 20.24-31 20.24-29

80 30 1 100 85 53 1, 18 82 96 30 130 82, 103 1, 85, 97 85 139 107 99 82 85 85, 139, 142 103, 142 85, 97, 142 25, 97, 139 15 84, 85, 86, 88, 91, 97, 105, 138 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 97, 99 100, 102, 144 82, 104, 142 50, 83, 93, 100, 102, 103, 104, 137, 142, 144 84 88 82, 101 104 90 88, 105 99 25, 82, 94, 100, 104, 105, 110

20.24-25 20.24 20.25-31 20.25

20.26-29 20.27 20.28

20.29

20.30-31 20.30 20.31 21.1-23 21.1-2 21.1 21.2 21.4-22 21.5 21.6-7 21.7

83, 92, 93 1, 6, 83, 85, 91, 92, 93 100 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 37, 83, 84, 85,86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 110, 115, 116,119, 123, 125, 138, 144 92, 104 15, 83, 86, 88, 89, 91, 99 6, 7, 37, 68, 83, 85, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 97, 99, 101, 102, 106, 107, 114, 116, 128, 137, 138 15, 16, 89, 91, 94, 96, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 138, 139,144 94, 99, 106 33 99, 102, 106 30 82 1 6, 92, 93, 94 142 142 99 1, 107, 130

21.15-19 21.17 21.20 21.25

94, 98 114 1, 107 106

Acts 1.3-9 1.3 1.10 2.29 4.13 4.29 4.31 4.32 9.3-6 9.4 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20-22 9.20 9.27 13.2 13.4 13.46 14.3 15.14 15.15 15.26-27 16.13-15 19.8 22.6-10 22.7 26.6 28.31

142 103 142 128 128 128 128 90 142 142 128, 142 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 90 90 90 90 128 142 142 128 128

Romans 6.3 6.8

13 13

1 Corinthians 15 90 15.5-8 142 15.8-9 90 15.10 90 15.12-58 90

Index of References 2 Corinthians 3.12 128 5.14 13 7.4 128, 129 7.9-12 128 7.10-11 128 7.10 129 7.13-14 128 7.16 120, 129 Ephesians 3.12 6.19

128 128

Philippians 1.20 128 1 Thessalonians 2.2 128 1 Timothy 3.13

128

Philemon 8

128

­167 Hebrews 3.6 4.16 10.19

128 128 128

1 John 2.28 3.21 4.17 5.14

111 111 111 111

­

Index of Modern Authors

Aletti, J. 5 Allison, Jr., D. 46 Alter, R. 3, 4, 5, 47 Amit, Y. 6, 88 Asch, S. 135 Attridge, H. 5 Auerbach, E. 2, 3 Austen, J. 7 Bakhtin, M. 6 Bar-Efrat, S. 3, 4, 5 Barrett, C. K. 9, 12, 13, 41, 74 Bartelfink, G. 110, 117, 129 Bauckham, R. 133 Beasley-Murray, G. 12, 15, 41 Becker, J. 116 Berlin, A. 3, 4, 5, 47 Bernard, J. 73 Betz, H. D. 46, 115 Bond, R. and Smith, P. 135 Bonney, W. 97, 104 Booth, W. 113 Boyd, G. 115 Brant, J.-A. 58 Bridges, J. 59 Brodie, T. 25 Brown, R. 8, 13, 19, 53, 54, 56, 65, 89, 102, 104, 105, 116, 133 Bryan, S. 70 Bultmann, R. 12, 18, 54, 116 Burnett, F. 3 Busse, U. 12, 18, 24, 74 Byrne, B. 41, 46 Carson, D. 12, 16, 18, 21, 40, 41, 54, 56, 71, 104, 105 Carter, W. 103 Cassidy, R. 133 Charlesworth, J. 76

Chatman, S. 6 Coleridge, S. 46 Conway, C. 3, 5, 7, 17 Crossan, J. 114 Culler, J. 2 Culpepper, R. Alan 2, 25, 29, 71, 72 Dana, H. and Mantey, J. 28 Darr, J. 4 DeConick, A. 106, 145 Devillers, L. 92, 144 Dietzfelbinger, C. 33, 69 Dodd, C. H. 74 Downing, F. 114, 115 Dschulnigg, P. 9, 106 Dudley, D. 123 Duff, T. 2 Duke, P. 14 Dunderberg, I. 8, 74, 92, 145 Du Rand, J. 74 Eddy, P. 115 Ellis, P. F. 21 Emeljanow, V. 114 Ensor, P. 43 Estes, D. 71 Ewen, Y. 3 Farley, E. 38 Fenton, J. 71 Fischer, G. 70 Fitzgerald, J. 111 Fokkelman, J. P. 3, 4 Forster, E. M. 3, 136 Gagné, A. 92 Gench, F. 105 Gigante, M. 128 Glad, C. 117, 128

170

Index of Modern Authors

Gnilka, J. 106 Gowler, D. 2 Greimas, A. J. 2 Gundry, R. 70 Gunn, D. M. and Fewell, D. N. 3, 4, 5 Haenchen, E. 12, 18, 51 Hamid-Khani, S. 71 Harrington, D. 13 Harris, J. 106 Hartstine, S. 16 Hartenstein, J. 74, 86, 93 Harvey, W. J. 3 Henten, J. van and Avemarie, F. 135 Howard-Brook, W. 29 Humble N. 35 Iser, W. 4 Jouön, P. 111 Judge, P. 91 Keener, C. 6, 70, 93 Kennedy, G. 4, 5 Kerr, A. 69 Koester, C. 41, 42, 48 Kraft, E. 12 Kugel, J. 47 Labahn, M. 129 Lagrange, M.-J. 14 La Potterie, I. 78 Lee, D. 106 Leon-Dufour, X. 97 Leroy, H. 71 Lightfoot, R. 12, 13, 41 Lincoln, A. 22, 78, 97 Lindars, B. 14, 18, 39 Lohse, E. 128 Lowth, R. 47 Lutz, C. 122 Mack, B. 114, 115, 135 Mackie, D. M., Gastardo-Conaco, M. C. and Skelly, J. 135 Malherbe, A. 111, 120, 123 Malina, B. 6, 135 Malul, M. 108

Marchadour, A. 9, 33 Marrow, S. 11, 111, 128, 129 Martin, M. 106 Martyn, J. L. 133 McCaffrey, J. 69 McPolin, J. 13, 41 Meeks, W. 131 Merelanthi, P. 6, 92, 110 Michaels, J. 8, 14, 18, 24, 39, 41, 68, 101, 103 Miller, C. 93 Moloney, F. 12, 46, 51, 55 Momigliano, A. 117 Morris, L. 12, 13, 18, 26, 47, 104, 105 Most, G. 85, 87 Moulton, J. 28 Nemeth, C. and Chiles, C. 135 Neyrey, J. 5, 6, 32, 69, 70, 137 Niditch, S. 109 Olivieri, A. 126, 127 Orchard, H. 9, 21 Pagels, E. 145 Painter, J. 52, 54, 55 Parker, F. 101 Petersen, N. 38, 131 Peterson, E. 110, 117 Popkes, E. 145 Powell, M. 35, 113 Propp, V. 2 Rackham, H. 121 Reinhartz, A. 4 Resseguie, J. 69 Ribbeck, O. 118 Richey, L. 133 Richter, G. 133 Ricoeur, P. 47 Ridderbos, N. 47 Riley, G. 85, 86, 145 Rist, J. 123 Robbins, V. 2 Schlier, H. 111 Schnackenburg, R. 9, 11, 13, 41, 46, 78, 95, 97

Index of Modern Authors Schwankl, O. 41, 42 Sellew, P. 145 Shapiro, M. 93 Shakespeare, W. 69 Shelley, P. B. 46 Simoens, Y. 84 Skinner, C. 9, 68, 88, 145 Smith, D. M. 23 Stibbe, M. 19, 21, 33, 39, 40, 58 Sternberg, M. 4, 6, 88 Sykutres, J. 120 Sylva, D. 85 Talbert, C. 12, 18, 60 Talmon, S. 109 Thatcher, T. 67, 69, 71, 75, 106, 133 Thompson, M. 99 Unnik, W. C. van 111, 128 Uro, R. 145, 146 Uspensky, B. 113

Walsh, J. 4 Wengst, K. 14, 105, 106 Westcott, B. 26 Whitacre, R. A. 9, 17, 75 Wikenhauser, A. 89 Wilckens, U. 33 Wilder, D. and Shapiro, P. 135 Williams, J. 2, 88 Williams, R. 84 Wilson, A. 78 Witherington, B. 12, 33 Witt, N. de 128 Woll, B. D. 65 Woolf, V. 8 Worline, M. 76 Xavier, A. 12, 50 Yellin, K. 36 Zahn, T. 14, 24

­171

­