OK so the next paper was one delivered by Judy Diehl – a PhD student with Larry Hurtado in Edinburgh. Judy was looking at the characterization of the disciples in John 13-21, especially focussing on the prayer of Chapter 17 in terms of speech act theory.
Judy’s initial thesis is that the characterization of key people in Chapter 13-16 changes dramatically in Chapter 17’s prayer – and that this is because Jesus is effecting a change in their character in terms of a declarative speech act. Such a change, she argues, is meant to encourage the readers of the Gospel that Jesus’ words are effective in their utterance.
Judy draws some of her arguments for characterization from Culpepper, although Beck gets in there as well. (I would have thought that a little more research into characterization definitions, categories and strategies could have been found in literary theory generally – certainly the subject has quite a good pedigree in Biblical studies that has moved well beyond Culpepper’s Anatomy.) For the bulk of the paper, then, Judy explored the characterisation of some of the main people in the Gospels – especially Peter and Judas – within Chapters 13-16 and then 17. The differences are not hard to develop and are well-known. However, Judy also contrasts their activities – for example the interruptions into the Farewell Discourse, compared to their silence during the prayer. Of course, there might be some common sense reasons for this silence – ranging from “it’s very rude to interrupt someone praying!” or “they weren’t there – it’s an authorial fiction”. But Judy argues that this shows a change in the way that the disciples themselves are characterized. She made a good point here.
Of course, the problem, as Judy herself declared, with the thesis is that the prayer seems to be ineffective – the disciples are as inconsistent afterwards as they have been before! In Chapters 18-21, there is little change to the charactization of any of the disciples. As such, how can a declarative speech act been seen as being effective if it is ignored. The answer, Judy suggested, is that we need to look at who the speech act is designed to reach – in her argument it is for the readers – they need to see that ultimately it did have an effect and so the Words of Jesus can be true in the readers’ lives as well. A proleptic declarative speech act – I would kind of call it.
Here’s how Judy puts it:
“Thus, the shift in presentation of the disciples is for the benefit of the readers of the Fourth Gospel. The reader encounters baffled characters in chapters 13 through 16, yet there is no ambivalence in the prayer of chapter 17. The events that will clarify everything for the disciples, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the coming of the Paraclete, are yet future in narrative time; however, they are past and present experiential knowledge for the reader. These events are crucial and make possible a fuller, richer, more informed understanding of Jesus’ words and works.
Exactly how does this prayer function for the readers? First, because the characters are models or representations of human responses to Jesus, the prayer functions as a guide to the readers’ proper response (in the view of the author) to the life and ministry of Jesus. By the end of the final discourses, the author has demonstrated through his use of characterization the correct and the incorrect responses to Jesus’ actions and speeches. Heuristically, he has drawn the reader to the proper positive response. Despite the fragile faith of the disciples in narrative time, Jesus confirms that they will become paradigms of discipleship, and will continue his message in the world. Thus, the prayer anticipates a time of clarity and understanding, guiding the readers toward a deeper faith in Jesus’ promises.”
Some points:
- What isn’t here is a discussion of the genre of the prayer itself. Is it neutral, is it a prayer, who are its addressees, what is its role. Yes, Judy does address some of these, but for me the paper focussed too much on some general run of the mill characterisations and didn’t get to the nub of the problem – how does 17 act in relation to its context…isn’t it a bit out on a limb stylistically, in terms of characterisation and so on…
- There isn’t a clear discussion of how the prayer acts as a declarative speech act. In fact, I am not so sure, myself, that speech act theory can be easily applied to prayers and the like…certainly I will be glad to read how Judy deals with the methodology here – but that’s just my obsession with theory!
- How do you get away from the idea that Jesus’ words are actually ineffective? I mean, if he prayed for them, why didn’t it make a difference. I suppose it did, but overall there are plenty of issues in the prayer that have not yet been seen to have had effect – where is the unity of all believers and so on…? How then does this prayer actually operate within the Gospel as a whole which is so keen to seen Jesus’ words as being effective – Lazarus, other healings, Cana and so on…?
I enjoyed Judy’s paper a lot. It stirred up a good discussion about speech act theory and also about the very nature of the Gospel itself – although, as often happens in these kinds of settings, it was difficult to give the paper all the time that it deserved. I wish Judy all the best as she draws towards completion of her thesis sometime this year…
Pete
Comments