Chapter 5. The Form of the Passion Narrative
3. Plot and Characterisation
A major contribution of narrative criticism is to remind us that while a text has structure and form these only exist to serve the story. Just as an overemphasis on source critical methods can diminish the text to an assembly of increasingly speculative sources, an overemphasis on
64
Osborne, John, 262. 65 Moloney, Love, 29.
132 historical-grammatical exegesis can reduce the text to a mere collection of words and sentences, duly placed in their grammatical, syntactical, cultural and historical context but isolated from the plot of the narrative. Narrative criticism offers an opportunity to consider the story as a coherent entity, with an overarching plot, persistent themes and a message.
Another contribution of narrative criticism has been to provide a means for the analysis of the role of characters in developing a narrative’s themes and plot. The last few decades have seen a surge of interest in Johannine characterisation.66 The interest may be because John’s characters are more vividly drawn and have a greater depth than that those of the Synoptic Gospels.67 They “are in effect the prism which breaks up the pure light of Jesus’ remote epiphany into colours the reader can see.”68
The author amplifies and streamlines a reader’s engagement with the story’s characters through a theatrical strategy in which only the two currently active characters appear on stage at any one time. This is especially true in the trial narrative and helps to explain many of the plot elements, such as the movement back and forth by Pilate. Furthermore, since in characterisation terms “the Fourth Gospel prefers showing to telling, indirect presentation to direct presentation” the Gospel’s characters are excellent vehicles for the delivery of irony.69
The plot of the Fourth Gospel has engendered much debate and little agreement. Segovia identifies a threefold biographical division of plot marked by a journey motif and repetitive patterns.70 Stibbe classifies the overall plot as tending to the tragic and analyses it in terms of its causal, temporal and structural aspects.71 He proposes that the key structural elements are the notions of a sender/receiver and opponent/helper. There is a main plot with God as sender and a counterplot with the Devil as sender. There is an inherently ironic nature to the plot in that the opponent actually becomes the helper in the events of the Passion Narrative.72 Resseguie perceives the plots in terms of a U-shaped structure that moves from misfortune and misunderstanding to a happy conclusion with the plot therefore tending to the comedic.73
66 For a summary of recent works, see R. Alan Culpepper, “The Weave of the Tapestry: Character and Theme in John,” in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John, ed. Christopher W. Skinner (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 19-23.
67 They are more consistently “round” to use E. M. Forster’s famous description, for an overview of round and flat characters see Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 123-125.
68 Culpepper, Anatomy, 104. 69
James L. Resseguie, “A Narrative-Critical Approach to the Fourth Gospel,” in Characters and Characterization
in the Gospel of John, ed. Christopher W. Skinner (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 11.
70 Fernando Segovia, “The Journey(s) of the Word of God: A Reading of the Plot of the Fourth Gospel,” in Culpepper, Semeia 53, 35-36.
71 Stibbe, John’s Gospel, 32-53. 72
Ibid., 46.
133 Culpepper approaches the plot episodically, through the central features of sequence, causality, unity and affective power of a narrative.74 He cites with approval Sternberg’s conclusion that the author “deprives most of these episodes of actional or propulsive value precisely in order to direct the reader to integrate them with the rest of the work not in terms of plot but of theme.”75
Notably, this closely resembles Duke’s conclusion in relation to Johannine irony that “form follows theme”76
Culpepper sees the plot repeatedly played out in each scene, since in all of Jesus’ encounters with a new character he reveals something of his identity. The author advances the plot through a series of “attempted, failed and occasionally successful anagnoriseis (recognition scenes)”, leading to the conclusion that “belief and unbelief, recognition or non- recognition of Jesus as the Revealer, is the fundamental opposition on which the plot is developed.”77
Culpepper perceives a tragic plot and acknowledges the value of peripeteiai (twists and reversals) as well as anagnoriseis (which can also mean discovery) to the plot, both of which are also integral components of irony.
Lincoln employs a dual plot analysis. The first is a “basic” model utilising categories of commission, complication and resolution.78 The second, “advanced” model focuses on the action of the Gospel since “the action of the plot reveals the real nature and significance of Jesus’ mission, reinforcing in the process his identity and relation to the world set out in the beginning of the narrative.”79
His advanced model uses actantial analysis, which designates six actants – Sender, Object, Receiver, Helper, Subject, and Opponent. These actants relate along three axes, those of communication, volition and power.80 The primary difference from Culpepper is that both of these models are set firmly in the context of an overarching cosmic- lawsuit. Consequently, while Culpepper focuses on Jesus’ role as revealer, Lincoln accentuates his role as witness and judge (cf. 18:37). Lincoln rejects Culpepper’s description of Jesus’ mission,81 but the two roles are not mutually exclusive and may even be indistinguishable.
74 Culpepper, Anatomy, 80. See also Culpepper, Gospel and Letters, 67.
75 Meir Sternberg, Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1978), 169.
76
Duke, Irony, 92.
77 Culpepper, Gospel and Letters, 71. 78 Lincoln, Trial, 29-33.
79 Ibid., 159. 80 Ibid, 162-163. 81
He notes that while it has the advantage of “employing terminology from the prologue… it has the disadvantage that this terminology is hardly to the fore again in the narrative discourse.” Lincoln, Trial, 162.
134 Lincoln concludes that in relation to the Fourth Gospel’s characters, the plot illuminates the narrative less than a consideration of its main themes, meaning that their function is ideological. “What is ultimately significant about them is whether they are witnesses to the truth or opponents to it, whether they receive the witness of Jesus or refuse it.”82 Lincoln therefore concurs with Culpepper that the advancement of the plot is secondary to the development of Johannine themes and that “plot development in John, then, is a matter of how Jesus’ identity comes to be recognized and how it fails to be recognized.”83 The difference between Jesus as divine revealer or divine witness is primarily semantic. I remain unconvinced that there is a difference substantial enough to be problematic. Fittingly this terminology is reminiscent of O’Day and Duke’s complementary descriptions of Johannine irony as “revelation” and “witness” respectively.84
This is significant because all the scholars mentioned above also agree that the author uses robust ironic elements to advance the plot of the Passion Narrative.
Just as literary motifs (e.g. light/dark, time, and festival markers) play symbolic roles, so do the main characters. For example, in the Prologue, the author first introduces Jesus symbolically as “the Word” (1:1-3). With respect to characters, it is important to recognise that symbolic expression does not mean they are fictional.85 Rather the author intentionally selects a cast of characters that are both real and representative. Collins first introduced this concept of representative roles in 1976 and it has received broad acceptance since.86 By the end of the Prologue, the reader is aware that Jesus represents the eternal Word (1:1-3), life (1:4), true light (1:4-5, 9), glory (1:14), grace and truth (1:14, 17), divine pre-eminence (1:2-3, 10, 15) and the revelation of God (1:18). The term “representative” helpfully avoids the notion of non- historicity that customarily follows the use of “symbolic” to describe individuals.
This use of representative roles also explains the uniqueness of Johannine characters, both in terms of characters that do not appear in the Synoptic Gospels and the idiosyncratic portrayal of characters that do. The author judiciously selects individuals to represent particular types of belief.87 For example, the author juxtaposes characters like Nicodemus (chapter three) and the Samaritan woman (chapter four), who are not found in the Synoptic tradition, to represent
82 Lincoln, Trial, 166. 83 Culpepper, Anatomy, 88. 84
See Chapter 1: Survey of Literature.
85 “We will acknowledge that the persons depicted in John’s Gospel can be both historical and symbolic without attempting to assess the extent to which the evangelist shaped the tradition he received.” Koester, Symbolism, 38- 39.
86 Collins, These Things, 1-45. 87
“In this way it is appropriate to look at the several individuals who appear in the Fourth Gospel as individuals who have been type-cast. In their individuality they represent a type of faith (or lack of faith).” Ibid., 7-8.
135 different kinds of faith. One comes at night out of fear and unbelief and leaves in the dark, metaphorically and literally (3:9-10), with no record of confession. The other speaks plainly in the full light of day and leaves with Jesus’ admission of Messiahship, leading to belief and testimony (4:39-42).88 It also explains the two Sabbath healings involving pools.89 One represents a negative reaction, with no response of belief and a betrayal of Jesus to his opponents (5:15) leading to the persecution of Jesus (5:16). The other represents a positive reaction, with a dynamic statement of belief together with an act of worship (9:38) and disdain for Jesus’ opponents (9:25, 27, 30-33) leading to the persecution of the disciple (9:34).90 The similarities and differences encourage the reader to look beyond initial perceptions and to “not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement” (7:24).
Notably, much of the ironic interplay stems directly from the characters’ representative roles. The roles are not static and positions fluctuate and develop. The reader observes the characters’ journeys as they descend to unbelief or ascend to belief. In the latter case, they may also move between passive and active faith. Just as things are frequently not what they seem, neither are people – often to the point that appearance and reality are ironically reversed. In the fine tradition of the alazōn a character will proclaim faith but act in diametric opposition or seek to mock, only to speak a better truth than they know. Thus the disciple who pledges the greatest faithfulness (13:37) lies and denies Jesus to underlings at the very the moment that Jesus speaks the truth in front of their masters (18:17, 25-26). The religious leaders have boasted of their connection to God (8:39; 9:28) yet deny it before Pilate to achieve their desired result (19:15). Nicodemus emerges from the shadows (19:39) to claim the body of the one he could not receive openly while living (3:2).
It is not coincidental that many of the ironic revelations of a character’s true disposition occur during the Passion Narrative. It is the climactic moment when all journeys face resolution.91 Just as the various elements of the plot come together to emphasise the Gospel’s central theme of Jesus’ identity in the Passion Narrative so too do the Gospel’s ironies. This confirms the view that both plot and Johannine irony are subservient to the Gospel’s themes. These themes fully
88 The author’s ideal response of belief plus action – revelation and response - (cf. 20:31). 89
The paralytic at the Pool of Bēthzatha (Chapter five) and the man born blind sent to the Pool of Siloam (Chapter nine).
90 “The representative figures in the Fourth Gospel help to maintain boundaries by showing readers the differences between belief and unbelief.” Koester, Symbolism, 284.
91 However, not all journeys end there. E.g. the informed reader is aware that Peter does believe but his faith was not active enough and was found wanting. However, due to his abiding belief there is a chance for post-Passion rehabilitation (21:15-19).
136 revealed in the Passion Narrative as the antithetical norms that have clashed throughout the narrative finally collide and representative characters must choose a response. Consequently, irony comes to the fore because “the contrast between levels of meaning is sharpest in the Gospel’s pervasive use of irony.”92
Irony is demonstrated to be the most effective manner of revealing the author’s key truth themes at this crucial juncture. Furthermore, key characters whose representative faith positions signify them as alazōn or eirōn will convey this irony. Therefore, we now turn to consider several of these key characters in order to consider their representative roles and their ironic identity.
a) Jesus
For multiple reasons Jesus is an unlikely candidate for a character study. As Culpepper and Lincoln note, “Jesus is a static character. There is no change or development.”93 Furthermore, while he is the central protagonist his role in the action is remarkably restrained. All of Jesus’ statements during the arrest and trials are either a response to a question,94 or a response to the actions of others.95 Moreover, the author places little significant irony in the mouth of Jesus, notwithstanding the fact that his comments elicit ironic responses or help the reader to identify situational ironies involving another character.96 Jesus is arguably the least ironic and least dynamic character in the Passion Narrative. However, non-dynamism and passivity are not the same things. Jesus is actively aloof and purposefully non-responsive. Consequently he answers questions with questions, or with silence, and with great tenacity does nothing that would further his ostensible cause.97
However, contra Culpepper and Lincoln, Jesus is not a static character.98 Within the Gospel narrative, he engages in not one but two journeys, albeit in a manner vastly dissimilar to the journeys of others. The other characters are on journeys towards or away from belief, which
92 Koester, Symbolism, 31.
93 Culpepper, Anatomy, 88; Lincoln, Trial, 18. 94
18:5, 8, 20, 23, 34, 36, 37: 19:11.
95 I.e. the arrival of the arrestors 18:4; their falling back 18:7; Peter’s sword attack 18:11.
96 “Jesus does not dominate the dialogue in the Passion Narrative, and when others get the chance to speak, feet end up in mouths.” Brant, John, 233.
97
“Perhaps the most striking aspect of Jesus’ characterization in act two is his elusiveness… This systematic absence of logic seems to suggest that Jesus is employing a strategy of deliberate transcendence in his interrogation, with the result that Pilate emerges as someone thinking entirely on the wrong plane.” Stibbe,
Storyteller, 112.
98 “All that is essential to his character is revealed to the reader before Jesus ever makes his appearance in the narrative.” Culpepper, Anatomy, 88. On this level Culpepper and Lincoln are correct and in this one respect Jesus is unchanging, however, that does not necessarily make Jesus a static character.
137 would be incongruous for Jesus. By contrast, Jesus’ first journey is one of exploration as he searches for worthy interlocutors to whom he can reveal more of his identity. Since the reader knows Jesus’ true identity from the start, they go with Jesus on this journey, sharing in his many frustrations and few triumphs. The author skilfully includes the reader with Jesus in a community of the knowing, thereby creating greater empathy for Jesus and building solidarity with the truths he represents.
The second journey is his inevitable progression towards death. This is presaged in the Prologue’s central irony (1:10-11) and reinforced by numerous direct references.99
Repeated mentions of Jesus’ hour remind the reader that a clock is ticking and when it strikes Jesus is destined to die a shameful, horrific death.100 Again, the author uses dramatic flair to cultivate compassion in the reader as Jesus increasingly cuts a heroic but doomed figure. Both of these journeys inexorably culminate in the Passion Narrative. Both are also ironically charged. As we have repeatedly observed, the revelation of Jesus’ identity occasions the majority of Johannine ironies. Equally, the author presents Jesus’ descent towards death ironically (and unlike the Synoptics) as an ascent to glorification and the triumphant success of his true mission.101
In the Passion Narrative, Jesus’ representative character comes to the fore. Stibbe proposes that there are three important aspects of John’s narrative Christology, which emerge in the Johannine Passion Narrative. All three represent interpretative understandings of the character of Jesus: “(i) Jesus as Judge, (ii) Jesus as King, (iii) Jesus as elusive God.”102
Duke contrasts the double downward movement into unbelief of Pilate and “the Jews” with the ironic elevation of Jesus to the office of King, Judge, and Son of God.103 O’Day suggests a further role, that of Passover Lamb.104 However, the symbolism of the Passover lamb depends on disputed chronology and is found only in one verse (19:14). Therefore, it is at best a secondary role or theme. As an examination of the text demonstrates, the preeminent roles of King, Judge and Son of God do not preclude other representative roles, including Light of the World, the true High Priest, the
99 2:19-21; 5:18; 6:51-56; 7:19, 33-34; 8:21-22, 28, 40, 59; 10:11, 17, 31; 11:50-53; 12:7, 10, 24, 32-33; 13:33, 36; 14:18, 28-30; 16:16, 28.
100 2:4; 5:25, 28; 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:31; 16;21, 25, 32; 17:1.
101 “Gone is the horror of putting to death the Son of God (Matthew and Mark) or the death of the innocent, righteous martyr with its worshipful atmosphere (Luke). Instead, the cross is Jesus’ exaltation, the culmination of his glory.” Osborne, John, 252.
102 Stibbe, Storyteller, 111.
103 Duke, Irony, 127. The informed reader would recognise this dual but contrasting movement from the story of the man born blind in Chapter nine, where the man moves from blindness to true sight (9:37-38) while simultaneously the Pharisees move from sightedness to blindness (9:40-41).
104
“We note three such themes in particular that focus on Jesus’ identity: he is the ‘I AM,’ king and judge, and the Passover lamb.” O’Day, John, 169.
138 Water of Life, the Truth and the Life. The role of Passover lamb corresponds with these secondary roles, all of which the author likewise expresses ironically.
An understanding of these three roles is important before encountering the text because they explain much of the content and composition of the Passion Narrative. For example, by mentioning Jesus’ kingship eleven times, “John has with keen insight picked out the key of the passion narrative in the kingship of Jesus, and has made its meaning clearer, perhaps, than any other New Testament writer.”105
Much of Jesus’ behaviour, especially his puzzling detachment, is only explicable when viewed from the perspective of divine sovereignty. Accordingly, irony after irony follows the use of this term. Likewise, his role as judge subtly pervades the discourses and makes even his silences eloquent and weighty.106 The manifest absurdity of the true judge being examined by the accused provides yet more fertile ground for situational irony. The final role, of the Son of God, provides an extended irony drawing on the disclosures of the Prologue. The ultimate irony remains that Jesus is not just a king or judge, for which there are earthly equivalents, he is also “God the only Son” (1:18) rejected by those whom he created (1:3, 10).
b) Pilate
If Jesus is an unlikely candidate for a character study, Pilate is almost obligatory. He features predominantly in the Passion Narrative and is the only character in the inner structure that inhabits every scene as the narrative follows his movements. Consequently, Carter declares, “in each scene Pilate is the key figure.”107 Conversely, he features nowhere else in the Gospel and the reader has no prior intimations as to his personality and likely responses. Pilate’s sudden insertion into the narrative as a fresh character therefore underscores his representative role. The reader is immediately obligated to attempt to place him on the spectrum of belief-unbelief. However, this is not a straightforward exercise as Pilate is consistently hostile to Jesus’
105 Barrett, St John, 443.
106 “As the Gospel has noted before (3:19; 8:15), Jesus does not even need to act as judge. In his presence, the actions and words of the world are self-indicting.” O’Day, John, 183.
107 Warren Carter, Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003), 138.