Scripture-interpreting character in narrative context

It is common in the literature of Jewish antiquity to depict a scripture-interpreting character as part of a narrative in one form or another. This is accomplished differently in each of the works surveyed. Among these, not surprisingly, Matthew’s Gospel is closest to John as a narrative depiction of Jesus as interpreter of scripture, although the narrative structure of the First Gospel and the other Synoptics is quite distinct from that of the Fourth. Philo includes a brief narrative account of those who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, inserting it into his broader work On The Life of Moses,1 _{while interspersing comments regarding his own interpretive role throughout his various} writings. The depiction of Daniel in the book of Daniel takes on yet another narrative structure, with a sequence of court tales recounted by third person narration in chapters 1-6,2 _{setting the context and} establishing Daniel’s interpretive credentials for the series of apocalyptic visions voiced in the first person that constitute the second half of the book in its final form. In each of the above cases, a

1 _{Mos. 2.25-44.}

2 _{Daniel does not appear in chapter 3, which tells of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, while chapter} 4 is related in the first person by the character of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar.

narrative structure – although variously shaped – is readily apparent. In what follows I will comment briefly on the contrasting literary structures of Deuteronomy, Qumran’s Habakkuk Commentary, and depictions of Hillel and other sages in rabbinic literature, in relation to the Fourth Gospel’s narrative structure in its depiction of Jesus as interpreter of scripture.

We have observed that Deuteronomy, in contrast to the books preceding it in canonical sequence, is structured as a series of lengthy discourses by Moses with a frame of third person narration at the beginning and end of the book. John’s Gospel is also uniquely characterized by a series of extended speeches by Jesus, including the lengthy “Farewell Address” that, as Lacorama has convincingly argued, is patterned after the deuteronomic discourses of Moses.3 _{The first person} discourses are knitted together by third person narration throughout the Fourth Gospel, as compared to Deuteronomy’s outer narrative frame. Nevertheless it is significant that John’s portrayal of Jesus is not only verbally and repeatedly linked to Moses, but is structured in a way that calls to mind the depiction of Moses in Deuteronomy.4

3 _{See Lacorama, “Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse,” 65, 82. See also Meeks, Prophet-King,} 46.

4 _{Although the Fourth Gospel’s relationship to the Synoptic Gospels remains disputed, a growing} number of scholars acknowledge the possibility that John demonstrates awareness of the other Gospels. (So Brant [John, 10: “The hypothesis that John knew one or more of the Synoptic Gospels remains viable.” See also White [Scripting Jesus, 352-353], who takes the position that the writer of John “knew and depended one or more of the Synoptics.”) If the suggestion holds that the Fourth Gospel represents a subsequent re-working of synoptic material, then another comparison with Deuteronomy presents itself. As we have noted, Deuteronomy positions itself, and its depiction of Moses, self-consciously as a subsequent re-telling and

exposition/interpretation of the law given previously at Sinai. John could be seen to occupy a similar position vis-à-vis the Synoptic Gospels, as a subsequent re-telling of earlier traditions, structured to a significant extent around a series of extended speeches by Jesus.

Keith moves in this direction with his characterization of the Fourth Gospel as “a competitive textualization of the Jesus tradition” vis-à-vis the Synoptics (“The Competitive Textualization of the Jesus Tradition”), as does Levinson (Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation) with his analysis of Deuteronomy as a radical re-working of the Covenant Code. Both Keith and Levinson depict this process in an adversarial sense, asserting that these new literary works (John’s Gospel and Deuteronomy, respectively) were intended to supplant and replace the preceding documents. Najman (Seconding Sinai, 20-29) critiques

Levinson’s adversarial assumptions, which she demonstrates to be an inadequate and anachronistic reading of ancient conceptions of authorship. My suggestion above, following Najman’s analysis, takes a more positive view of this intertextual process regarding the potential relationship between John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels by viewing these documents in canonical perspective.

Qumran’s Commentary on Habakkuk reverses the pattern. Rather than situating its portrayal of the Teacher of Righteousness in a narrative context, the depiction of the scripture interpreter in this case is embedded in an explicitly exegetical document, a commentary on the biblical book of

Habakkuk.5 While this represents a contrast to the narrative literary structure of John’s Gospel, the Habakkuk Commentary’s characteristic pesher approach of identifying specific elements from the biblical text with contemporary referents – a way of reading scripture in the present tense, as a description of the experience of the Qumran community – has much in common with the Fourth Gospel’s insistence that what is written in scripture refers to Jesus. Indeed, this interpretive approach is characteristic of Jesus himself, as portrayed in John’s Gospel.6

One of the points of similarity between the depiction of Jesus as interpreter of scripture in John’s Gospel and that of the sages in rabbinic literature is the prevalence of dialogue and dispute as a means of working out the hermeneutical agenda at stake. We have seen that the Fourth Gospel depicts Jesus engaging in interpretive discussions with a variety of conversation partners, including surprising ones. Hermeneutical dialogue and dispute are, in fact, key characteristics of the Fourth Gospel’s narrative strategy. Much the same can be said for the depictions of the sages in rabbinic literature; dialogue and dispute are not only characteristic of the Talmud but constitutive of it.

That said, it is striking that the depictions of the sages in rabbinic literature up until the closure of the Babylonian Talmud tend not to take the shape of extended narrative accounts of individual rabbis. Some narrative elements are present throughout this literature, including short narratives or scenes that provide a situational context or frame for particular rabbinic discussions and debates,7 but even such major figures as Hillel are not the subjects of an extended narration of their lives and teachings in the way that the Fourth Gospel and the other Gospels present Jesus. Perhaps we

5 _{See 1QpHab 1.13; 2.2; 5.10; 7.4-5; 8.1-3; 9.9-10; 11.4-5.} 6 _{See Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 157.} 7 _{Neusner, Rabbinic Literature, 37.}

could say that the Torah itself and its continued elaboration and application (that is, interpretation) is the main character of the ongoing narrative in the rabbinic literature, with the rabbis presented as the supporting cast rather than the headliner on the Talmudic marquee. The Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, is intensely focused on the identity and mission of Jesus who is undoubtedly the star attraction. In its narrative depiction, the emphasis lies with the witness of the scriptures to the truth of Jesus’ claims rather than the other way around. This is a significant difference between the narrative context for the Fourth Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus as interpreter of scripture compared to the depictions of the sages in rabbinic literature.