Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | Mai/2023 |
Spalte: | 470-472 |
Kategorie: | Neues Testament |
Autor/Hrsg.: | Tops, Thomas |
Titel/Untertitel: | Paroimia and Parrēsia in the Gospel of John. A Historical-Hermeneutical Study. |
Verlag: | Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2022. XVIII, 497 S. = Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe, 565. Kart. EUR 104,00. ISBN 9783161611025. |
Rezensent: | Cornelis Bennema |
This revised version of Thomas Tops’ doctoral dissertation provides a historical-hermeneutical analysis of paroimia and parrēsia in John’s Gospel. In Ch 1, on methodology, T. exposes the inability of scholarship to dismantle or transform the metaphysical framework of historical objectivism, where the subject-object distinction situates the historian outside history. Building on Nietzsche and Gadamer, T. proposes a healthier form of historicism where (i) one should study history from within one’s historical horizon; and (ii) the historical horizon of the historian fuses with the historical horizon of the text. Oddly, T. has not interacted with A. Thiselton’s The Two Horizons (1980) and New Horizons in Hermeneutics (1992), which also draw on Gadamer’s fusion of historical horizons.
Ch 2 provides an extensive overview of Johannine scholarship on paroimia and parrēsia. Instead of simply including a history of research as a ›standard‹ feature of a doctoral dissertation, I commend T. for making this a vital part of his methodology in that (i) it informs him of various interpretative possibilities on the subject (and their presuppositions), and (ii) thus establishes his own historicality as a researcher.
Ch 3 explores the relationship between paroimia and parrēsia in John. Examining John 10; 11:11−16; 16:23−33, T. argues that parrēsia and paroimia are not antonyms and that revelation is not opposed to concealment in John’s Gospel. Instead, Jesus’ parrēsia employs paroimia. While most scholars take paroimia and parrēsia to indicate an opposition between figurative and plain language, or between pre-paschal misunderstanding and post-paschal Christological perception, T. presents a new interpretation where paroimia is part of parrēsia.
Ch 4 examines whether the Paraclete’s teaching is retrospective and/or prospective. Instead of an either/or scenario, T. argues that the Paraclete’s teaching in 14:25−26 and 16:12−13 is primarily prospective but there is also a retrospective aspect since the Paraclete’s teaching is rooted in that of Jesus. T. devotes much space to criticising the either/or approach that most scholars adopt. However, even when 14:25−26 is taken as retrospective, most scholars would acknowledge a prospective aspect to the Paraclete’s teaching in 16:12-13. Hence, the sum of the Paraclete’s teaching in 14:25−26; 16:12-13 is both retrospective and prospective and T. argues perhaps unnecessarily that both aspects are present in both texts.
Contra the view that the two Johannine verbs for asking − erōtaō and aiteō − are synonymous, T. argues in Ch 5 that erōtaō refers to a pre-paschal asking (often related to Jesus’ paroimia) while aiteō indicates a post-paschal asking (more in line with Jesus’ parrēsia). Exceptions are 4:9-10 and 11:22, where aiteō foreshadows the disciples’ post-paschal asking. T. then examines 16:23−27, where the distinction between paroimia and parrēsia in 16:25 is framed by the different forms of asking in 16:23−24, 26−27. However, T.’ explanation of the exceptions to the alleged pattern seems forced. In 4:9 and 11:22, the Samaritan woman and Martha simply use aiteō in a straightforward pre-paschal sense.
Ch 6 addresses a paradox in John’s depiction of Jesus’ parrēsia: while Jesus spoke (and walked) in parrēsia during his lifetime, 7:4−8 and 16:25 refer to Jesus’ death as the time of his parrēsia. To explain this ambiguity, T. explores the idea of parrēsia as an experimental teaching method in Philodemus, Plutarch and Clement of Alexandria. He then sees a parallel in John, where Jesus’ parrēsia is the method of his self-revelation that proceeds by trial and error. Jesus tentatively speaks in parrēsia during his lifetime and does not know in advance whether it will be beneficial; only after his death will his parrēsia be effective. While I am intrigued by T.’ hypothesis, other texts seem to indicate that Jesus knows how people will react (2:24−25; 4:16-18; 6:70−71; 8:43−44; 13:21).
In Ch 7, on the adaptability of Jesus’ parrēsia, T. argues that Jesus ›employs basically two different strategies to adjust his teaching to the psychological disposition of his interlocutors: a severe or pure form of parrēsia consisting in only blame, and a mixed or mild form of parrēsia involving both blame and praise‹ (211). T. addresses my previous scepticism by stating that although Jesus has pre-knowledge of the psychological disposition of his recipients, he still has to estimate the right intensity of his parrēsia (249).
In Ch 8, T. argues that Jesus’ parrēsia has hardened and blinded the world, but the Paraclete’s elenchos in 16:8−11 will, through the disciples’ parrēsia, lead the recalcitrant world to repentance and salvation. But why should we assume that the Paraclete’s elenchos will be more effective than Jesus’ parrēsia? Like Jesus’ parrēsia, there is no guarantee that the Paraclete’s elenchos will be beneficial. Moreover, the world as ›world‹ will remain hostile to Jesus and his followers, although there will be those who will be convinced by the Paraclete’s teaching.
In Ch 9, T. suggests that the Johannine idea of friendship has two main characteristics: commitment and parrēsia (open communication). By keeping Jesus’ commandments, which is required for obtaining parrēsia, the disciples can become Jesus’ friends. T. detects a development in John’s Gospel, where the disciples move from being servants of Jesus (13:13) to becoming his friends (15:15). However, in the footwashing episode Jesus exhorts the disciples to adopt a servant identity to provide acts of loving service to one another, and there is no indication that this directive becomes redundant only two chapters later!
Ch 10 examines whether Jesus’ parrēsia is public and/or private. T. shows that Jesus never teaches ›in secret‹ but always in parrēsia (›in public‹), both to the world and to his disciples. This implies that John’s Gospel is not an esoteric document for a sectarian Johannine community but public teaching for the entire world.
Ch 11 analyzes how the first reader of John’s Gospel would have interpreted the combined use of paroimia and parrēsia in Jesus’ teaching. T. argues that Jesus speaks in parrēsia through paroimia to guarantee his safety and to adapt to the ability of his audience to accommodate criticism. Jesus can speak and criticize the »Jews« openly and at the same time warrant his safety because he does so in figured speech, which is open to multiple meanings. While T. explains this well with reference to 7:32−36; 10:1−6, I would have liked him to address John 2–4, where Jesus also speaks in parrēsia through paroimia but was not yet in danger.
In Ch 12, T. identifies two differences between John’s use of paroimia and parrēsia and Mark’s use of parabolē and parrēsia. First, while the Markan parabolē is used in public and parrēsia is used in private for the disciples, the Johannine paroimia and parrēsia are used in both public and private settings. Second, while Mark juxtaposes parabolē and parrēsia, John aligns paroimia and parrēsia. Considering the emerging consensus that John wrote for an audience that knew Mark, I would have liked T. explain why John uses figured speech so differently than Mark.
The General Conclusion summarizes the results of the study. Apart from some disagreements (the most substantial is on Ch 8), I find T.’ thesis generally convincing. In my view, Chs 3, 6–7 and 11 most advance his thesis. I commend T. for having produced a fresh and significant contribution to our understanding of the nature of Jesus’ teaching in John’s Gospel.