ROC home
                              
table of contents

editorial web site

Rapid Review

THE REVIEW OF COMMUNICATION
1 (2001): 230-233
© 2001 National Communication Association

The Rhetoric of John’s Resurrection Narrative

Bruce G. Chabot

Larry Darnell George. Reading the Tapestry: A Literary-Rhetorical Analysis of the Johannine Resurrection Narrative (John 20-21). Studies in Biblical Literature 14. Hemchabd Gossai, General Editor. New York: Peter Lang: 2000.  xi +152 pages. Footnotes, bibliography, and index. $34.95 (paper).

Reading the Tapestry examines the question of whether the last chapter of the fourth Gospel is actually a supplement added by later redactors, and thus separable from the main body of the text. Larry Darnell George takes a position contrary to the majority of contemporary scholars, who have concluded that John’s Gospel proper ends with its twentieth chapter. He boldly disagrees, contending that there is no textual evidence for their view, and that it cannot be proven that the material at issue ever circulated discretely, apart from the context in which it is familiarly seen. This discussion will be of interest to anyone interested in both literary/rhetorical research as well as Christian/ scriptural interpretation. The tone of this book differentiates it from similar works, because this one is more conversational than empirical.

Applying his literary/rhetorical approach, George maintains that the twenty-first chapter is in fact part of the gospel as written by the person designated as the fourth evangelist, and that, together with its preceding chapter, it makes up an integrated and original whole, which is “designed to inform and influence—on a cognitive and emotive level—the reader with regard to Jesus’ post-resurrection status and nature” (3).

George begins with the premise that, rather than focusing on the seams that may appear to divide the twenty-first chapter from the rest of John’s gospel, it is better to look at the extant work as a tapestry composed of complementary and intentionally interwoven parts.

Dwelling especially on reader-response criticism, and dealing mainly with the implied author and the implied reader, George examines the effects of various types of literary criticism on the matter, including historical and form criticism. He insists that construing John 21 as separate in comparison with other gospel materials results in a deconstruction that has fragmented the holistic effect of the writing.

Setting the context and familiarizing his audience with the debate, Brown refers to the latest academic journals and the most current topics in biblical archaeology and scholarship, documenting his work carefully with citations (some footnotes take up half the page). Bultmann, Brown, and other well-known scholars, according to George, fail to deal with the text on its own merits, and consequently have rearranged the pieces and unduly obscured its true function as a real part of the essential resurrection story functioning as the conclusion of the fourth gospel.

George’s thesis is that the fourth gospel in its present form, with the twenty-first chapter intact, has not been cobbled together from disparate elements, but rather that, based on its coherent temporal flow, it is a purposeful and harmonious composition.

George’s method is to divide up the sum of the two chapters into three “episodes” involving Jesus’ appearances to the disciples after the Resurrection: the episodes of the tomb, the house, and the sea of Tiberias. These he further subdivides into individual scenes, in order to show how they all inter-relate. Then, to prove his thesis, George analyzes the scenes in minute detail, holding up their myriad, colorful threads for examination—how the author paints them with literary devices, including intricacies of plot and foreshadowing, drama, irony, distinctions and interactions among characters’ personalities. The reader will not forget that, as the sub-title says, this is a literary and rhetorical analysis, rather than a linguistic one (George delves only rarely into the Greek).

In considering the episode of the tomb, for instance, George explains that the Johannine author employs the classical theme of changing from non-recognition to recognition in the encounter between Jesus and Mary Magdalene: “Thus, this scene represents the beginning of a recognition scene, in which the reader is given information that the characters do not possess, which is a situation of dramatic irony” (73). George makes nothing of the fact that the first person to whom Jesus appears after the Resurrection is a woman, something of interest to many contemporary commentators.

George goes deeply into character development, and at length, his reader discovers George’s vision of how John’s narrator depicts each individual character’s thoughts, feelings, and motivations, demonstrating that they are real people, and more, because their deeds and even their intentions have both literary and theological ramifications spanning millennia.

Naturally, like any critic, George provides his own interpretation of the text.  For example, in discussing the scene of Jesus’ mysterious appearance to the bewildered disciples after they have fished fruitlessly all night on the Sea of Tiberias, George opines that, “this scene functions to introduce a major complication in the narrative for the reader: the disciples’ inactivity concerns their mission as a group and results in failure without Jesus” (118). Continuing on the subject of John’s relationship with the reader, George states that, in the same scene, “the disciples’ inability to recognize Jesus on the shore of the lake is possibly due in part to the fact that Jesus is not to be easily recognized. Thus, the reader had to assume that Jesus is in some sort of quasi-physical state” (122). Such interpretations are perfectly within the mainstream of current thought.

Many of George’s interpretations are not novel. He states, for instance, that Peter was a leader among the Apostles, and that the “Beloved Disciple” was the author of the Gospel of John—but he does end with some very interesting observations. He concludes that the faith of John’s implied reader develops as she or he unites with the disciples, who cannot succeed on their own, on human terms, without Jesus’ assistance. Ultimately, answering the question with which he started out, he finds that John 20 and 21 do hang together and have a recognizable author with a strategy, which is to nurture the reader’s faith.

George’s final observation is that, although there are complications for the characters in the story at hand, because of the “quasi-physical nature” of the resurrected Jesus, these problems serve to emphasize “the corresponding faith-response and responsibility of the disciples” (151). As always, George puts the human face on things, with a gentle touch. No reader would think that a book with this title was going to end with “there is no text” or “the author is dead.”

George’s conclusions will seem exhortational, for that is what this book is, rather than strictly didactic or expositional. Ultimately, George views his material as a friend rather than a nemesis, and the academic appeal of the book is outstripped by its pastoral, homiletic, even meditative tone. Such an approach will, of course, attract some readers just as it repels others. Clearly, the audience for the book is one who spans the gap between die-hard exegetical exhumationists on the one hand, and those who want to read scripture scholarship for their own edification, on the other. It will give both ends of the spectrum something to talk about, and the one in the middle will enjoy it the most.

Bruce Chabot, M.Div., is a PhD Candidate in the Department of English at Texas A&M University.