Criswell
Theological Review 3.1 (1988) 141-159.
Copyright © 1988 by The
ON THE STYLE AND
SIGNIFICANCE OF JOHN 17
DAVID ALAN BLACK
Grace Theological
Seminary West
I.
Introduction
A
consensus is emerging among biblical scholars that generaliza-
tions about language are to
be found not just in the rules of grammar
but also in the ways that language is used. Indeed,
the past two
decades can be characterized as a time of
excited searching for the
right conceptual tools and methods to investigate the
relationship of
discourses to contexts and situations, to actions
and events, and to
participants and their mutual
relations.
The appearance of a number of recent
monographs published
under the auspices of the United Bible Societies
reflects this period of
assessment and consolidation, In Sociolinguistics and Communication,
for example, E. Nida
stresses the importance of sociolinguistic method-
ology in exegesis, and shows
that “any feature of language, from
sounds to rhetoric, may be sociolinguistically
relevant,”l Thus, Nida
concludes, if a good sociolinguistic analysis is
lacking, grammatical
analysis remains at a superficial level since
linguistic units contain very
important sociolinguistic markers.2
Another reflection of this period of
advance is a renewed appre-
ciation of the importance of
semiotics--the study of the stylistic,
rhetorical, and symbolic levels of language. Here,
too, Nida and his
colleagues have made a significant contribution.
Their treatment of
1 E. Nida,
"Sociolinguistics and Translating," Sociolinguistics and Communication
(ed. J. P. Louw; UBS Monograph
Series 1;
2 Ibid.,
46-48.
142
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
rhetorical criticism, entitled Style and Discourse, With Special Refer-
ence to the Text of the Greek New Testament, is doing much to help
the Bible student recognize the significance of
style as an imperative
component in any theory and practice of biblical
interpretation.3 It
now seems clear that Greek studies, and particularly
NT Greek studies,
need to be reexamined in the light of these new
insights into the
functions and features of rhetoric and style.4
While it may be too early to expect
a full-scale migration out of
more traditional areas, it is heartening to note the
number of Johannine
scholars who have been willing to explore and
even consider annexing
this new-found land of literary analysis. An example
is C. H. Talbert's
efforts to uncover the chiastic design of John
1:19-5:47 and of several
major sections in the rest of the Gospel (6:1-12:50;
13:1-35; 13:36-
14:31;
15:1-17:26).5 Talbert concludes that "a balanced symmetrical
plan for the construction of most of the Gospel
emerges,"6 with the
first half of John (1:19-12:50) falling into two
large chiasmuses (1:19-
5:47;
6:1-12:50) introduced by a chiastically arranged
prologue (1:1-
18),
and with chaps 13-17 falling into the same pattern of two large
chiastic sections (13:36-14:31; 15:1-17:26)
preceded by a chiastically
arranged frontispiece (13:1-35). Talbert shows
how this chiastic pat-
tern is not merely for show but is the ally of
meaning, both in
heightening the aesthetic impact of the Gospel in
general and in
serving as an effective mnemonic device for the
hearer/reader. More
recently, J. Staley has contended that the Fourth
Gospel exhibits a
symmetrical, concentric pattern that is built upon
the structure of the
prologue through the interplay between narration
and the use of
Leitworter.7 The implications of this study for exegesis are many. If
Staley
is correct in his analysis, the student of John can no longer rely
on the standard commentary division of John 1-12
and 13-20, with
chap 21 as a tagged-on epilogue.
3 E. Nida,
J. P. Louw, A. H. Snyman,
J. v. W. Cronje, Style
and Discourse, With
Special Reference to the
Text of the Greek New Testament (
Societies,
1983); see my reviews in JETS 27
(1984) 346-47, GTJ 7 (1986) 133-34,
and
Filologia Neotestamentaria (forthcoming).
4 For a discussion of
stylistic formulations and their function in the discourse
structure of the Greek NT, see my Linguistics for Students of New Testament
Greek
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 132-36.
5 C. H. Talbert,
"Artistry and Theology: An Analysis of the Architecture of In
1,19-5,47," CBQ
32 (1970) 341-66. Talbert significantly observes that "The Fourth
Evangelist. . . appears before us not only as a
great theologian but also as a masterful
literary artist. In the Fourth Gospel theology
and aesthetics are mutually complemen-
tary" (p. 366).
6 Ibid.,
360.
7 J. Staley, "The
Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications for 'the Gospel's
Narrative Structure," CBQ 4 (1986) 241-64.
Black: STYLE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF
JOHN 17 143
In citing the above studies I have
had to leave many others
unmentioned, as it is not my purpose here to compare
and contrast
the various proposals put forward by different
scholars.8 Rather, in
this essay I should like to join the increasing
numbers of adventurous
souls who are seeking their fortunes and hazarding
their wits in the
territory charted by books such as Style and Discourse. Our focus will
be the Lord's prayer for unity in John 17. After
some general remarks
on the prayer's narrative technique, I shall turn
to a rhetorical analysis
of its chief stylistic components before
attempting to draw conclu-
sions about the significance
of Jesus' words for the question of eccle-
siastical unity in today's world.
II. The
Narrative Framework of John 17
This chapter forms a unit of its
own, but one that obviously is
inseparable from its larger context. Without going
into detail,9 it
appears that this pericope
forms the conclusion of that section of the
Gospel
in which Jesus withdraws from the world and is continually
with his disciples (chaps 13-17). In this period
fall the last supper
(chap 13), the farewell discourses (chaps 14-16), and the
final prayer
of Jesus (chap 17). At the supper Jesus washes the
disciples' feet, a
symbolic gesture which points to the cross
looming ahead. In the
discourses, spoken in the shadow of the cross,
Jesus reassures his
disciples of his complete victory over the world.
Finally, Jesus' last
prayer marks the end of his earthly ministry and looks
forward to the
ongoing work that would now be the disciples'
responsibility. Through-
out the section, Jesus' death is emphasized, not in
a mood of despon-
dency, but in its peculiarly Johannine significance as the glorification
that finally demonstrates Jesus' do<ca. The unfolding of the
plot by
means of these events underscores the seriousness of
Jesus' "hour"
(17:1).
Jesus is on his way to death--not to an involuntary execution,
but rather to a death that will prove the
consecration of the Son to the
Father and his ability to overcome the world
(16:33).
In tracing John's foreshadowing of
the events related to Jesus'
death, one must keep in mind the narrative
perspective of John 17. In
8 For an example of the
application of current literary theory to the Gospel of
John,
see R. A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the
Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). Note also the thorough
bibliography provided on
pp.
239-48.
9 For a fuller
discussion, see Culpepper, Anatomy,
34-43; J. A. Fitzmeyer, The
Gospel According to John
(AB
29A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1970) 744-51. For an
overview of John 14-17, one can do no better than
to consult the excellent treatment by
D.
A. Carson, The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of
Jesus: An Exposition of John
14-17 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980).
144
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
the first place, v 1 establishes the fact that this
is a prayer, but it is
immediately apparent that the prayer was uttered not
primarily for
the benefit of the Father, but of the disciples,
who were listening
(v 13). This means that the chapter is more a brief discourse
than a
prayer in the usual sense. Secondly, it is vital to
note that Jesus speaks
as though he were already in heaven: "I am no
longer in the world"
(v 11).10 In this sense, the prayer assumes an atemporal character.
Finally,
the relative length of the prayer is important in establishing
the fact that the Fourth Gospel is more than a body
of doctrines, but
also a witness to the mind and heart of Jesus,
including "the hidden
foundation of all his work, namely, his
relationship with his Father."11
We
are thus reminded of themes that are emphasized earlier in the
Gospel (cf. 1:1, 18; 3:13; 6:57; 8:58). One is therefore fully
justified in
calling John 17 yet another example par
excellence of Jesus' teaching
as the Son of God.
III. The
Stylistic Features of John 17
While there is a fair degree of
consensus among scholars that
John
17 contains an important number of stylistic features, there is no
general agreement as far as the structure of the
chapter is concerned.
Differing
analyses have been offered by A. Laurentin,12
J. Becker,13
and E. Malatesta.14 Each has presented
several stylistic features that
could not have been accidental, but none of these
analyses is problem-
free.
Instead of attempting to advance
another structural analysis of
the text, I think it more valuable to observe the
subject from a slightly
different angle. In this approach, an attempt will
be made to classify
the rhetorical features that occur in the text, and
to determine on this
basis the possible functions or meanings of these
features for the
reader. In order to accomplish this purpose, the
methodology pro-
posed by E. Nida et al. will be followed.15
Our analysis will take into
account the broader and more inclusive units
normally related seman-
tically as well as the
rhetorical features that serve to increase the
impact and appeal of these broader units.
Specifically, the method
10 The same thought is
emphasized in John 3:13, if the reading e]n
t&? ou]ran&?
retained; see my "The Text of John
3:13," GTJ 6 (1984) 49-66,
11 J. Cadier, "The Unity of the Church. An Exposition
of John 17," Int
11
(1957) 166.
12 A. Laurentin,
"We'attah-kai>
nu?n. Formule
caracteristique des textes juridiques
et liturgiques (a propos
de Jean 17,5)," Bib 45 (1964)
168-97, 413-32.
13 J. Becker, . . Aufbau, Schichtung
und theologiegeschichtliche Stellung
des Gebets
in John 17," ZNW 60 (1969) 56-83.
14 E. Malatesta,
"The Literary Structure of John 17," Bib 52 (1971) 100-214.
15 Style and Discourse, 25-55, 93-144.
Black: STYLE AND
SIGNIFICANCE OF JOHN 17 145
will be to (I) break up the sentences into their
nuclear structures;
(2)
describe the progress in the chapter in terms of the
logical rela-
tionships between the nuclear
structures; (3) analyze the cohesion of
the whole discourse, and (4) identify the
rhetorical features on the
microlevel of rhetoric. The
possible meanings for these stylistic
devices will then briefly be considered.
Demarcation of nuclear
structures
John 17 is much more complexly
organized than most discourse
units in the NT. In the analysis presented in Figure
I, each numbered
expression consists of a single nuclear structure,
though frequently
ellipses have had to be filled in for the sake of
clarity.
Progression
Before drawing attention to the
logical relations between the
nuclear structures in terms of progression, it
is necessary to describe
the syntactic structure of the text. The syntactic
structure is indicated
by the couplings on the left-hand side of Figure I
and consists of 95
nuclear structures (if the divisions between
10-12 and 56-57 are
accepted), embedded into 52 cola. The pericope consists of relatively
short sentences, considerable embedding in places,
heavy ellipsis and
anacoloutha, and considerable
parallelism and contrast. Items 4-16
clearly form a subsection, marked by chiasmus:
a
"Father... glorify your Son" (5)
b
"that the Son may glorify you" (6)
b'
"I glorified you on the earth" (12)
a'
"glorify me, Father" (15)
Figure
I
1. tau?ta e]la<lhsen ]Ihsou?j
| 2. kai>
e]pa<raj tou>j o]fqalmou>j au]tou? ei]j
to>n ou]rano>n
| 3. ei#pen
4. pa<ter, e]lh<luqen h[ w!ra
|
5. do<caso<n sou
to>n ui[o<n
| | 6. i!na
o[ ui[o>j doca<s^
se<
| | | 7.
kaqw>j e@dwkaj
au]t&? e]cousi<an
pa<shj sarko<j
| | | 8.
i!na
pa?n o{ de<dwkaj
au]t&? dw<s^ au]toi?j zwh>n
ai]w<nion
| 9. au!th
de< e]stin h[ ai]w<nioj zwh<
| | 10. i!na
ginw<skousin se>
to>n mo<non a]lhqino>n qeo>n
| | 11. kai> (i!na ginw<skousin)
o{ a]pe<steilaj ]Ihsou?n Xristo<n
|
12. e]gw<
se e[do<casea e]pi> th?j
gh?j
| | 13. to>
e@rgon teleiw<saj o{ de<dwka<j moi
| | 14. i!na
poih<sw (au]to<)
146
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
| 15. kai> nu?n do<caso<n me su<, pa<ter, para> seaut&?
|
16. t^?
do<c^ ^$ ei#xon pro> tou? to>n ko<smon ei#nai para>
soi<
17. e]fane<rwsa< sou to> o@noma toi?j a]nqrw<poij ou{j e@dwka<j
moi
e]k tou? ko<smou
18. soi>
h#san
19. ka]moi> au]tou>j
e@dwkaj
20. kai> to>n lo<gon sou teth<rhkan
|
21. nu?n
e@gnwkan
| | 22. o!ti
pa<nta o!sa de<dwka<j moi para>
sou? ei]sin
| | 23. o!ti
ta> r[h<mata a{ e@dwkaj moi de<dwka au]toi?j
24. kai> au]toi> e@labon (au]ta<)
| 25. kai> e@gnwsan a]lhqw?j
| 26. o!ti
para> sou? e]ch?lqon
|
27. kai> e]pi<steusan
| 28. o!ti
su< me a]pe<steilaj
29.
e]gw> peri> au]tw?n e]rwtw?
30. ou] peri> tou? ko<smou
e]rwtw?
| 31. a]lla> (e]rwtw?)
peri> w$n
de<dwka<j moi
| 32. o!ti
soi< ei]sin
33. kai>
ta> e]ma> pa<nta sa< e]stin
34. kai> ta< sa> e]ma< (e]stin)
35. kai>
dedo<casmai e]n au]toi?j
36. kai>
ou]ke<ti ei]mi> e]n t&? ko<sm&
37. kai>
au]toi> e]n t&? ko<sm& ei]si<n
38. ka]gw> pro>j se> e@rxomai
| 39. pa<ter a!gie,
th<rhson au]tou>j e]n t&? o]no<mati< sou &$ de<dwka<j moi
| | 40. i!na
w#sin e!n
| 41. kaqw>j
h[mei?j (e!n e]smen)
| 42. o!te h@mhn met ] au]tw?n
| 43. e]gw> e]th<roun au]tou>j e]n t&? o]no<mati< sou &$ de<dwka<j moi
44. kai> e]fu<laca (au]tou<j)
| 45. kai>
ou]dei>j e]c au]tw?n a]pw<leto
ei] mh> o[ ui[o>j th?j a]pwlei<aj
| 46. i!na
h[ grafh> plhrwq^?
47. nu?n
de> pro>j se> e@rxomai
48. kai> tau?ta lalw? e]n
t&? ko<sm&
49. i!na e@xwsin
th>n xa<ran th>n e]mh>n peplhrwme<nwn e]n au]toi?j
50. e]gw> de<dwka
au]toi?j to>n lo<gon sou
|
51. kai>
o[ ko<smoj e]mi<shsen au]tou<j
| | 52. o!ti
ou]k ei]si>n
e]k tou? ko<smou
| | 53. kaqw>j e]gw> ou]k ei]mi> e]k tou? ko<smou
| 54. ou]k
e]rwtw?
| 55. i!na
a@r^j au]tou>j e]k tou? ko<smou
| 56.
a]ll
] (e]rwtw?)
|
57. i!na
thrh<s^j au]tou>j e]k tou? ponhrou?
Black:
STYLE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF JOHN 17 147
|
58. e]k
tou? ko<smou ou]k
ei]si<n
| 59.
kaqw>j
e]gw> ou]k
ei]mi> e]k tou? ko<smou
60.
a[gi<ason au]tou>j e]n t^? a]lh<qei%
61. o[
lo<goj o[ so>j a]lh<qeia< e]stin
| 62.
kaqw>j
e]me> a]pe<steilaj ei]j to>n ko<smon
| 63.
ka]gw>
a]pe<steila au]tou>j ei]j to>n ko<smon
| 64.
kai>
u[per au]tw?n e]gw> a[gia<zw e]maouto<n
| 65.
i!na
w#sin kai> au]toi> h[giasme<noi e]n a]lhqei<%
66. ou]
peri> tou<twn de> e]rwtw?
mo<non
| |
67. a]lla>
(e]rwtw?) kai>
peri> tw?n pisteuo<ntwn dia> tou? lo<gou
au]tw?n ei]j e]me<
| |
68. i!na
pa<ntej e{n w#sin
| |
| 69. kaqw>j
su<, pa<ter, e]n e]moi> (ei#)
| |
| 70. ka]gw> e]n soi<
(ei]mi)
|
71. (e]rwtw?)
i!na kai>
au]toi> e]n h[mi?n w#sin
| | 72.
i!na
o[ ko<smoj pisteu<^
| | 73.
o!ti
su< me a]pe<steilaj
74.
ka]gw>
th>n do<can h{n de<dwka<j
moi de<dwka au]toi?j
| 75.
i!na
w#sin e!n
| 76.
kaqw>j h[mei?j
e!n (e]smen)
77. e]gw> e]n au]toi?j
(ei]mi)
78. kai>
su> e]n e]moi< (ei#)
| 79.
(e]rwtw?)
i!na w#sin
teteleiwme<noi ei]j e!n
| | 80.
i!na
ginw<sk^ o[ ko<smoj
| | |
81. o!ti
su< me a]pe<steilaj
| | | |
82. kai>
h]ga<phsaj
au]tou<j
| | | |
83. kaqw>j
e]me> h]ga<phsaj
| 84.
pa<ter,
o{ de<dwka<j moi qe<lw
| | 85.
i!na
o!pou ei]mi> e]gw> ka]kei?noi w#sin met ] e]mou?
| | 86. i!na
qewrw?sin th?n do<can th>n e]mh>n h{n de<dwka<j moi
87. o!ti
h]ga<phsa<j me
pro> katabolh?j ko<smou
88. pa<ter di<kaie, kai> o[ ko<smoj se ou]k
e@gnw
89. e]gw> de< se e@gnwn
90. kai> ou$toi e@gnwsan
91. o!ti su<
me a]pe<steilaj
92. kai>
e]gnw<risa
au]toi?j to> o@noma< sou
| 93.
kai>
gnwri<sw (au]to<)