The "Theatre of Performance" and "the Living Word of Jesus" in the Farewell Discourse(s) in John's...

Journal of Early Christian HistoryFormerly Acta Patristica et Byzantina

Aims & ScopeThe Journal of Early Christian History aims to contribute to scholarship in early Christian and Byzantine studies by publishing high quality research articles, review articles and book reviews. The journal aspires to approach the field of early Christian and Byzantine studies from new perspectives, welcoming studies incorporating various methodologies, contextual trajectories and interdisciplinary research. The journal especially wishes to promote research in these fields within a South African and wider African context, but not neglecting the international scholarly community. It therefore publishes individually submitted articles, articles resulting from research projects and also conference proceedings.

Articles and reviews from the following disciplines are covered by the scope of the journal:

New Testament Studies;Patristics and Late Ancient Studies;Byzantine Studies.

Although these disciplines form the crux of research covered by the journal, studies from other relevant fields such as the Old Testament and Septuagint, Classics and Religion would also be considered for publication.

Editorial Policy & IndexingJournal of Early Christian History is an accredited journal. All articles are subject to evaluation by at least two specialists before the editor grants permission for publication. Members of the editorial board assist the editor in this regard. The journal is also being indexed in the following international publications:

Religious & Theological AbstractsNew Testament AbstractsL’Année PhilologiqueScience of ReligionATLA Religion DatabaseElenchus

Submission of ManuscriptsManuscripts must be submitted electronically to the Managing Editor:

Chris L. de WetDepartment of Biblical and Ancient Studies, Unisa, PretoriaEmail: [email protected]

Journal of Early Christian History (ISSN 2222-582X) is published twice a year. © Unisa Press.

EditorC. L. de WetUniversity of South Africa

EDITORIAL BOARDPauline Allen (Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia); Paul M. Blowers (Emmanuel Christian Seminary, Johnson City, Tennessee, U.S.A.); Charles A. Bobertz (St. John’s University, Collegeville, Minnesota, U.S.A.); Phil J. Botha (University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa); Katharina Bracht (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany); Virginia Burrus (Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, U.S.A.); Hubertus Drobner (Theologische Fakultät Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany); Everett Ferguson (Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas, U.S.A.); John T. Fitzgerald (University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, U.S.A); James C. Hanges (Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, U.S.A.); Benjamin Hendrickx (University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa); Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre (Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, U.S.A.); Marianne B. Kartzow (University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway); Christina Landman (University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa); Wendy Mayer (Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia); Heike Omerzu (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark); Judith Perkins (St. Joseph College, Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A.); Ilaria Ramelli (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy); Riemer Roukema (Protestant Theological University, Groningen, Netherlands); Kristina Sessa (Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.); Hendrik F. Stander (University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa); Gerhard van den Heever (University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa); Jan G. van der Watt (Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands); Johannes N. Vorster (University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa).

Journal of Early Christian History

A Journal for the Study of Early Christianity and Late Antiquity(Formerly known as Acta Patristica et Byzantina; ISSN 2222-582X)

VOL 4.1 • 2014 • ISSN • 2222-582X

Journal of Early Christian History

A Journal for the Study of Early Christianity and Late Antiquity

CONTENTS

EditorialPieter F. Craffert .................................................................................................... 1

Articles on Orality and Literacy in Early ChristianityHistorical Critical Interpretation is Not (Necessarily) Critical Historical Interpretation: Taking Account of the Oral/Aural Conditions of the First-Century Mediterranean World

Pieter F. Craffert .................................................................................................... 3

The ‘Theatre of Performance’ and ‘The Living Word’ of Jesus in the Farewell Discourse(s) in John’s Gospel

Jonathan A. Draper ................................................................................................. 26

A Social Semiotic Multi-Modal Approach to Communication Practices in Early Christianity

Holly E. Hearon ..................................................................................................... 44

Quotations from Scripture and the Compilation of Hebrews in an Oral WorldGert J. Steyn ........................................................................................................... 68

General articlesA Hesychasm Before Hesychasm

Theodore Sabo, Dan Lioy, Rikus Fick .................................................................... 88

‘If You Wish To Be My Mother, Take Care to Please Christ’: The Posthumous Speech of Blesilla in Jerome’s Letter 39

Rebecca L. Littlechilds ........................................................................................... 97

Beyond Just Wages (Mt. 20:1-16)Jean-Claude Loba-Mkole ....................................................................................... 112

The Gospel of Mark in Light of Its Apocalyptic Worldview – Part 1Marius Nel ............................................................................................................. 135

iv

Review Articles and Book ReviewsPhilemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter

Peter Cimala .......................................................................................................... 149

Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and SpeechesTheodore Sabo ....................................................................................................... 156

List of Contributors .......................................................................................................................................... 160

Guidelines for Contributors ......................................................................................................................... 162

Subscription Form ............................................................................................................................................ 164

26

Journal of Early Christian HistoryVolume 4 • Number 1 • 2014

THE ‘THEATRE OF PERFORMANCE’ AND ‘THE LIVING WORD’ OF JESUS IN THE FAREWELL DISCOURSE(S) IN JOHN’S GOSPEL

Jonathan A. DraperUniversity of Kwazulu-NatalPietermaritzburg

ABSTRACTWhile there has been a renewed interest in apocalyptic writings as an expression of Jewish and Christian mystical practice, there has been relatively little exploration of the concrete aspects of performance. Exploration of the role of Christian prophets in mediating and creating Jesus tradition flourished in the early 1980’s following the work of Bultmann, Käsemann, Neugebauer, Boring, and Aune. A new interest in Jewish and Christian prophecy has followed the exploration of apocalyptic as a separate genre from eschatology, and the rediscovery of mystical ascent traditions in the work of Rowland, John J. Collins, VanderKam, and Schäfer. Neither of these research trajectories has satisfactorily explained the oral performative aspects of such prophetic tradition, nor how it relates to apocalyptic in literary form. Based on research into prophets in the earliest (first-century) Christian regulation of such practice in the Didache, this paper explores the creative oral performative aspects of Christian prophets discernible in the Farewell Discourse(s) of the Gospel of John.

Key words: Farewell Discourse in John; prophecy; oral performance; early Christian mysticism; symposium.

1 INTRODUCTIONIn his fine new book on Orality and Literacy in Early Christianity, Pieter Botha insists from the outset on the central role played by the medium of communication in understanding ancient texts since, ‘[c]ommunication media not only reflect culture

ISSN 2222-582X © Unisa Presspp 26–43

27

The ‘Theatre of Performance’ and ‘The Living Word’ of Jesus

but also influence it fundamentally.’1 Our modern text-based literacy is fundamentally influenced by print media and individual (silent) reading—of course multiplied in its effect today by the instantaneous availability of data through electronic media. It is ironic, especially given the role played by Form Criticism in its development, that historical critical study of early Christian writings has neglected this critical aspect. Botha’s warning is aptly directed:

When applied to contemporary studies of ancient texts, the implication of media criticism is that the (unspoken) conception of the medium in which we perceive and experience a text will inevitably influence our perception of its meaning. Therefore, to the degree that our goal is to understand these ancient documents in historical contexts, it is essential to understand the medium in which they originated. Historical interpretation requires an effort to experience the tradition in its intended medium.2

Of course, Botha is aware that there are many ways in which orality affects literacy in the ancient world: the role of scribe and amanuensis being one of them, something emphasized by Werner Kelber in recent years.3 However, it is interesting that he does not take up John Miles Foley’s important insights in The Singer of Tales in Performance, which makes the same point. Foley focuses on the way in which oral rhetorical strategies persist in oral-derived texts through his analysis of performance arena, register, and communicative economy.4

In particular, in my opinion, the correct identification of the performance arena is critical to understanding the way in which an oral strategy operates in conjunction with text:

Oral traditional forms are situated in part within a set of associations and expectations formally extrinsic but metonymically intrinsic to their experience as works of verbal art. To ignore the immanent context is to force situated words out of their natural significative settings–obviously a crippling and artistically violent reorientation; the result might well parallel the dysfunction occasioned [by mistaking literary genre].5

For instance, while Raymond Brown, in his commentary on John’s Gospel adopts oral transmission as one of the key aspects in the evolution of the distinctively Johannine material, he is only able to conceive of preaching as the vehicle or, in Foley’s terms, performance arena of this process.6 This assumes an interaction between preaching

1 Pieter J. J. Botha, Orality and Literacy in Early Christianity (Eugene, OR.: Cascade, 2012), 3.2 Ibid., 9.3 Werner Kelber, ‘The Oral-Scribal-Memorial Arts of Communication in Early Christianity’, in Jesus,

the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (ed. Tom Thatcher; Waco, TX.: Baylor University Press, 2008), 234-62.

4 John Miles Foley, The Singer of Tales in Performance (Bloomington, IN.: Indiana University Press, 1995), esp. 60-98.

5 Ibid., xii.6 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XX: A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary (ABD 29a; New York, NY.: Doubleday, 1982), xxxiv-xxxix.

28

Jonathan A. Draper

and text similar to the practice of a modern preacher writing out a sermon and then correcting it for a different congregation. Even though in some cases this was practiced in the ancient world, witness the voluminous collections of John Chrysostom’s sermons, it is hard to understand the evolution of the discourse tradition spoken in the first person in such a context or how such written sermons contributed to the evolution of tradition. Here we shall explore the Farewell Discourses of John 13-17 as a case study of apocalyptic prophecy as an oral performance arena responsible for the emergence of fresh and startlingly different Jesus tradition which yet maintains continuity with the Synoptic gospels.

My hypothesis is that ‘I am…’ is the metonymic key which signals the ‘dedicated register’ of the performance arena of orally delivered apocalyptic prophecy. Jesus bears the Name ‘I am’ and therefore mediates the power and presence of the Father from creation.7 It signals the presence of the enthroned and glorified Christ in the open heaven to which prophets might hope to ascend and return with messages from the risen Jesus:

As one leaves behind the more generic register for the more “dedicated” idiom, one also reduces the variety of objects, ideas, and actions that can be appropriately summoned. Thus the performance arena becomes ever more carefully mapped out and charged with expectation and the communicative medium concomitantly increasingly economical, while the circumference of the arena necessarily shrinks, as one moves from a less to a more highly focused register.8

Our problem with understanding John’s Discourse material is that we do not have all the clues to the metonymic reference system which would enable us to recognize the nature of the performance. Apocalyptic prophecy forms no part of modern Western culture which has been largely formed by a rational materialist perspective of history since the Enlightenment. In order to enter the world of John’s performance we need clues to key us in, keys which are seemingly lost to us.

2 CHRISTIAN PROPHETS AND THE JESUS TRADITIONThe debate over the origin of some elements of the Jesus tradition in prophecy originated with Form Criticism: having denied historical authenticity to most Jesus sayings, Rudolf Bultmann turned to prophets speaking in the name of the Risen Lord to explain their Sitz im Leben and origin from his ‘fluid-tradition perspective.’ However, as Eugene Boring’s seminal study, Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition9

7 Jonathan A. Draper, “«Ils virent Dieu, puis ils mangèrent et burent» (Exode 24:11) : l’immanence mystique du dieu transcendant dans la création, la théophanie et l’incarnation dans «l’étrange» Jésus de l’évangile de Jean,” in Figures del’étrangeté dans l’évangile de Jean: Etudes socio-historiques et littéraires (eds. B. Decharneux and F. Nobilio; Cortil-Wodon: Editions Modulaires Européennes/FNRS, 2007), 237-281. See e.g. John 12:28-29; 18:6.

8 Foley, Singer of Tales, 17.9 M. Eugene Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTS

46; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

29


pointed out, Bultmann never studied prophecy per se, and never gave supporting evidence as to why prophecy and not midrashic expansion produced a saying:

Bultmann believed that the early church generally regarded the tradition of the words of Jesus as the vehicle of the voice of the risen Lord. Not only were Jewish and Hellenistic materials that originally had nothing to do with Jesus commandeered and edited into the tradition to serve as the rule of the exalted Christ, even historically-authenticated dominical sayings were not heard as the recorded teaching of a past historical figure but as the voice of the exalted Lord.10

Rather, Christian prophets served as a deus ex machina to get out of a dead end. Bultmann never defined Christian prophetism clearly, provided no evidence, and does not distinguish between charismatic prophets and ordinary preaching and teaching. Ernst Käsemann11 rightly insists on the distinction between prophecies and other traditions, and describes them as ‘sentences of holy law,’ but still provides nothing more concrete.

Boring points out that, ‘Christian prophets cannot be called in as a solution to the problem posed by the apparent prolific productivity of the community as long as their role is simply assumed . . . any theory of the prophetic expansion of the tradition implies a theory not only about Christian prophecy but about the nature of the tradition process itself.’12 In fact, he argues, ‘[a]ny new attempt to deal with the problem of Christian prophecy and the synoptic tradition must study the relation of prophets to the tradition process.’13 His working definition envisages the Christian prophet as ‘an immediately-inspired spokesman for the risen Jesus who received intelligible oracles that he felt impelled to deliver to the Christian community.’14 Beyond this insistence on ‘inspiration’ by the Spirit, however, Boring offers little concrete detail, since he shies away from the suggestion of what has been described by social scientists as an ‘altered state of consciousness’ (ASC) which might be associated with ‘magicians and fortune tellers of whatever sort.’15 Rather, ‘inspiration’ is used in a variety of senses, to indicate that the prophet claims that what he is saying or writing represents the present, immediate voice of the deity. No statement about the state of consciousness in which the prophet receives the oracles is intended. Nor is the definition intended to exclude the prophet’s utilization of sources, traditional materials, or the reflections of the prophet himself, all of which may be involved in the delivery to the community of what he perceives to be directly revealed from the risen Lord.16 The prophets could do this because they had a Christology ‘not found elsewhere,’ which presumably made them feel free to construct new tradition.17

10 Ibid., 3.11 Ernst Käsemann, “Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament,” in New Testament Questions of

Today (ed. W. J. Montague. Philadelphia, PA.: Fortress, 1969), 66-81.12 Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus, 9-10.13 Ibid., 12.14 Ibid., 16.15 Ibid., 19.16 Ibid., 17.17 Ibid., 19.

30

Jonathan A. Draper

More promising is Boring’s insistence that Christian community is central to prophecy, but again he pulls back from examining the performative aspects of prophecy:

Prophecy is here defined as a church phenomenon. This does not mean that it is necessarily a congregational, cultic phenomenon—this question is to be left open. But it does indicate that the figures who claim our interest in this study have their setting in the life of the Christian community (and that their oracles are related to the life and affairs of that community) rather than being freelancers who speak to individuals on personal matters.18

In a way, Boring ends up being as vague as Bultmann about what prophets actually did and how they came up with the kind of sayings of Jesus we find in John’s Gospel, ‘I am …’

3 APOCALYPTIC AND MYSTICAL TRADITIONS OF ASCENT/DESCENT

I believe that the new movement in work on apocalyptic which began at about the same time as Boring’s work enables us to take his insights further. Since the ground-breaking work of Christopher Rowland in The Open Heaven,19 it has become accepted wisdom that apocalyptic must be distinguished from eschatology and that it has to do with revelation of heavenly realities by seers who were granted (or claimed to have achieved) ascent to view heavenly mysteries. Paul himself appears to have claimed to have ascended to the third heaven (possibly the highest, depending whether there were seven or three! see 1 Cor 12:1-10) and Ephesians imagines that God exalted the believer (by which read the seer?) with Jesus, ‘and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ (Eph 2:6). Despite the scepticism of Peter Schäfer20 about the early date and authenticity of such access to the heavenly throne room/ temple among the rabbis, he still charts the extensive influence and importance of the trope. He attributes such mysticism to exegesis designed to console Israel in its sufferings. However, its practise in the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls21 and in Philo of Alexandria22 establishes its presence and influence at the time of the early Christian communities.

18 Ibid., 19.19 Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity

(London: SPCK, 1982), taken up again in Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament (CRINT 12; Leiden: Brill 2009).

20 Peter Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).21 See especially Carol Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta, GA.:

Scholars, 1985); Judith H. Newman, “Priestly Prophets at Qumran: Summoning Sinai through the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity (eds. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman and Loren Stuckenbruck; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 29-72; Samuel I. Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta, GA.: SBL, 2009).

22 See e.g., Baudouin Decharneux, L’ange, le devin et le prophete: Chemins de la parole dans l’oeuvre de Philon d’Alexandrie dit “le Juif” (Bruxelles: L’éditions de l’Universite de Bruxelles, 1994).

31


The trail seems to run from Ezekiel 1, 13 to Daniel 7-9 to 1 Enoch and then on to the various first century Jewish and Christian manifestations. The evidence suggests that such experiences of heaven journeys by seers and visions of the throne room of heaven were what social scientists have called ‘altered states of consciousness.’ Recent research into human socialization has affirmed the wide diversity of human experience and its intimate relationship to culture. We hear and see and feel what we are socialized to hear and see and feel. ‘Reality’ is socially constructed, and for polyphasic societies (the great majority) which cultivate and value alternate states of consciousness, ‘[s]tates of consciousness are not divided between real and non-real versions of reality but all are equally real and consequently equally vulnerable as representations and constructions of reality.’23

These findings, then, problematize the language of ‘actual’ or ‘genuine’ or ‘real’ or ‘normal’ experience, but they are nevertheless the product of ‘rationalist’ empirical research in sociology and anthropology.24

We need to take seriously the certainty that the ancient world experienced and understood such ascents and visions and hearings as realities. This is not to say that they did not also recognize that there were frauds and corrupt exploiters of prophecy, but only that they believed in its reality and trusted that God could speak to them in this way. This is not special pleading for early Christianity. The same applies for the tradition of heaven journeys in Qumran, Philo, and Rabbinic Judaism. Even allowing for the late date at which rabbinic material was written down, the trajectory is the same. The material has been well worked over, particularly the ‘four who entered pardes,’ which is found in four variant traditions: ShSR 1:4; t. Hag 2:3f; j. Hag 77b; b. Hag 14b. The four achieve the heavenly ascent into the throne room but three of the four get into trouble by imagining two powers in heaven, while only Rabbi Akiba escapes entirely unscathed.25 It is a dangerous process, dogged by hostile angels and tests of virtue and right understanding. Nevertheless, these related traditions project the possibility of ascending to view the heavenly places and obtain secret information, to view and be instructed directly by God/God’s angel(s).

A relatively late account of Rabbi Nehunya ben Haqanah is particularly instructive for our purpose, since it describes the actual process by which a rabbi might obtain entry

23 Pieter F. Craffert, “Altered States of Consciousness: Visions, Spirit Possession, Sky Journeys,” in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament (eds. Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris; London/New York: Routledge, 2009) 126-146. See also in more detail Pieter F. Craffert, The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective (Eugene, OR.: Cascade, 2008).

24 The pioneers of this ‘sociology of knowledge’ were Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (New York, NY.: Doubleday, 1966) and it is not ‘informed by a pronounced religious (if not New Age) attitude’ as intimated by Peter Schäfer, Origins, 339.

25 See Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 60-73; Rowland, Open Heaven, 306-340; Schäfer, Origins, 203-213.

32

Jonathan A. Draper

and the communal location of such an event.26 The first requirement for a successful ascent is that the adept must be fully compliant with Torah and maintain a state of ritual purity. In this case we are specifically told that the rabbi is seated surrounded by an inner circle of other rabbis and then by a wider group of insiders standing. He then makes his ascent and is granted a view of the heavenly worship, something he is able to expound on his return. On one occasion his hearers are so alarmed that they deliberately have to get him out of his trance by touching him with an ‘impure’ piece of wool: ‘Immediately they dismissed him [Nehunya b. Haqanah] from his place before the throne of glory (where) he had been sitting and seeing (the) wondrous pride and special authority, the pride of the elevation and the authority of sublimity that rush forth before the throne of glory three times day after day in the height, from the day the world was created and until now, for praise.’27 The point of citing the incident is that it presents the form that such a mystical ascent took: it required preparation of ritual and moral purity, it is dangerous, it is a communal exercise with a scribal learned group listening to words spoken and sights described, they are surrounded by a larger communal group who are not scribes but also hear and see, it is a trance-like state which requires special measures to end at times. Schäfer’s comment that ‘[t]he scene is a fiction and the editor is aware of it’28 may or may not be true of the editor, but it is unlikely to be true of the ritual process, behaviour, and expectations of those engaging in such apocalyptic prophetic activity. I am not reading the story as a historical event but as a well-recognized historical cultural scenario. At the centre of the event is one who, in an altered state of consciousness, speaks prophetically, relaying words and messages of God/angelic beings.

But, if the seer is speaking a prophecy in the community while transported into the heavenly throne room to receive messages, what is the role of the scribes and larger community sitting or standing around? Something seen and heard and spoken in an altered state of consciousness is not written. That is the task of the scribes. That is why Baruch is so essential to the apocalypses attributed to Jeremiah. Although God speaks to Jeremiah to ‘take a scroll and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you,’ it is actually Baruch who writes them down at Jeremiah’s dictation so that they can be read before the king (Jer 36). When King Jehoiakim burns the scroll, Jeremiah receives the word from God again and again has Baruch write it down. Ezra is likewise a scribe to whom is attributed apocalyptic visions, though in this case interestingly without a prophet to dictate. The scribal role in mysticism, in apocalyptic prophecy, is to write it down—whether from the direct speech of the prophet or by the prophet’s recollection. The process is well described in the Ascension of Isaiah, a first century C.E. Jewish text with second century Christian interpolations known to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews:

26 See Schäfer, Origins, 270-72.27 Ibid., 277.28 Ibid., 271.

33


And he [King Hezekiah] called him [his son Manasseh] into the presence of the prophet Isaiah, the son of Amoz, ... in order to deliver to him the words of righteousness which he ... had seen, and the eternal judgments and the punishments of Hell and of the prince of this world, and of his angels, authorities and powers; and the words of the faith concerning the Beloved ... And he delivered to him the recorded words which Sebna, the scribe, had written and that which Isaiah the son of Amoz had given to him together with the prophets, that they might write down and store with him what he himself had seen in the kings house concerning the judgments of the angels and the destruction of this world, concerning the garments of the righteousness, and concerning the going forth, the transformation, the persecution and ascension of the Beloved (1:2-5). 29

The other scribes and the wider community are the guarantors of the scribe’s authentic transcription—except of course that it is orally given and there is no way of checking beyond memory. The other thing which needs to be said, is that heavenly revelations and visions and words can only be heard and therefore spoken if they are already known. As Paul says, speaking in tongues may be exhilarating for the speaker, but they cannot communicate—only a known lingual-cultural channel can do that. It has to be translated or expressed in terms of what can be said in a particular language and culture: in short it represents the cultural capital (from the work of Pierre Bourdieu) which is available to the seer in the contested field to which the prophecy speaks and which is deployed to strategic advantage. This happens at the level of the unconscious. Whatever the seer saw and heard and spoke would already have been culturally mediated, and the scribe must render it even further into the familiar in writing it down in terms of the stock of cultural capital available to him/her. This, in my opinion, is the reason for what many take to be a direct literary use of one apocalypse by another but may, instead, be a feature of oral composition in performance. It is inevitable in the metonymic interface between vision and transcription, between seer and scribe. Nevertheless, within these constraints, while it is what is expected which reassures, it is what is new which excites. The old is taken up and receives a fresh infusion from the new.

4 PROPHETS IN THE DIDACHEAs it happens, we do have a description of and instructions for the role and practice of prophets in a first century Christian text, namely, the Didache. It is a strange thing to me that those who might have been expected to recognize this are the least interested. Rowland only refers to the Didache as an example of the decline and abuse of prophecy, when, in fact, the opposite is the case. There is a consistency which enables us to recognize the practice of ‘doing a cosmic mystery of the church/assembly’ (ποιῶν εῶς μυστῶριον κοσμικῶν ῶκκλησῶας [11:11]). It is inexplicable how this can be translated ‘doing something with a view to portraying in a worldly manner the symbolic meaning

29 Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha II: Writings Relating to the Apostles, Apocalypses and Related Subjects (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia, PA.: Westminster, 1959), 644.

34

Jonathan A. Draper

of the church’ as Michael Holmes, usually excellent translation does.30 I have written on this elsewhere31 and am only raising this here as a lens on the Farewell Discourse(s) in John 13-17. However, as it is material evidence, let me set out the structure and meaning of the Didache text in 11:7-12:

Primary Case 1: A prophet speaks in the Spirit Rationale 1: A prophet speaking in the Spirit speaks God’s word directly (Deut 18:18) Rationale 2: Refusal to heed God’s direct command is blasphemy (Deut 18:19) Primary Ruling 1: Do not test or judge a prophet speaking in the SpiritPrimary Case 2: An untested person acting as a prophet speaks in the Spirit Rationale 1: Not everyone who claims to be a prophet is a true prophet (Deut 18:20) Rationale 2: A true prophet shows the tropous of the Lord (Deut 18:21-22) Primary Ruling 2: Discern true from false prophets by their tropousPositive Example 1: A prophet orders a meal in the Spirit [but does not eat it] [Rationale: Speaking God’s word must bring no personal benefit to the prophet] [Secondary Ruling: One who does not eat is a true prophet]Negative Example 1: A prophet orders a meal in the Spirit and eats it32

[Rationale: Speaking God’s word must bring no personal benefit to the prophet] Secondary Ruling: One who eats is a false prophet [Positive Example 2: A prophet gives true teaching and practices it] [Rationale: A prophet not only hears/speaks God’s word but obeys it] [Secondary Ruling: One who does what s/he teaches is a true prophet]Negative Example 2: A prophet gives true teaching but does not practice it [Rationale: A prophet not only hears/speaks God’s word but obeys it] Secondary Ruling: One who teaches but does not do is a false prophetPositive Example 3: A proven prophet does a cosmic mystery of the church The prophet does not teach others to do the same [Rationale 1: A mystery is an immediate revelation from God] Rationale 2: The prophet speaks God’s word and can be judged only by God Rationale 3: The prophets of Israel did cosmic mysteries in the same way (Ezek 1, 13; Daniel 7-9)Secondary Ruling: Do not judge a prophet doing a cosmic mystery[Negative Example 3: A prophet does a cosmic mystery of the church] [The prophet teaches others to do the same] [Rationale 1: A mystery is an immediate revelation from God]

30 Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Grand Rapids, MI..: Baker, 2007), 363.

31 “Spiritual Temple and Prophetic-Priestly Revelation of Divine Mysteries in the Didache Community,” presented in the Esotericism and Mysticism in Antiquity Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD., 23-26 November 2013. An abbreviated form of this paper will appear in Jonathan Knight and Kevin Sullivan, The Open Mind: Studies in Honour of Christopher Rowland (Forthcoming T&T Clark [LNTS]).

32 The famous refusal of Elisha in 2 Kings 5 to accept payment from Naaman and the punishment of Gehazi who does/might serve as a test case. However, in terms of prophesying in exchange for a table: ‘Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who lead my people astray, who cry “Peace” when they have something to eat, but declare war against those who put nothing into their mouths’ (Mic. 3:5).

35


[Rationale 2: Teaching others to do it shows the initiative comes from man not God][Rationale 3: The prophet of Israel did cosmic mysteries from God not learnt from human beings] [Secondary Ruling: Judge a prophet teaching others to do a cosmic mystery]Negative Example 4: A prophet commands people to give him/her money or goods [Rationale: True prophesy cannot be bought and sold but is direct from God]33

Secondary Ruling: Reject demand to pay for speaking prophecyPositive Example 4: A prophet commands people to give to others in need [Rationale: God wishes to give good things to all especially the needy 1:5f, 4:5-8] Secondary Ruling: Do not judge a prophet who prophesies to give to others

I do not find these rules to be primarily evidence of the abuse of prophecy; on the contrary, they show that prophecy is working well and has clear safeguards against abuse. We have far more evidence of abuse in Pauline writings and Matthew than we do here. Prophecy is expected and welcomed. Moreover the same exegesis of Deuteronomy 18 underlies the approach to prophets in m. San. 11.5 and its casuistic development in the Babylonian Talmud b. San. 89a. The false prophet’s judgment and punishment is with the human court, while the true prophet who suppresses his/her own prophecy or that of another true prophet has his/her judgment and punishment from God. One strand is tied to the prophetic tradition on matters of justice and need, the widows and orphans and strangers of the Hebrew Bible. It is clear from Did. 1:5-6; 4:5-8; 13:4, that poverty and need were ever present in the community and that care was taken to provide for them. The rules concerning such prophecy revolved around the question of no benefit for the prophet personally but only justice for the poor and needy. The other strand is tied to a special case with special rules, the ‘cosmic mystery of the assembly/church,’ which I will explore briefly in a moment.

Two further characteristics: Firstly, the prophecy is spoken in the Spirit, obviously in public since it is possible to try and silence the prophet or test her/him. This would be blasphemy since the words of the true prophet are God’s own words. This, then, envisages a public performance arena, clearly some kind of public assembly. Secondly, greater safeguards are put around prophesying a cosmic mystery of the assembly/church because this was particularly dangerous since it consisted of cosmic (associated with creation, with the divine ordering of the universe, with God’s handiwork and with history) revelations from God.

While it is not specified in this passage, teachers are associated particularly with prophets: 11:1-2; 13:1-2; 15:1-2. In the last text, prophets and teachers represent a danger to the honour due to the bishops and deacons (patrons of the community). I have argued elsewhere that this was because the teachers wrote down and promulgated the words of the prophets. This matches what we find in the rabbinic mystical tradition, and also in the Ascension of Isaiah, as we have seen. The need for this is obvious, given the value attached to prophecy in these communities, and the fact that speaking in the Spirit was something unrehearsed and made the prophet a medium for God’s words and

33 Cf. Micah 3:11.

36

Jonathan A. Draper

revelations. They spoke out loud, since they could also be silenced. Presumably they spoke in a trance-like ASC kind of way since they were seen as, in some way, possessed by the Spirit. False prophets spoke in the same visibly different way as true prophets since they are also said to have been ‘speaking in the Spirit’ even though they were not true prophets: a necessary paradox?

Finally, the performance theatre for the prophets is specified in the text as the communal meal: the Eucharist of 9-10, which is a full meal and is followed it seems by not only thanksgiving but also extra hymns and exhortations, by a requirement for purity and repentance in 10:6 which matches 9:5, where baptism in ritually pure and purifying water (7:1-4) renders those who partake in the meal a holiness community, and finally the burning of incense or the use of perfumed oils (10:8, which is found in the Coptic version and the Apostolic Constitutions VII). I see this as a Christian symposium in which the community members relaxed after the meal and were entertained by (among other things) prophets, since 10:7 requires that the prophets should be allowed to give thanks however they wish. Probably letters and hymns or apostolic greetings from other churches might also be offered, but I regard this as the place where a prophet might ‘do a cosmic mystery of the assembly/church.’ It could only be done in a condition of purity in a community of those who are pure, a living temple in which the Name of God dwells (10:1). This purity needs to be maintained if a ‘cosmic mystery of the assembly/church’ involving a heavenly ascent is to be performed, hence 9:5. Hence also the prayer for the Lord Jesus to come in 10:6, with its repeated chiastic invocation:

Let the Lord come And let this world pass away, Hosanna to the house34 of David!If anyone is holy, Let them come.If anyone is not, Let them repent. Maranatha! Amen.35

In such a communal setting caution might be required, but not silencing someone speaking in the Spirit, who is revealing heavenly mysteries. This might be what occasions the insertion of the rules on teachers, apostles, and prophets after this point in the text (11-13, 15).

This would provide a setting in which heavenly mysteries of the vision of Jesus on his heavenly throne might be performed, which would enable prophets to speak the words of Jesus plausibly and authoritatively. These words of Jesus would of course 34 H54 has ‘God of David’; AC has ‘son of David’; Coptic version has ‘house of David’, which I take to

be the oldest reading.35 H54 has ‘Let grace come!’ while the Coptic version has ‘Let the Lord come!’ and the AC has

‘Maranatha!’ at this point. I take the Coptic to be the best reading; H54 to represent a deliberate amelioration of apocalyptic expectation; while AC clearly knows the meaning of ‘Maranatha!’ and merges ‘Let the Lord come!’ and ‘Maranatha!’ into one.

37


reflect the kind of cultural continuity which we have already indicated would be necessary, but also something new—a development and a fine tuning and an expansion perhaps. They were the words of Jesus because the enthroned Jesus spoke to his own through his prophets: the community saw and attested it; the teachers recorded and ‘straightened it out’ in written form by making it conform to what was already known.

5 LIVING WORDS OF THE ENTHRONED JESUS IN JOHNAll of this is rather a long introduction to the central hypothesis of this paper: that the words of Jesus in the Farewell Discourse(s) in John 13-17 represent the words of prophets speaking in the Spirit who ascend to heaven to view Jesus as the enthroned Christ and to hear his words to his earthly community.36 I set out this hypothesis in a sketchy form in an early paper.37 Others have seen John’s Gospel interacting with the Jewish ascent tradition but rejecting it38. Certainly, John’s Gospel provides enigmatic and paradoxical statements. On the one hand Jesus says that the disciples cannot come where he is going (John 13:31-33):

When therefore he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him; if God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and will glorify Him immediately. Little children, I am with you a little while longer. You shall seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, I now say to you also, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’”

On the other hand, Jesus tells Peter, ‘Where I am going, you cannot follow me now; but you will follow afterwards’ (13:36). This could be interpreted as an eschatological promise, as April Deconick does,39 but it could also be a reference to the possibility of ascent to Jesus after his resurrection and ascension. The disciples cannot follow him in his death and ascent now, but then his inner circle will be able to follow him. Deconick sees here a ‘faith mysticism’ deliberately formulated to replace ascent mysticism, and views Jesus’ words to Thomas in John 20:29 as an insuperable barrier to the possibility of ascent, ‘Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed

36 John’s gospel has puzzled many critics with his insistence on baptism in (water and) the Spirit in John 3, but this has usually been addressed from the point of view of John’s (possibly negative) attitude to the sacraments rather than from the point of view of an emphasis on possession of the Spirit in connection with seeing the risen Lord.

37 Jonathan A. Draper, “Temple, Tabernacle and Mystical Experience in John,” Neotestamentica 31.2 (1997), 263-288; cf. also Mark S. Kinzer, “Temple Christology in the Gospel of John,” in SBL Seminar Papers I (Atlanta, GA.: Scholars Press), accessible on http://www.academia.edu/737649/[email protected]&email_was_taken=true.

38 See Jey J. Kanagaraj, ‘Mysticism’ in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its Background (JSNTSup 158; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); April D. DeConick, Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature (JSNTSup 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2004), 109-132, who engages with my papers on this theme.

39 DeConick, Voices of the Mystics, 124.

38

Jonathan A. Draper

are they who did not see, and yet believed.”’40 However, this seems to me to be naïve. Of course it is an inner circle of those accepted as true prophets, represented here by the disciples, who are granted the possibility of ascent to the heavenly vision of Jesus enthroned. ‘Cosmic mysteries of the assembly/church’ are hedged around with prohibitions and protections because they are dangerous to the prophet and to the community as well. Ordinary members of the community would not see or hear Jesus except through faith and through the words of the prophet uttered in ASCs. Nevertheless, the community can know that one who has seen Jesus has seen the Father, and that the disciples will do greater works than Jesus because he goes to the Father and whatever they ask in his Name Jesus will do (14:12-14).

What struck me in revisiting the Farewell Discourse(s) (FD) in John as representing the theatre of performance for oral prophecy of mystical ascent, was the extent to which its structure matches the pattern in the Didache. We have noted that baptism in ritually pure and purifying water constitutes the community as a living temple for God’s Name in the Eucharistic meal. After the meal and the thanksgiving (10:1-5), in the symposium, a solemn formula calls for the presence/coming of Jesus in the context of an invocation to holiness or repentance. This prepares for the burning of incense and the oral performance of prophets “as they will”.

In John’s Gospel, the FD begins with Jesus washing the feet of the disciples (13:1-11), which is sometimes interpreted as a reference to baptism, but which creates problems for interpretation because of Jesus’ insistence that only the feet need be washed. However, if the focus is on creating a purity community in the context of a meal for those who have already been baptized in ritually pure/purifying water, the problem disappears. Maintenance of purity is essential for the holy meal which follows (although it is not described) as a celebration of Jesus’ presence and the performance of mystical ascent in the symposium. The important thing is that they are ‘clean’ (καθαρῶς [13:10]) except for Judas the betrayer. Before the FD can take place, the unclean member of the community has to be identified and must leave. Ironically it is the receipt of the piece of bread dipped in the dish that induces Judas to leave—fulfilling his prophecy that ‘The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me’ (Ps 42:9). This is not to deny the importance of the example of humility in washing one anothers’ feet, but to question whether humility or rather purity is the central reason for the occurrence of this scene at this point in John’s narrative. So far the pattern matches our (hypothesized) scenario in the Didache.41 Once the disciples’ purity is confirmed and the impure member of the community has left, (the risen) Jesus begins to explain about his going and the (im)possibility of following him there. I take it that the key reference is to the possibility afterwards in 13:36, where the impossibility is only for now: ‘Where I am going, you cannot follow me now; but you will follow afterwards.’ Chapter 14 then describes what 40 Ibid., 124.41 It is significant that the most important parallels between the Didache and John’s Gospel are precisely

in the Eucharistic prayers of Did. 9-10 and the FD of John; see Johannes Betz, “The Eucharist in the Didache” in The Didache in Modern Research (ed. Jonathan A. Draper; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 244-275.

39


will happen ‘afterwards,’ when it will be possible to follow him and to ascend to the ‘many rooms’ of the heavenly temple.

Jesus goes to the Father to prepare a place in the Father’s ‘house,’ which I take as a reference to the heavenly temple, the hechal, to enter which is the aspiration of the mystic seers. He will himself come to guide them through to that place: ‘And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also’ (14:2). Clearly this could be interpreted in future eschatological terms, but this ignores the fact that John, with a few notable exceptions, which some have argued are redactions,42 understands the eschatological hopes as fulfilled now in a form of realized eschatology. Jesus going to the Father is only the occasion for granting any request of the disciples (14:14). This is followed by the promise of the Spirit as another paraklêtos to abide with them, known only to them and not to the world that cannot see it (14:15).

Through the gift of the Spirit, those who keep Jesus’ commandments will be enabled to see Jesus and to live as he also lives. Faithful observance of Torah is a requirement for any ascent mystic in the Rabbinic tradition: to ascend in an unworthy condition would be fatal to any who tried it because of the hostile angels who keep the gates. The Spirit, though, enables them to see Jesus and will teach them everything and remind them of everything which Jesus told them (ῶκεῶνος ῶμῶς διδῶξει πῶντα καῶ ῶπομνῶσει ῶμῶς πῶντα ῶ εῶπον ῶμῶν [14:26]). This goes beyond reminding and indicates further revelation in teaching by the Spirit of what Jesus says now. So, in the Spirit, the inner circle of (prophet) disciples sees and hears Jesus now in mystical revelations.

The section on Jesus as the True Vine reads almost like a case study of how such revelation spoken orally in the Spirit works. The vine as Israel and the vine as the house of David interact and coalesce in Jesus (e.g. Ps 80:8–13; Hos 10:1; Jer 2:21; 5:10; 12:11, 12; Ezek 15:1–8; 17:1–10; 19:10–14; Isa 27:2–6; Sir 24:27; 2 Apoc Baruch 39:7). The vine as Israel/David is re-interpreted by means of the vine as holy Wisdom and attached to Jesus as the true vine.43 The trope of the vine is an important element in the cultural capital of the people of Israel, so that it presents itself to the mind of the seer as a vision/hearing of the ascended Jesus speaking. However, it is also found in the earliest representations of the sayings of the historical Jesus such as in the Parable of the Wicket Tenants (Mark 12:1-12 and parallels). There, however, it is turned against the leaders of Israel. Here, it is turned against those members of the community who do not remain closely bound to Jesus and who do not keep his commandment to love one another. They are warned that they will be permanently lost if they do not comply with the command of the risen Jesus to keep faithful. The new vision redraws the boundaries in a way, which enables the prophet to contest the field of conflict in the early church more

42 E.g. 5:25-29 which seems to deliberately overthrow 5:24; so Rudolf Bultmann et al. (see the discussion in Brown, John I, cxv-cxxi).

43 Jonathan A. Draper, “The Metaphor of the Vine in John 15 and the Early Christian Tradition: Reflections on Postcolonial Critiques,” in Ein neues Geschlecht? Entwicklung des frühchristlichen Selbstbewusstseins (Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 53-80.

40

Jonathan A. Draper

effectively. The words of the enthroned Jesus mediated by the Spirit can be understood because they are already known but are powerful because a new element is added which changes the boundaries in a way which re-enforces faithfulness to the community of the prophet, while indicating that following the vision of his Judean rivals would lead to permanent exclusion from Jesus/Israel.

The elements that follow can be read in the same light. The Spirit comes because Jesus goes to the Father, but the Spirit’s task is to enable the disciples to continue to hear and see Jesus, so that the things which the disciples are not ready for now will be spoken:

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He takes of Mine, and will disclose it to you. (John 16:12-15)

Further words and revelations of Jesus from the Father are mediated by the Spirit in the post-Resurrection period through prophets speaking in the Spirit, I would argue. There is the day which is coming, which follows Jesus return to the Father, when he will no longer speak in ‘figures’ but plainly (16:25). The disciples in turn attest that ‘Yes, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure of speech!’ (16:29).

The whole collection of FD is then concluded with a prayer of Jesus for his disciples. What is significant in terms of our argument for visions of mystical ascent by prophets in John’s community is that this prayer asks the Father that his disciples may see Jesus’ glory where he is:

And the glory which You have given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world (John 17:22-24).

To be with Jesus enthroned in the heavenly sphere and to see his glory as the glory of the Father: this is exactly what the mystic ascent is all about. And it is the framework of John’s Gospel from the first: No one has ever seen God, not even Moses, but ‘we have seen his glory, glory as the only coming into being one from beside the Father, full of grace and truth’ (1:14). The way is open for continuing words and revelations of Jesus by the prophets speaking in the Spirit of the enthroned Jesus who mediates the vision of the unseeable Father, and for the continuing production of texts of these words and revelations through the scribes who hear and record for all time the words of the prophets, shaping them again through their own cultural capital.

41


6 CONCLUSIONPeter Schäfer argues that the whole ascent typology is a fiction and that those who practice it are fully aware that they are practising fiction—in other words the whole thing is fraudulent once we move beyond the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. I have argued that it is, on the contrary, a culturally accepted practice of the presence of God by prophets which is mediated by the Spirit. ASCs are not frauds but the result of the strategic exercise of cultural capital in the sphere of social contestation according to the culturally recognized ‘rules of the game.’ What results is further development of cultural capital in the constant manipulation of boundaries and rules to obtain advantage. The experience of seeing and hearing the enthroned Jesus and reporting his words is genuine in as much as it is culturally expected and accepted since it forms part of what Bourdieu calls the doxa, what is unknown, because participants in the society are unaware that it is a social construct but also known, because it is regarded as nature.44 Prophets in the early Christian community fit the mould of shamanic figures as described by Craffert who have access to the deep memory of a particular culture through ASCs:

Shamanic figures are widely experienced as both the creators and preservers of myths, knowledge, and traditions of their societies. In traditional societies, not just anyone controls cultural knowledge, and not every individual can contribute to the creation of “new knowledge”.45

It is only through experience of such ASCs that prophets are able to enter ‘the realm where superior knowledge is kept’ because ‘only certain figures know or have access to the cultural ways and means of doing that.’46 The Farewell Discourse(s) of John 13-17 reflect just such a practice of continuing revelation.

BIBLIOGRAPHYBoring, M. Eugene. Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition. SNTS

46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Botha, Pieter J. J. Orality and Literacy in Early Christianity. Eugene, OR.: Cascade, 2012.Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology

of Knowledge. New York, NY.: Doubleday, 1966.Betz, Johannes. ‘The Eucharist in the Didache.’ Pages 244-275 in The Didache in Modern Research.

Edited by Jonathan A. Draper. Leiden: Brill, 2006.Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John I-XX: A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary. ABD 29a. New York, NY.: Doubleday, 1982.

44 Pieter F. Craffert, and Pieter J. J. Botha, “Why Jesus Could Walk on the Sea but He Could Not Read and Write: Reflections on Historicity and Interpretation in Historical Jesus Research,” Neotestamentica 39.1 (2005), 5-38.

45 Pieter F. Craffert, Life of a Galilean Shaman, 161.46 Ibid., 162.

42

Jonathan A. Draper

Craffert, Pieter F. The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective. Eugene, OR.: Cascade, 2008.

———. ‘Altered States of Consciousness: Visions, Spirit Possession, Sky Journeys.’ Pages 126-146 in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament. Edited by Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris; London/New York: Routledge, 2009.

Craffert, Pieter F., and Pieter J. J. Botha. ‘Why Jesus Could Walk on the Sea but He Could not Read and Write: Reflections on Historicity and Interpretation in Historical Jesus Research.’ Neotestamentica 39, no. 1 (2005): 5–35.

Decharneux, Baudouin. L’ange, le devin et le prophete: Chemins de la parole dans l’oeuvre de Philon d’Alexandrie dit “le Juif”. Bruxelles: L’éditions de l’Universite de Bruxelles, 1994.

DeConick, April D. Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature. JSNTSup 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2004.

Draper, Jonathan A. ‘Temple, Tabernacle and Mystical Experience in John.’ Neotestamentica 31, no. 2 (1997): 263-288.

———. «‘Ils virent Dieu, puis ils mangèrent et burent» (Exode 24:11) : l’immanence mystique du dieu transcendant dans la création, la théophanie et l’incarnation dans «l’étrange» Jésus de l’évangile de Jean”.’ Pages 237-281 in Figures del’étrangeté dans l’évangile de Jean: Etudes socio-historiques et littéraires. Edited by B. Decharneux and F. Nobilio. Cortil-Wodon: Editions Modulaires Européennes/ FNRS, 2007.

———. ‘The Metaphor of the Vine in John 15 and the Early Christian Tradition: Reflections on Postcolonial Critiques.’ Pages 53-80 in Ein neues Geschlecht: Entwicklung des frühchristlichen Selbstbewusstseins. Edited by Markus Laing. NTOA/StUNT; Göttingen: Van den Hoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.

———. ‘Spiritual Temple and Prophetic-Priestly Revelation of Divine Mysteries in the Didache Community.’ Paper presented in the Esotericism and Mysticism in Antiquity Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting. Baltimore, MD., 23-26 November 2013.

Foley, John Miles. The Singer of Tales in Performance. Bloomington, IN.: Indiana University Press, 1995.

Hennecke, Edgar and Wilhelm Schneemelcher. New Testament Apocrypha: Volume Two: Writings Relating to the Apostles Apocalypses and Related Subjects. Translated by R. McL. Wilson. Philadelphia, PA.: Westminster, 1965.

Holmes, Michael W. The Apostolic Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker, 2007. Kanagaraj, Jey. J. ‘Mysticism’ in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its Background. JSNTSup 158;

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.Käsemann, Ernst. ‘Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament.’ Pages 66-81 in New Testament

Questions of Today. Edited by W. J. Montague. Philadelphia, PA.: Fortress, 1969.Kelber, Werner. ‘The Oral-Scribal-Memorial Arts of Communication in Early Christianity.’ Pages

234-62 in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel. Edited by Tom Thatcher. Waco, TX.: Baylor University Press, 2008.

Kinzer, Mark S. ‘Temple Christology in the Gospel of John.’ Pages 447-64 in SBL Seminar Papers. Atlanta, GA.: Scholars Press, 1998.

43


Newman, Judith H. ‘Priestly Prophets at Qumran: Summoning Sinai through the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.’ Pages 29-72 in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman and Loren Stuckenbruck. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Newsom, Carol. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. Atlanta, GA.: Scholars, 1985.Rowland, Christopher. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity.

London: SPCK, 1982. Rowland, Christopher and Christopher R.A. Morray-Jones. The Mystery of God: Early Jewish

Mysticism and the New Testament. CRINT 12; Leiden: Brill, 2009.Schäfer, Peter. The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2009.Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism.

Leiden: Brill, 2002.Thomas, Samuel I. The ‘Mysteries’ of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea

Scrolls. Atlanta, GA.: SBL, 2009.

The "Theatre of Performance" and "the Living Word of Jesus" in the Farewell Discourse(s) in John's...

Documents

Transcript of The "Theatre of Performance" and "the Living Word of Jesus" in the Farewell Discourse(s) in John's...