This article offers fresh perspectives on the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3 by considering both the dynamic interaction of the author(s) of the Gospel of John with ancient Mediterranean philosophical and religious traditions and the Homilies of John Chrysostom on the Fourth Gospel. The current analysis demonstrates that the idea of "being begotten from above" refers to a transcending of ontological and epistemological borders by the power of the Spirit, which presupposes a ritual baptism. The way the Fourth Gospel describes the "process of being begotten from above" answers contemporary Jewish and Greco-Roman questions in an unconventional way. This is due to the fact that it links the convert's transformation to the narrative regarding the descent of the Logos from above (v.31): A birth anōthen ontologically transforms the believer, for he/she receives the same origin with Jesus who comes anōthen. Lastly, the Chrysostomic exegesis helps the modern reader to read the Johannine text anew from the perspective of the discussions regarding human union (henōsis) with God and divine condescension (synkatabasis) in late antiquity.

The Christian message stands or falls with the concept and doctrine of Christ’s divinity. If one were to boil Christianity to its very basics the doctrine of Christology, the concept of Jesus’ divinity, would be found at its very center. It is the idea and doctrine that divides Christianity from other faith-based groups. The burden of proof then remains on the documents that hold the contents to prove this doctrine, the Greek New Testament (NT). Therefore, in order to validate Jesus’ divinity, a close examination must be done of the NT in order to flush out exactly where one can be certain of not only direct claims of Christ’s divinity but also what the NT authors claim about him. In this paper I will be taking a text critical approach towards the first chapter of John’s Gospel in regard to the bold title and assertion of Θεὸς as it is applied to Jesus and assess this title in 1:1 and 1:18; along with a short note on theological implication. This will be my main goal rather than assessing the origin of the understanding of Jesus as divine (although such details will be mentioned in passing), and will be employing a reasoned eclecticism method, of which is the current accepted view among textual critics.

Si la théologie lucanienne de la résurrection a largement été étudiée dans le livre des Actes des Apôtres, Jésus n’a jamais été considéré comme personnage principal, à l’inverse des apôtres, de l’Esprit saint ou même de Dieu. Pourtant, le premier verset des Actes laisse entendre que Jésus va continuer de faire et d’enseigner ce qu’il avait commencé dans l’évangile, même si, peu de temps après l’ouverture du récit, il quitte la scène. Pour chercher à comprendre ce paradoxe, une analyse approfondie de la mise en récit du personnage Jésus dans les Actes était nécessaire. Le premier chapitre de cette thèse introduit le sujet, l’état de la question et deux approches méthodologiques empruntées aux experts de la caractérisation narrative. Au chapitre deux, après avoir introduit la difficulté d’identification du personnage qui se trouve derrière le titre Seigneur des Actes, le cadre épistémologique d’Elizabeth Struthers Malbon permet d’observer le comment en classant toutes les péricopes qui participent à la rhétorique de la caractérisation christologique en cinq catégories : (1) la christologie représentée qui montre ce que Jésus fait, (2) la christologie détournée qui permet d’entendre ce que Jésus dit en réponse aux autres personnages, (3) la christologie projetée qui laisse entendre ce que les autres personnages ou le narrateur disent à Jésus et à son sujet, (4) la christologie réfléchie qui montre ce que les autres personnages font en reflétant ce que Jésus a dit et (5) la christologie reflétée qui montre ce que les autres personnages font en reflétant ce que Jésus a fait. Ensuite, avec le chapitre trois, l’approche de John Darr donne à comprendre le pourquoi de la caractérisation par l’observation de quatre activités cognitives du lecteur : (1) l’anticipation et la rétrospection, (2) la recherche de cohérence, (3) l’identification et/ou l’implication et (4) la défamiliarisation. Enfin, au chapitre quatre, les résultats des deux méthodes sont comparés pour proposer une solution au cas de l’ouverture paradoxale des Actes. D’abord les différentes observations de la thèse montrent que le personnage Jésus n’est pas si absent du récit; puis la rhétorique narrative de la caractérisation conduit le lecteur à comprendre que c’est essentiellement au travers des personnages du récit que Jésus est présent en actes et en paroles. Though Luke’s theology of resurrection is widely studied in the Book of Acts, Jesus is never seen as its main character, unlike the apostles, the Holy Spirit or God. However, the first verse of Acts suggests that the Jesus character will continue to do and teach what he began in the Gospel, even if soon after the opening, he leaves the scene. To resolve this paradox, a thorough analysis of Jesus characterization in Acts is needed. The first chapter of this dissertation introduces the subject, what has already been said, and two narrative scholars’ methodologies selected for this study. In chapter two, the difficult identification of the Lord of Acts is discussed. Then, the epistemological framework of Elizabeth Struthers Malbon is considered. It shows how characterization works, by ranking all episodes involving Jesus in five groups : (1) enacted Christology : what Jesus does; (2) deflected Christology : what Jesus says in response to other characters; (3) projected Christology : what other characters and the narrator say to and about Jesus; (4) mirroring Christology : what other characters do that mirrors what Jesus says and (5) reflected Christology : what other characters do that mirrors what Jesus does. Chapter three discusses the method of John Darr which helps us to understand the why by observing four cognitive activities of the reader: (1) anticipation and retrospection; (2) consistency-building; (3) identification and (4) defamiliarization. In the conclusion in chapter four, the results of the two systems are compared to resolve the case of the paradoxical opening of Acts. The main conclusion of the different observations of this thesis shows that Jesus is not so absent from the story. Thus the narrative rhetoric of characterization leads the reader to understand that Jesus is mainly present through the characters of the story in acts and words.

The farewell discourse (John 13:31-16:33) is a key hermeneutical text in the Gospel of John. It helps the reader understand the significance of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, and its impact on the post-Easter Christian community. The first part of the discourse (John 13:31-38) was recently analyzed from various perspectives. Yet, while the text unit has been charted, the various linguistic signals placed in the text by the writer are not fully analyzed. This analysis is needed for an adequate mental representation that accords with the writer’s intended message. The purpose of this paper is to apply Stephen H. Levinsohn’s discourse analysis method to John 13:31-38 to outline an adequate mental representation regarding this passage. Despite some limitations inherent to a bottom-up approach, this method has several hermeneutical contributions. First, it offers ample support for the coherence of the text. Second, based on the constituent order, it helps the reader choose between existing interpretations. Third, this method clarifies the role of the historical present coupled with participant reference. The Johannine biblical-theological horizon of the reader can be broadened by Levinsohn’s methodology.

The resolution to the apparently synonymous usage of the φιλία/φιλέω and ἀγάπη/ἀγαπάω word clusters in the Gospel of John lies in the Aristotelian discourse about ‘friendship’, as the author of the Gospel sees it intersect with the Christ-event. The Gospel author coordinates the Hellenistic preference for φιλέω and Jewish-Christian preference for ἀγαπάω as the highest forms of love, yet revises Aristotelian φιλία by subsuming it under Christian ἀγάπη, by dissolving Aristotle’s view of unequal friendships and by reconfiguring divinization as the greatest good one should desire for a friend, against Aristotle’s own view. The two terms are rendered fully synonymous by the Gospel’s conclusion, but especially in light of the death and resurrection— the divinization of Jesus— and in the discourse between Peter and Jesus in John 21, thereby bringing together Athens and Jerusalem.