Oral Tradition, 2/1 (1987): 108-31

The Authority of
The Word in St. Johns Gospel:
Charismatic Speech, Narrative Text,
Logocentric Metaphysics

Werner H. Kelber

Everyone who does not confess that The theology of the word is the end of
Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an signification and the consummation of
antichrist. . . and whoever perverts the desire in complete presence, and thus
words of the Lord. . . and says there is the word becomes literally flesh, the
neither a resurrection nor a judgment, that word that is a silence transcending the
man is the first-born of Satan. Therefore entire system of discourse.
let us abandon the foolishness of the Susan Handelman, The Slayers of
great majority and the false teachings, Moses.
and let us return to the Word which was
transmitted to us from the beginning.
Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 7:1-
2 (italics added).

Few topics are as suited for a celebration of Walter Ongs

intellectual accomplishment as the Logos, for the Word in its
kaleidoscopic manifestations and intriguing transformations constitutes
the center of his lifelong scholarly attention. A masterful practitioner
of words himself, he has repatterned the entire paradigm of Logos and
logoi toward a new synthesis, the relevance of which extends beyond
the broad range of the humanities and social sciences to the so-called
hard sciences that shape our technocratic world. The Logos of the fourth
gospel has served as a forceful intellectual stimulus both in biblical
studies and in philosophical, theological deliberations on language and
metaphysics. We wish here to pursue the study of the Logos in these
two areas of biblical exegesis and philosophical, theological reflection.
Because Ongs work has awakened sensibilities that are all too often left
dormant in academia, it is incumbent on us to
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 109

honor him by thinking through the issue of the Logos in a novel

manner.

From Charismatic Speech to Narrative Gospel

Among the numerous studies of the Logos in the prologue to the

fourth gospel the genetic question has principally claimed the attention
of biblical scholars. This question is motivated by the conviction
that genuine progress toward understanding Johns Logos hinges on
discovering its historical and philosophical background. The scholarly
literature abounds with suggestions ranging from the ancient Hebrew
notion of the creative function of dabar (=word) to Jewish Wisdom, and
on to the Hellenistic philosophical traditions of a Philo, of Stoicism,
Neoplatonism, and Neopythagoreanism, all the way to an assumed
redeemer myth of gnostic persuasion. At present, Jewish Wisdom is the
favorite candidate. It provides us with a key to the principal operations
of the Logos in Johns narrative scenario: preexistence, participation
in creation, descent into a hostile world, proclamation of revelation,
rejection and homelessness, and return to the heavenly abode. Within
limits the genetic approach proves helpful. It also begs a number of
crucial questions. Left unanswered is the question of a Johannine
motivation for adopting the Wisdom model in the first place. For in
order for an influence to be accepted or absorbed, a situation must first
arise to greet it as an aid in interpretation. Left unanswered also is the
fundamental issue of the identification of Jesus with the Logos. Why is
he perceived as entering the darkness of the world as Logos, and not, for
example, as light, or as Wisdom? Why Logos?
In an important article F.-M. Braun has observed a distinct
tendency in Johannine literature to move from the plural to the singular
(1978:40-67). The plural commandments (entolai) culminate in a
new commandment (entol kain); Jesus many works (ta erga) are
accomplished in the work of his glorification (to ergon); the sign of the
loaves of bread (hoi artoi) gives rise to Jesus self-identification as the
bread (ho artos); the disciples (mathtai) find ideal representation in the
Beloved Disciple (ho methts hon gapa ho Isous), and so forth. On
this analogy, it is tempting to assume a similar shift in emphasis from
the many
110 WERNER H. KELBER

logoi to the single Logos in Johns gospel. One would, in that case, have
to consider an intra-Johannine rationale linking the plurality of words
in the gospel with the elevation of Jesus to the Word. A connection of
just this kind is suggested by Polycarps agonistic outburst that serves
as an epigraph to this piece. Highly offensive as it appears today, it does
give us insight into the heart of the bishops anxiety. His indignation is
directed at those Philippians who used the words of their Lord in ways
that prompted a denial of the incarnation, of individual resurrection,
and of future judgment. How is it that the words of the Lord could
become the center of such a grave controversy? In all probability,
Polycarp is faced here with a communal practice to let the words of
Jesus be effective in their oral, life-giving sense. Words when spoken
are bound to present time and in a sense advertise presentness (Ong
1967:130, 168, passim). The oral performance of the logoi of the
Lord likewise manifests presence. If, moreover, in the early Christian
milieu the words are spoken prophetically, i.e., in the name and on the
authority of the living Lord, they could be understood as effecting both
the presence of Christ and communion with him. In this essentially oral
sense the logoi are endowed with sacral quality. Consistent with this
experience of an orally induced presence, there was next to no interest
in Jesus past incarnation or in ones own future soteriological status.
In the face of this distinctly oral employment of the logoi, Polycarp
counsels a return to the Logos as it was in the beginning. He clearly
intends to redirect attention to the singular Logos, the authority over
the plural logoi. His is a reductive move which, we shall see below,
epitomizes the metaphysical bent in the philosophical, theological, and
hermeneutical tradition of Western intellectual history. The analogy we
have observed between Polycarps turning away from the logoi to the
Logos and Johns predilection for that same authoritative singular, leads
us to assume an oral, efficacious operation of logoi in both instances. It
is the kind of oral sacrality from which emergent orthodoxy in its bent
for literacy will increasingly distance itself. One may suspect, therefore,
a distinctively oral operation of sayings in Johns community which
caused the evangelist to reach beyond the logoi, spoken by or attributed
to Jesus, back to the primordial, personified Logos.
The sayings tradition embedded in the fourth gospel is of massive
proportions. There does not, to my knowledge, exist an
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 111

accurate count. The Farewell Discourse alone (13:31-17:26), a vast

collection of speech material, has been estimated to comprise one-
fifth of the gospel. If one discounts chapter 21 as a secondary addition,
approximately three-fourths of chapters 1-20 consist of sayings. If the
passion and resurrection narrative is disregarded, approximately four-
fifths of chapters 1-17 appear to be constructed from sayings (Sneller
1985). In a study of Johannine sayings of a strictly proverbial nature,
moreover, Kim Dewey has isolated and analyzed thirty-four proverbs
(1980). Notably, his essay did not even intend to be exhaustive. So
impressed was Dewey with the preponderance of sayings in John that
he speculated the gospel may have arisen out of anthological concerns,
the drive to collect sayings and to cluster them in sayings collections.
However one may view the genesis of the fourth gospel, the immense
amount of material that is oral in origin or by adaptation is plainly in
sight.
Apart from the sheer quantity of sayings, Johns gospel exhibits
a pneumatic, oral hermeneutic of the functioning of Jesus words. None
of the synoptic evangelists equals John in that regard. The words, when
spoken, are primarily regarded not as carriers of ideas or records of
information, but as manifestations of power. They grant access to what
is perceived to be real, and pose concomitant threats and danger. This
concept of language as an instrument of control and revelation, of
persuasion and condemnation is firmly situated in the oral sensorium
(Kemp Forrest 1976).
Interestingly, the Johannine Jesus is described as a literate man
(7:15: grammata oiden), although without formal, Rabbinic schooling
(7:15: m memathks). And yet, the key to his person lies in the power
of his speech: Never did a man speak the way this man speaks (7:46).
When we read that his words are in effect Spirit and life (6:63), and
powered to cleanse hearers (15:3), we know that we move in a world
in which language, i.e., spoken words, are a mode of action, an event.
Hearing his words and believing or keeping them is a matter of life
and death. Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my words, he
shall never see (or taste) death (8:51, 52). A version of this saying
is found in the gospel of Thomas, a sayings or cluster gospel, placed
there programmatically at the outset of 114 sayings: Whoever finds
the explanation of these words will not taste death. Whether it is with
Thomas a matter of deciphering and interpreting the sayings, or with
John a matter of hearing and
112 WERNER H. KELBER

observing them, they are in each case understood to give life and
transcend death. Appropriately, Simon Peters confession identifies
Jesus as dominical speaker whose words hold the key to life: Lord, to
whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life (6:68). The authority
of Jesus the speaker is strengthened and the prestige of his message is
enhanced by the repeated affirmation that he speaks not his own words,
but those he has heard from the Father (8:26; 15:15). Based on this
logic, the words he utters and his audience hears are perceived to be
the words of God (3:34). What matters about words is less what they
say and more what they do. It is a principle enforced in Johns gospel
as Jesus the speaker makes disciples of those who abide by his words
(8:31-32). The power of his words relates hearers to the speaker through
the bond of discipleship. Again, words are less carriers of ideational
content to be received and transported by individuals than a means of
creating community and unity. Such is the authority of his words that
they work for better and for worse. They can cause division among those
who reject and others who accept (10:19-21), and bring about judgment
upon the former (12:48). Considering the effects his words may have,
they can be disregarded only with the gravest of consequences. In short,
Jesus words in the fourth gospel are not conceived as signs committed
to space but as vocalization, and not as content encased in texts but as
events in time effecting life as well as condemnation.
One of the most characteristic forms of speech in Johns gospel
is the eg eimi saying. As is well known, the fourth gospel carries more
I am sayings than any of the synoptic gospels. At frequent intervals
the Johannine Jesus employs the self-authenticating formula, I am the
Light of the World (8:12), I am the Good Shepherd (10:11), I am the
Bread of Life (6:35, 48), I am the Resurrection and the Life (11:25),
and so forth. One may presume here a classic oral principle in operation
according to which the speaker of words is as important as the message
he delivers. In a comparable, though extravagant sense, Jesus the speaker
of words of revelation acquires the status of revelation himself. It is this
extravagant sense, however, that requires additional explanation. In the
ancient Near Eastern and Hellenistic world, gods and goddesses, or their
prophetic spokespersons, manifested themselves by way of eg eimi
language. In the early Christian tradition it was primarily prophets who
employed this self-authenticating form of speech (Woll 1981:150-51,
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 113

n. 11). It is fair to assume that the eg eimi style in John carries similar
implications. The Jesus who legitimates himself by way of eg eimi
logoi speaks not only authoritative language, but specifically prophetic
language. He speaks rather like an early Christian prophet.
Prophecy is a category that has shaped crucial features of the
Johannine Jesus (Aune 1972:88, passim; Boring 1978:113-23; Ksemann
1968:38, passim; Michaels 1975:233-64). A classic enunciation of his
prophetic function is found in the witness of John the baptizer: For he
whom God has sent speaks the words of God; truly boundless is his gift
of the Spirit (3:34). The verse delineates rather precisely the office of
the prophet. The sending formula, regularly associated with Jesus in
John, designates him as the prophetic representative and mouthpiece
of God. In prophetic fashion he acts as spokesman of the One who sent
him, and as dispenser of the divine Spirit. Those who hear his words
are invited to believe not only the speaker, but the One who sent him:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word, and believes Him who
sent me, has eternal life (5:24). Word and Life are the principal goods
negotiated by the prophetic speaker. Just as the Apocalypse was written
by someone steeped in prophetism, and the Johannine letters grew out
of a prophetic milieu, so also did the fourth gospel originate from circles
in which prophetic, oral speech was very much alive (Boring 1982:48-
50).
The prophetic sending formula has deeply affected the narrative
world of John. At the very outset, the baptizer himself is introduced as
one commissioned by the highest authority: There was a man sent by
God, whose name was John (1:6). As the baptizer is sent in prophetic
fashion, and as Jesus is sent following him, so also will the Paraclete be
sent when he comes to replace Jesus (14:26; 15:26). Sent like a prophet,
the Paraclete manifests himself in a characteristically oral manner.
Every verb describing the ministry of the Paraclete is directly related
to his speech function (Boring 1978:113). Speaking and hearing,
pronouncing and receiving, teaching and bringing to remembrance,
bearing witness and guiding in the truth, glorifying and convicting, he
fulfills the function of a pneumatic Christian speech charisma (Boring
1978:113). Significantly, the Johannine Jesus applies the sending formula
toward the end of his career even to the disciples: Peace be with you.
As the Father has sent me, even so I send you (20:21). Since in the
fourth gospel the disciples constitute
114 WERNER H. KELBER

not merely the Twelve but the believers at large, the consequences are
startling. Jesus represents the One who sent him (12:44), and in like
manner, those who are sent by Jesus, the disciples, represent Jesus, or
even the One who sent him (13:20).
This pervasive function of the prophetic sending formula brings
us to suggest that we are dealing here with a projection of a prophetic,
charismatic self-consciousness of the Johannine community. In other
words, if we conceive individual believers as speaking words of Jesus
in prophetic eg eimi fashion, then the Johannine Jesus and other figures
in the gospel are to some extent at least comprehensible as a projection
(or retrojection) of the religious needs and experiences of the Johannine
community. . . (Aune 1972:77). One may thus plausibly contend that
aspects of the socio-religious and oral-rhetorical milieu of the Johannine
community have impressed themselves upon the gospel text.
There is an additional feature that we propose to examine only
in the most general fashion as it relates to the gospels matrix. In his
discussion with the Pharisee Nicodemus, Jesus articulates his own
authority in the following manner: And no one has ascended into heaven,
except he who has descended from heaven, the Son of Man (3:13). The
statement has a polemical ring to it. There must not be ascent unless
there is first descent! It postulates the priority of descent (katabasis)
over ascent (anabasis). The polemic is directed toward an assumption
or experience of anabasis without prior descent. The context suggests a
Mosaic reference (3:14). Moses ascent to Sinai, often interpreted as a
heavenly journey, preceded his descent from the mountain to deliver the
commandments of the Lord (Smith 1973:237-43). If the Mosaic pattern
was one of anabasis followed by katabasis, the pattern instituted by the
Johannine Jesus is one of katabasis followed by anabasis.
It may not be entirely amiss, however, to sense a reservation
not only toward a Mosaic anabasis tradition, but toward a Christian
anabasis experience as well. If Sinaitic theophany traditions were part
of the Jewish legacy of the Johannine community, Johns specifically
Mosaic polemic against a visio Dei becomes intelligible (Aune 1972:98-
99). This brings us to the visualist language which permeates the gospel
alongside its oralist language. The seeing of God, and perhaps of the risen
Christ, is an issue in the fourth gospel. But just as anabasis experiences
are discouraged, so are also direct visions put under restraint. The
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 115

prologue itself, for example, culminates in a severe restriction on

heavenly visions: No one has ever seen God at any time; it is God the
only Son, even at the Fathers side, who has revealed Him (1:18). By
implication, the Son is exceptional in having access to the Father. As such
he alone bears witness to what he has seen (3:11). A very similar view is
expressed in the Bread of Life discourse: Not that anyone has seen the
Father, except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father (6:46).
Restrictive language of this kind appears to be designed to elevate the
authority of Jesus. But if one inquires more deeply into the motives for
heightening christology, one wonders whether the promotion of Jesus
to the status of sole visionary is not meant to curb anabasis experiences
among the believers in Johns community. Philip wishes to see the Father,
and Jesus responds that seeing him (=Jesus) equals seeing the Father.
It is a motif repeated several times in the gospel (12:45; 14:7; 17:24).
It is worth mentioning in this connection that John narrates neither a
baptismal story nor a transfiguration story. This may be significant in
that both accounts in the synoptic tradition depict the open heavens,
a motif John appears to be reluctant to encourage. The only time he
refers to the open heavens is in one of the most puzzling statements
found in the gospel: . . . you will see heaven opened and angels of God
ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (1:51). Whatever else
this saying may mean, it does not promise individuals direct access to
power, but rather a vision of the Son of Man as sole communicator with
the heavenly world (Bultmann 1971:105, n. 3). Individual believers are
advised to work through the one who possesses sole access to power.
Hence, the one reference to the open heaven does more to curb than to
promote ascent mysticism.
The social and linguistic world that emerges from behind the
gospel is one constituted by the Spirit manifesting itself in efficacious
speech and perhaps heavenly visions. The preponderance and oral
functioning of the logoi, the eg eimi diction, the egalitarian practice of
discipleship, the prophetic shaping of principal characters in the gospel,
and a preoccupation with accessibility to the heavenly world are all
features that will have been nourished by a profoundly oral, prophetic,
charismatic community. The believing disciples carry the logoi, speaking
them in the name and on the authority of the risen, living Christ. The rite
of baptism may well have played a greater role in this
116 WERNER H. KELBER

community than the narrative will let us know. Through word and
sacramental rite the praesentia Christi inhabits the individual and
communal experience. Perhaps the presence of the Spirit encouraged
heavenly visions or journeys. When seen in this perspective one wonders
whether we are not here in a situation similar to the one castigated by
Polycarp. The deeply oral sense of pleromatic presence is ill-disposed
to favor reflection on Jesus past incarnate life or ones own future
soteriological fate. One lives in the presence of the Word.
One of the reasons for an exacting treatment of oral performance
and communication, Walter Ong has taught us, is not to reject the later
media, but to understand them, too, better (1967:314). In the case of the
fourth gospel, a substantial measure of oral ethos has become absorbed
into the written narrative. Yet the overall function of this gospel is not to
produce an unedited version of oral verbalization, but to recontextualize
orality, and to devise a corrective against it.
Johns narrative logic suggests that Jesus exercises authority
by virtue of his heavenly katabasis. Coming from above, he is above
all (3:31), setting a norm critical of unreserved anabasis mysticism.
Descent also provides the presupposition for narrating the incarnate life.
By elevating the earthly Jesus to normative significance, the evangelist
introduces a historicizing dimension and a sense of pastness that is not
directly translatable into pleromatic presence. The focus of the narrative,
moreover, falls on Jesus death which is interpreted as his being lifted up
(hypsothnai). This lifting up, metaphorically understood as ascension,
transforms death into the hour of glorification (17:1). Significantly, John
does not narrate an ascent story in the Lukan sense of Jesus being lifted
up into the heavens (Lk 24:51; Acts 1:2,10). In this gospel ascent is
synchronized with death, and death serves to consummate the prophetic
eg eimi identity of the Son of Man: When you lift up the Son of Man,
then you will know that I am he (8:28; cf. 3:14; 12:34). When taken as
a narrative whole, the gospel does not seem to benefit the desire to gain
full life in the present, be it through the power of the logoi or in visions.
For the logoi are enlisted in the service of the written narrative. To what
extent they can still be extracted so as to function in their lifegiving sense
is an exceedingly difficult hermeneutical question. Suffice it to say that
their principal responsibility is now to their new narrative world. And
the norm set by this narrative is Jesus
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 117

life and death. Is it too much to assume that henceforth the way to life
leads not through the sounding of the words, but through the silence of
death?
Earlier we observed how some christological features were
modeled after the figure of the early Christian prophet. In other ways,
however, the Johannine Jesus distances himself from what he regards
as excesses of prophetic self-consciousness. He does, for example, find
it necessary to protect himself against autodoxology, the drive to seek
ones own glory. Given the oral, prophetic matrix of the gospel, at least
some of those speaking in the power of the Spirit could conceivably have
developed a weighty sense of self-identity. Indeed, could not pneumatic
speech and heavenly visions have engendered a feeling of superiority
even over Jesus himself? This may be suggested by the intriguing Logos
that the disciple shall not only do the works of Christ, but greater
works than these shall he do (14:12). Against this background it is
comprehensible why Jesus would lay down the rule differentiating
legitimate from illegitimate successorship: The one who speaks from
himself, seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of the one who
sent him, he is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him (7:18). In a
similar vein, the Johannine Jesus twice counsels that . . . a slave is not
greater than his master; neither is one who is sent greater than the one
who sent him (13:16; 15:20). This is language designed to correct not
merely the universal human disposition toward vanity, but the specific
problem of charismatic self-consciousness. In this way, the Johannine
Jesus, though modeled after the prophet-disciple, nonetheless sets
critical accents with respect to a charismatic discipleship that placed
itself above tradition and traditional authority (Woll 1981:80-92).
In the wake of Jesus anabasis, the disciples live under the
guidance of the Paraclete. They live, therefore, in the age of the Spirit
(20:22). Still, theirs is not a life in unlimited pleromatic bliss. They
were clearly not in a position to return with Jesus to the place of his
departure (13:33). His access to the Father is direct, unmediated;
theirs is mediated (Woll 1981:31). To be sure, the Paraclete functions
as surrogate for Jesus. Yet he can come only after Jesus has departed
(16:7). He is, therefore, an altos parakltos (14:16), a successor not
fully identical with Jesus. The time of the presence of the Paraclete is
thus also a time of the absence of Jesus who is with the Father. For the
time being, the disciples are orphaned (14:18). It is, moreover, one of
the
118 WERNER H. KELBER

functions of the Paraclete to teach you all things, and bring to your
remembrance all I said to you (14:26). This remembering activity of
the Paraclete has no parallel in the New Testament and should, therefore,
be taken seriously as a distinct concern of the fourth evangelist.
Remembering entails a retrospective point of view. What is to be
remembered is everything Jesus ever said. This motif is closely tied in
with the narrative logic of the gospel. While the disciples are depicted as
lacking full understanding during the earthly ministry, they are promised
remembrance at the time of glorification and with the coming of the
Spirit (2:22; 7:39; 12:16). The Spirits arrival marks the hermeneutical
turning point separating the time of concealment from the time of
remembrance. This remembrance is more fully accomplished with the
production of the narrative text itself, for it incarnates retrospectivity
in a sense orality never could. It sets the norm for what is henceforth
to be remembered: the Jesus tradition written by the evangelist and
sanctioned by the Spirit (Woll 1981:103; Bultmann 1971:576, n. 2).
This does not bind believers slavishly to textuality in the sense that all
oral sensibilities are extinguished. One of the functions of the Paraclete
is to teach what the earthly Jesus did not and could not say (16:12-13).
Creative, pneumatic speech will continue in the age of the Spirit. But
all logoi will from now on be measured by a norm, i.e., the authoritative
record of the written text.
This brings us back to our principal topic of the authority of
the Word in Johns gospel. We remember Polycarps anxiety over the
Lords sayings whose life-giving performance left little, if any, room
for incarnational christology, for individual resurrection and future
judgment. The bishop had coped with what appeared to him to be a
problem by deflecting attention away from the controversial logoi to the
authoritative Logos that was from the beginning. Not unlike Polycarp,
John the evangelist coped with a world in which the sense and function
of Jesus words were utterly oral. Responding to a multitude of words
and authoritative speakers, John articulated singular authority by
personalizing the Word and lodging it at the beginning. Once the speaker
of logoi was elevated to the Logos, he assumed a position of control
over the logoi material. Placed in authoritative position, the Logos took
charge of the logoi in and through the narrative text. There is a sense in
which the sayings, once situated in the narrative, are taken away from
their speakers outside the text. Not that a text
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 119

can ever put an end to speaking. But when operating vis--vis a world
dominated by the spoken word, texts create new worlds and set new
standards. Whether oral in origin or by adaptation, most logoi are now
put in the mouth of a Jesus who speaks prior to his anabasis. As such
they are distinctly his own words, grounded, as it were, in a historicized
framework. They are not, thereby, repudiated, but recontextualized,
or perhaps more to the point, reincarnated into the new medium of
textuality. Now the incarnate Christ himself harbors and administers the
oral treasure. Seen in these perspectives, it may well seem appropriate
that Jesus presides as Logos over a narrative that sets standards for oral
proclamation and prophetic authority, and revises a christology and a
notion of discipleship that are both deeply rooted in the oral matrix.

II

Logocentrism versus Textcentrism

Our thesis of the incorporation of the logoi in a text that is

presided over by the Logos does not, of course, exhaust the Johannine
hermeneutics of orality and textuality. We shall in this second part go
beyond the shift from charismatic speech to narrative gospel, and focus
attention on the status of the Logos as determiner of the text. Our concern
here is with a particular philosophical and theological view of language,
both written and oral, that entails the assumption of, or inspiration for,
metaphysics.
Central to the hermeneutics of John is the notion of the
preexistence of the Logos. Being with God en arch, he is situated
prior to the realm of history and outside the reality of the text. In this
position he constitutes something of a metaphysical reference point
without which world and text are deprived of orientation. It follows
that the text cannot really be accorded full self-referentiality, let alone
ultimate significance. This does not detract from our earlier observation
concerning the normative function of the written gospel. When viewed
in relation to the logoi, the text operates normatively. When viewed in
relation to the Logos, however, it appears in a less prominent position.
Subordinated to the metaphysical authority of the Logos, the text is but a
transition, a detour even, toward what is considered to be real. In current
linguistic parlance, Johns Logos is a typical, and perhaps the leading,
case of logocentrism. Coined by Jacques
120 WERNER H. KELBER

Derrida (1976:11, passim), the term refers to the Greco-Christian or

Platonic-Johannine tradition according to which language, above all
written language, belongs to the realm of the contingent and imperfect,
while true knowledge and being pertain to the plane of the immutable
forms or the preexistent, personified Logos. It is a school of thought
which both derived from and contributed to the metaphysical tradition
in the West. In our time, logocentrism has been widely displaced by non-
metaphysical and antimetaphysical thought in religion, linguistics, and
philosophy. When seen in these broader philosophical perspectives, the
historic nature of the Johannine Logos leaps to the eye. A useful way of
highlighting its increasingly precarious role in Western intellectual and
religious history is to discuss three schools of thought that are antithetical
to Logos metaphysics: Rabbinic hermeneutics, the Anglo-American
New Criticism, and the grammatological philosophy of Derrida.
To Susan Handelman goes the honor of having explicated
Rabbinic hermeneutics vis--vis a Gentile, Christian, and specifically
Johannine logocentrism. Her book, The Slayers of Moses (1982; cf. also
1983:98-129), is a work of profound intellectual insights. In it she notes
that Judaism, once robbed of its central place in 70 C.E., reasserted
itself in the Rabbinic mode which cultivated the book as the new center.
The Rabbis became the foremost experts in reading and interpreting
texts. Theirs was a world of Scripture which called forth a relentless
concentration on written words and their interrelations, including
even the physical shapes of letters and even the texts punctuation
(1982:17). Intertextuality and interpretation was the condition of the
Exile. There was no metaphysical escape from the text, no exit toward
sacred place or sacred person. Interpretation moved from one sense
to another, shunning the temptation to lift itself from the visible to an
invisible realm of true being (1982:21). In the absence of extralinguistic
standards of correctness, texts in the Rabbinic tradition echo, interact,
and interpenetrate (1982:21). The Rabbis practiced and generated
interpretation, endlessly searching and probing texts, often through
methods akin to free association, writing commentaries on texts and
commentaries in turn on commentaries. This horizontal interplay
(1982:65) of interpretation created a space of difference and conflict,
of contradiction and cacophony, never permitting the many meanings
to be gathered up into the one meaning. One does not move in Rabbinic
hermeneutics, as one does in John, from the plural to the
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 121

singular. There is only plural. All the elements in the text are potentially
equal, the particular not being inferior to the general, and the general
incapable of predicating an essence beyond the particular (1982:65).
In classic linguistic, theological terms, words are never understood
as signs pointing beyond themselves to a metaprinciple governing all
language and interpretation. Words only point to other words. Gods
presence is inscribed or traced within a text, not a body. Divinity is
located in language, not person (1982:89). Meaning is accomplished by
displacements in and of texts; it is not to be displaced away from texts.
In this manner, Rabbinic hermeneutics illustrates the eternal desire to
sustain the productivity of the text, revising it, re-creating it, reversing it
in interpretation after interpretation.
When seen from the Rabbinic vantage point, logocentrism,
the displacement of meaning away from the text, suggests the end
of signification, the suppression of the fertility of texts. This is the
meaning of Handelmans epigraph to this piece. A theology of the
Word, transcending the realm of textuality and intertextuality, abolishes
the space of difference, consummates desire, and puts an end to what
matters most in human life: interpretation.
The kind of text-bound thinking advanced by the Rabbis made
headway in the non-Jewish culture as well, putting logocentrism
increasingly on the defensive. In academia, textcentrism manifested
itself with intellectual sophistication in the Anglo-American New
Criticism of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s (Ransom 1941). One of its
ideological underpinnings was a formalist understanding of language
which, when reduced to a simple formula, states that language, above all
written language, has a life of its own. Culture and history are no longer
taken seriously as a causal or contributing factor in the making of texts.
Genetic considerations were held to be fallacious at worst and irrelevant
at best as far as a proper understanding of texts was concerned. There
is thus no way texts can either be reduced to or explained by anything
extraneous to written language. They are assumed to be generated from
no other order but that of other texts. Tradition, a significant value for
the New Criticism, was seen to be embodied above all in intertextuality.
In this climate, the objective of literary criticism was to explore how
words hang together inside texts and how they relate to words in other
texts, but not to test texts against something before or behind them.
Little, if any, attention was given to world outside of texts. What
122 WERNER H. KELBER

mattered was the presentation or transcription of world inside of texts.

In one sense stridently anti-Romantic, the New Criticism served as a
healthy antidote against naively psychological notions of authorship
and crudely representational ideas about language and its relation to
non-linguistic actuality. How texts relate to oral utterance, however, or
how the structure of language and the texture of existence correlate, or
at least interact, were simply not regarded as viable issues.
In view of its unswerving loyalty to the world of stable texts the
New Criticism is in some quarters described as the product of a self-
absorbed, bourgeois middle-class mentality (Hawkes 1977:154-55).
Perhaps this is too ideological a judgment that does not quite get to the
heart of the matter. More to the point is Ongs observation that the New
Criticism was a prime example of text-bound thinking (1982:160).
Treating texts as self-maintaining and self-referential artifacts, it
bespeaks a desire to reduce language to closed systems. As Ong has
made clear, this closed-model thinking epitomized by the textcentrism
of the New Criticism flourished at a stage in the cultural, intellectual
history of the West when the technologizing, objectifying impact of
printing had reached a high point (1977:305-41). This requires a brief
exposition.
Spoken words are bound to the authority of the speaker and
inseparable from auditors and their lifeworlds. Lacking a visual presence,
they are uncontainable in formal models. To regard speech as knowable
in terms strictly of itself is a notion that has no conceivable reality in oral
culture. Oral utterance cannot exist in transauthorial and transcommunal
objectivity. As we turn to scribality, we note that ancient and medieval
manuscripts were rarely, if ever, thought to be fully closed or to reflect
their own internal relations (Bruns 1982:44-59). Both the manufacture
and use of manuscripts readily interacted with orality, be it through
dictation or recitation. Moreover, handwritten texts were generally
understood to reach out toward and communicate with readers, or more
likely hearers, so as to please, persuade, or stir them to action. While
chirographic culture was by and large unfriendly toward fully closed
systems, typography, the art of printing, increasingly fostered closed-
model thought. With printing technical control over words reached a
state of perfection unimaginable in scribal, let alone oral culture. More
than ever words took on the appearance of objectivity and semantic self-
reliance. That language
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 123

exists in the space of impersonal neutrality could become a perfectly

reasonable and academically acceptable assumption. If we imagine
centuries of interiorization of the typographic, objectifying management
of words, we can understand in direct consequence of it not only the
New Criticism, but also the Russian Formalism, different schools of
structuralism, as well as the Saussurian principle of language whereby
meaning is figured as relations between words and not as reference to
something outside of them. When thus placed in the broader setting of
cultural history, the apotheosis of the text as a closed system, and the
implied fading of logocentrism, can readily be seen as an outgrowth of
the typographic age.
Textcentrism sought and found its elaborate philosophical self-
justification in the work of Derrida. Taking up a position of privileging
criture, he delivers in Of Grammatology (1976) an uncompromising
critique of logocentrism. From this very textcentrist position he chooses
to read Western philosophy and theology not as we did in terms of
a fading of logocentrism and the rise of textcentrism, but rather as a
stubborn clinging to the illusions of logocentrism. There is no disguising
the fact that Derrida confronts us with abysmal depths or, as the case
may be, voids in our beingif being were a concept acceptable to
him. Few, if any, have reflected more keenly and more abstrusely on
the high-risk area of language, exposing us to its dangers, deceptions,
and displacements. This one must grant him, as it must also be granted
that he has never acknowledged familiarity with the work on orality
undertaken by Eric A. Havelock (1963, 1978), Albert B. Lord (1960),
Walter J. Ong (1967, 1977, 1982), and many others.
The subject of Derridas discussion in Of Grammatology and the
principal source of his distress is the referential paradigm of language. He
views it as a root cause of logocentrism. With force and great persuasive
powers he inveighs against a longstanding convention of thinking of
linguistic values as referring to something outside of language. Nowhere
does he find referentiality more subtly and insidiously entrenched than in
the linguistic, theological concept of the sign. According to a prominent
Western tradition, ranging from Plato to Stoicism, and from Augustine
through medieval theology to Ferdinand de Saussure, the linguistic
sign is defined by the signifier and the signified. In brief, the signifier
constitutes the visible marks committed to stone, papyrus, or paper, and
the signified the so-called meanings we attach to them. Whether we
speak with the Latin tradition of signans and
124 WERNER H. KELBER

signatum, or with Saussure and Derrida of significant and signifi, the

two constituents determine the character of written language in terms
of a bipolarity of the sensible versus the intelligible. More implicitly,
they suggest referentiality, treating language as written exteriority, the
signifier, capable of mediating the essential referents, the signified, as
long ago pronounced in the medieval dictum: aliquid stat pro aliquo
(Derrida 1976:13).
As Derrida assesses the history of the sign in Western philosophy
and theology, the signified, the meaning attached to the signifier, came
to take on a reality in its own right. Indeed, its reality acquired greater
prestige than that of the signifying marks on surfaces. One fell into the
naive objectivism (1976:61) of attributing transcendental significance
and ontological status to the so-called referent of language. The
signified was assumed to be imaginable as a res or ousia, and thinkable
as being in the eternal present of the divine logos and specifically
in its breath (1976:73). In this way, linguistics collaborated with
theological speculations on a presence alleged to be outside of signifiers
and summed up in the plentitude of the logos. This desire to ascribe
transcendental significance to the signified, and to strive after parousia
and underived origin, Derrida calls logocentrism, or logocentric
metaphysics (1976:43).
Logocentrism, firmly entrenched in the linguistic-theological
concept of sign, manifests itself in numerous dichotomies: body versus
soul, culture versus nature, letter versus Spirit, form versus essence,
derived versus underived, and so forth. What they all have in common
is a craving for the metaphysics of presence (1976:49), making us
believe that we live out of eternal verities and elementary unity, making
us yearn for the underived origin, making us deny the derived self, and
making us feel we experience full being.
One of those logocentric dichotomies to which Derrida
directs his special attention is that of textuality versus orality. In the
logocentric climate of Western theology, philosophy, and linguistics,
orality has traditionally been treated as a transcendental signified, with
textuality playing the role of the signifier. Consequently, the human
voice transmits the elementary and unitary experience, while writing is
consistently viewed as the outer face of it. The internal, truly valuable,
oral speech is set above the exteriority of writing. Speech is assumed to
be innocence, and writing fall from innocence. The pure originality of
oral verbalization is disrupted
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 125

by the original sin of writing. An artful and contrived technique forced

itself upon the natural condition of the Word, violating it, and raping it.
Writing is forced entry. The outside erupted within the inside, invading a
living presence and violating the soul. In thus setting the autoproduction
of speech against the alienation of written language, and nature against
nature denatured, the Western tradition has tended to operate in terms
of a reduction of writing to the rank of an instrument enslaved to a full
and originarily spoken language (1976:29). Assuming the soul of oral
speech, writing would always be humbled to being mere body.
In the end, Of Grammatology intends to erase the logocentric
illusion of the transcendental signified in whatever form one encounters
it. Not surprisingly, the exposure of oralitys status as signified throws
us back upon the text. Engulfed by textuality, we are called in effect
to replay the Rabbinic experience in its most radical sense. To have
shown this connection between Rabbinic hermeneutics and Derridas
post-modernist philosophy remains the superlative achievement of
Handelman. As the Rabbis engaged in the interminable play with the
signifiers, so does Derrida invite us to think of writing as a game
within language (1976:50). Both choose the exile of grammatology
over ontology, which is either assumed or declared to be absent. For
the Rabbis, as for Derrida, the text constitutes the space of difference,
misspelled by Derrida as differance so as to protect himself and us from
privileging language with final reference. For written language is form
and not substance. Lacking constitutive meaning, it harbors merely a
trace which does not let itself be summed up in the simplicities of the
present (1976:66). And finally, as the Rabbinic tradition postulated the
preexistence of written language in the scroll of the Torah (shab. 88b),
so does Derrida claim arche-writing (1976:56, passim), essentially
suggesting that there was differentiation prior to unity, and lack of
innocence without an anterior state of purity.
As we move toward the end of the twentieth century, with yet
another holocaust behind us, the Rabbinic hermeneutic of deferring and
differing has gained wide acceptance in modernity and post-modernism,
while logocentric hermeneutic, the reduction of language and meaning
to ultimate referents, appears more difficult than ever to affirm. Given
the present climate, the most thoroughgoing demythologizing would be
the deliberate erasure of the Logos and the acceptance of exile in the
space of written
126 WERNER H. KELBER

letters. Yet this cannot be the objective of this piece. Having experienced
the power of the grammatological tradition, it behooves us to return to
the logocentric gospel, and to relearn its textual valence, its treatment
of the logoi, and its subordination to the Logos. In keeping with the
orality-literacy topic of this paper, we shall formulate these concluding
observations linguistically rather than in classic christological terms.
The presupposition of Johns gospel, as of all narrative gospels,
is that divinity was incarnated in a person. While alive, this person was
of course manifest, both visibly and audibly, to those who saw and heard
him. A performer of deeds and a speaker of logoi, he attracted some and
offended others. The sword of his mouth cut both ways. Oral utterance
is capable both of strengthening human bonds and of severing them.
A good many other hearers were puzzled and alienated. The riddling
nature of his words has left its mark on the Johannine vocabulary (Leroy
1968). Once his earthly life was accomplished, he continued exercising
influence by passing fully into language. Charismatic speakers in the
Johannine community resumed the genre of the logoi, speaking in the
Spirit and on his authority. Using the presenting power of oral speech
to full advantage, they rendered him present in the community, or at
least they claimed they did. It was, however, a form of presence that
precluded the incarnational dimension. Propelled by breath and attuned
to the spirit, the logoi tended to promote the living, spiritual Lord to a
degree that eclipsed the incarnate Jesus. Polycarp, speaking on behalf
of orthodoxys rapid adjustment to literacy, had astutely observed and
angrily denounced the performative powers of the logoi. The bishop
interpreted the phenomenon as a perversion of the words of the Lord.
Of course, stories must have circulated about this person, and stories
have a retrospective bent. Still, as long as stories remain unwritten,
they retain a contemporizing actuality. Spoken stories accomodate to
the hearers present more than written ones. Full retrospectivity and the
retrieval of a fully incarnate life followed by death is thus the achievement
of textuality. In this sense, orality-literacy reflections cast fresh light
on Johns textual performance and on incarnation, this texts leading
motif. Medium and message are connected by the compelling logic of
incarnation. The Jesus who is mediated through language accomplished
his entry into the flesh of humanity by full implementation of the powers
of textuality. Linguistically
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 127

speaking, the Logos incarnated himself in a hostile world by choosing

the exile of textuality.
No text grows directly out of lived experience. Words are
related to other words, both oral and written. The text of Johns gospel
is conspicuous by the presence of a massive amount of speech material.
Yet matters of orality and textuality have been curiously confused in
Johannine studies. The last two decades saw a preoccupation with
Johns use of other texts, primarily the so-called Gospel of Signs (Fortna
1970; Nicol 1972; Teeple 1974). Inspired by the typographical model of
intertextuality, scholars felt inclined to apprehend the texts diachronic
history almost exclusively in textual terms. A more discriminating
assessment of the logoi tradition could not have overlooked the extent to
which oral verbalization and values are stored in the Johannine narrative.
Indeed, the gospels commitment to the genre of the logoi is far more in
evidence that its reliance on another gospel text. As is often the case in
the study of orality-literacy relations, the failure to come to terms with
a texts oral legacy in turn impedes apprehension of the text itself. In
Johannine studies one tendency in recent years was to emphasize the
textual nature of the history of the tradition, while another was to read
the text itself as if it were an oral proclamation. Speaking on behalf
of a majority of scholars, Ernst Ksemann illustrates the latter: The
praesentia Christi is the centre of his [Johns] proclamation (1968:15).
If this were truly Johns principal concern, would he not have better
stayed with the oral powers of prophetic speech?
Lest we play lightly and loosely with the metaphysics of presence,
this might be an occasion to dialogue with Derrida. Oral utterance
evokes presence as writing never does. Contemporary electronic
communication, termed secondary orality by Ong (1977:298-99),
confronts us with history as an urgent present in a sense unknown to
previous, print-dominated times. One could meet Derrida halfway by
conceding that speech already represents alienations and pretenses, and
that the ideal of presence is problematic when claimed for speech and
hearing. This must not exempt us from exploring orality and literacy,
their differences, relations and complex interactions, a task which
Derrida along with many others has failed to undertake. For to postulate
arche-writing without a prior grasp of what oral utterance was and is
smacks of a projection of typographic sensibilities. When it comes to
the matter of textuality, however, Derrida proves to be a
128 WERNER H. KELBER

safer guide, especially in advocating the incompatibility of writing with

the metaphysics of presence. Texts cannot be entirely supportive of oral
attributes and values, and often are subversive of them. The logoi, when
placed in the Johannine narrative, are deprived of the kind of powers
they exerted when spoken by prophetic speakers. Nor does the written
text about the incarnate Jesus operate in the best interest of the presence
of the living Christ. Incarnation mediated by textuality is one thing; the
praesentia Christi experienced in orality another.
Incarnation and textuality, one mediated through the vehicle
of the other, constitute basic norms promoted by the gospel. Once
the text is in existence and in fact privileged by canonization, it is
inevitably caught in the chain of interpretation. The narrative that is
itself interpretation engenders more and more interpretation. There does
not seem to be an end to it. This is the grammatological destiny shared
by all texts, including this one. Like any other text, the gospel invites or,
as the case may be, condemns us to engage in the horizontal interplay
of the signifiers.
I do suspect, however, that for the most part of its history the gospel
was read logocentrally. Hearers, or readers, let themselves be guided
by the narrative dynamic to move from plural experience to singular
authority. While text and incarnation were understood normatively, they
nevertheless served the larger ends of transtextual realities. The text was
thus not taken with ultimate seriousness. This is hard to comprehend in the
grammatological age which has come to view language and literature as
closed systems. However, with the exception of Rabbinic hermeneutics,
Western literary history has only recently begun to view textuality as an
end in itself. What used to matter in Western literature was not primarily
the intratextual construction of meaning per se, but rather the textual
strategies to affect readers intellect and imagination.
Still more difficult to grasp for the age of arche-writing is the
idea of the preexistent arche-Logos. Indeed, the very notion of the
preexistence, according to which human beings are fashioned after
some model that existed before they did, has no place in grammatology.
In fairness to John it should be stressed that the Logos represents not
an extralinguistic mode of authority, but an extratextual one. This
gospel knows no pre-word or non-linguistic metaphysics! It rather is
fundamentally Word-centered, and the
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 129

Word undoubtedly epitomizes oral utterance. Again, what is unthinkable

in the age of grammatology is not altogether alien to historical periods
when linguistic properties were defined largely in oral terms. The
privileging of the Logos in a time still dominated by orality should not
surprise us any more than the privileging of writing in our own present.
That the Logos incarnates itself in textuality and texts emanate from
orality constitutes common thinking in antiquity about the relations of
speech and writing. By oral standards, not even the personification of
the Logos is entirely baffling, for what typifies oral verbalization is the
inseparable unity of speaker and message.
Logos, finally, is also the appropriate metaphor for transcendence.
Like oral speech, the Logos is ephemeral. It has at its disposal no visual
or physical means of preservation. It is, therefore, inaccessible to any
standards of measurement. Like oral speech, the Logos manifests itself
in the moment of verbal action. Its prime potency is sound. As such it is
elusive presence. These are attributes of divinity.

Rice University

References

Aune 1972
David Edward Aune. The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity.
Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 28. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Boring 1978
M. Eugene Boring. The Influence of Christian Prophecy on the Johannine Portrayal
of the Paraclete and Jesus. New Testament Studies, 25:113-23.
Boring 1982
__________. Sayings of the Risen Jesus. Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition.
SNTS MS 46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braun 1978
F.-M. Braun. La Rduction du Pluriel au Singulier dans IEvangile et la Premire
Lettre de Jean. New Testament Studies, 24:40-67.
Brown 196670
Raymond E. Brown. The Gospel According to John. The Anchor Bible, vols. 29 and
29a. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
Bruns 1982
Gerald L. Bruns. Inventions: Writing, Textuality, and Understanding in Literary
History. New Haven: Yale University Press.
130 WERNER H. KELBER

Bultmann 1971
Rudolph Bultmann. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray
et al. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Dahl 1948
Nils A. Dahl. Anamnesis: Mmoire et Commmoration dans le christianisme
primitif. Studio Theologica, 1:69-95.
Derrida 1976
Jacques Derrida. Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dewey 1980
Kim E. Dewey. Paroimiai in the Gospel of John. Semeia, 17:81-100.
Forrest 1976
Kathleen Kemp Forrest. Speech and Power: A Renaissance Theme in King Lear.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Saint Louis University).
Fortna 1970
Robert T. Fortna. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source
Underlying the Fourth Gospel. SNTS MS 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Handelman 1982
Susan A. Handelman. The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation
in Modern Literary Theory. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Handelman 1983
__________. Jacques Derrida and the Heretic Hermeneutic. In Displacement:
Derrida and After. Ed. Mark Krupnick. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp.
98-129.
Hawkes 1977
Terence Hawkes. Structuralism & Semiotics. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Ksemann 1968
Ernst Ksemann. The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light
of Chapter 17. Trans. Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Kysar 1975
Robert Kysar. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary
Scholarship. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House.
Leroy 1968
Herbert Leroy. Rtsel und Missverstndnis: Ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des
Johannesevangeliums. Bonner Biblische Beitrge, 30. Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag.
Lord 1960
Albert B. Lord. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rpt.
New York: Atheneum, 1968 et seq.
Michaels 1975
J. Ramsey Michaels. The Johannine Words of Jesus and Christian Prophecy. In SBL
Seminar Papers, vol. 2. Missoula: University of Montana for the Society of Biblical
Literature. pp. 233-64.
Nicol 1972
W. Nicol. The Semeia in the Fourth Gospel: Tradition and Redaction.
 THE WORD IN ST. JOHNS GOSPEL 131

Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 32. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Ong 1967
Walter J. Ong, S.J. The Presence of the Word: Some Prolegomena for Cultural and
Religious History. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rpt. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1981.
Ong 1977
__________. Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and
Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ong 1982
__________. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London:
Methuen.
Ransom 1941
John Crowe Ransom. The New Criticism. Norfolk, CT: New Directions.
Moody Smith 1974
Moody Smith, Jr. Johannine Christianity: Some Reflections on its Character and
Delineation, New Testament Studies, 21:222-48.
Morton Smith 1973
Morton Smith. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Sneller 1985
Gary Sneller. The Word and the Words of Eternal Life: Orality and Literacy in the
Gospel of John. Unpublished paper.
Teeple 1974
Howard M. Teeple. The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. Evanston, IL: Religion
and Ethics Institute, Inc.
Woll 1981
D. Bruce Woll. Johannine Christianity in Conflict: Authority, Rank, and Succession
in the First Farewell Discourse. SBL Dissertation Series, 60. Chico, CA: Scholars
Press.