vestigial scenes in john: settings without dramatization

Vestigial Scenes in John: Settings without DramatizationAuthor(s): Charles W. HedrickSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 47, Fasc. 4 (2005), pp. 354-366Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25442459 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 19:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.108 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:43:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25442459?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


VESTIGIAL SCENES IN JOHN: SETTINGS WITHOUT DRAMATIZATION

by

CHARLES W. HEDRICK Springfield

Abstract

John 2:12 comprises little more than a scene setting and plays no evident role

in John's overall narrative. Thus it is surprising to find it in a text whose "author"

knows that space is limited (John 21:25) and so narrates things serving a soteri

ological purpose (John 20:30-31). This paper compares John 2:12 to other sim

ilar brief independent "scenes" in the gospel, and identifies their literary character as "vestigial scenes": these are scene settings, which for some reason are not dra

matized. The paper concludes by exploring reasonable options for explaining their

presence in the text.

1. Introduction

John 2:12 is a rather odd sentence falling, as it does, between two

fully dramatized scenes: the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-10, plus a

narrator's hermeneia, 2:11)1 and the cleansing of the temple (John 2:13-20 plus a narrator's hermeneia, 2:21-22). It is a vestige of a

scene?little more than a setting that goes nowhere and apparently

plays no role in John's overall narrative. Nevertheless in the early twen

tieth century Alfred Plummer could say of John 2:12:

This verse alone is almost enough to disprove the theory that the Gospel is a

fiction written with a dogmatic object: "Why should the author carry his read

ers thus to Capernaum?for nothing?"

1 On the hermeneia in John see: Charles W. Hedrick, "Authorial Presence and

Narrator in John: Commentary and Story," in James E. Goehring, Charles W. Hedrick,

Jack T. Sanders with Hans Dieter Betz (eds.), Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings. In

Honor of James M. Robinson (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990) 74-93; idem, "Unreliable

Narration: John on the Story of Jesus. The Chronicler on the History of Israel," in

R. B. Sloan and M. C. Parsons (eds.), Perspectives on John: Method and Interpretation in the

Fourth Gospel (NABPR Special Studies Series 11; Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Edwin

Mellen, 1993) 121-43.

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Novum Testamentum XLVII, 4

Also available online -

www.brill.nl



VESTIGIAL SCENES IN JOHN 355

Why indeed? One may well ask! Plummer answers his own query: "He records this visit because it took place, and because he [John] well remembers those 'not many days.'"2 Thus according to Plummer

the trip to Capernaum is a random historical event, which John "remem

bers," but which plays no greater role in the progress of the narra

tive (or in the public career of Jesus, assuming Plummer is correct in

his assessment) other than that it happened. On the other hand, the Gospel of Matthew also records a trip to

Capernaum early in the public career of Jesus?only this trip is made

from Nazareth not Cana (4:12-17).3 In Matthew, Jesus goes to

Capernaum and dwells there (KaxcpKnaev) in order to fulfill scripture

(Isa. 9:1-2 LXX). According to Matthew, the trip to Capernaum is

scarcely a random historical event, but a trip made only out of theo

logical (the Matthaean author) or divine (God) necessity. But (appar

ently) nothing else was significant about the trip. We may well disagree with Matthew that historical events are programmed (i.e., not ran

dom), and manipulated by an overarching divine wisdom so as to fit

a particular reading of some passage in Hebrew Bible, but the trip at

least has a point in Matthew's gospel. And we might agree with

Plummer that the trip to Capernaum in John was a random histori

cal event, but since John does not cover every trip in the public career

of Jesus (cf. John 20:30; 21:25), we might not agree that the narra

tion of this particular trip proves the historical character of the gospel. But the observation that the trip is a random historical event, which

John records simply because it happened, begs the following question: why would John give space to this particular dead-end trip when it has no apparent purpose in a narrative where everything is "written"

to bring its readers to the belief "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of

God" (John 20:31)? Readers usually assume that after the trip to Capernaum in John

2:12 both Jesus and his disciples go to Jerusalem, partly because Jesus' disciples are mentioned in the following temple scene (2:17, 21-22)? but these verses are the narrator's hermeneia and are not part of the

narrator's dramatization of the incident at the temple. Indeed, these verses (2:17, 21-22) evoke a time that occurs long past the dramatized events of the entire narrative, from hindsight so to speak, long after

2 Alfred Plummer, The Gospel according to S. John (Cambridge Greek Testament for

Schools; Cambridge: University Press, 1900) 93. 3 Mark also notes an early trip to Capernaum with extensive activities by Jesus:

1:21-38.



356 CHARLES W. HEDRICK

the cleansing of the temple took place and even after the resurrection had occurred. Thus, the hermeneia (2:17, 21-22) should not be cited as evidence that the disciples were actually present at the scene por

traying the cleansing of the temple, 2:13-20 (2:21-22 are the narra

tor's hermeneia). And the disciples are neither mentioned in connection

with the narrator's summarizing hermeneia that follows (John 2:23

25), nor are they present at the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus

(John 3:1-21). Later, Jesus and the disciples are reunited in the nar

ration when they go out into the Judean countryside (3:22). Assuming that the disciples remained at Cana for several days (2:12), they must

have in the meantime at some point rejoined him. John frequently leaves it to the reader to solve certain disconnects in the narrative.4

Exactly how John 2:12 fits into the narrative has been something of a problem for interpreters of John. Some treat it as part of the

Cana scene,5 or in connection with the temple scene.6 Still others

regard it as a "free floating element," serving as a transition or "inter

lude."7 In this last instance, John 2:12 is independent of the drama

tized scenes that precede and follow in the narrative. Describing John 2:12 as a transition or an interlude, however, does not adequately solve

the puzzle. Technically a transition in literature is a passage from one

scene to another, but John 2:12 does not seem to modulate or segue between two scenes as much as it seems to stand on its own as an

independent scene, albeit brief or schematic. Describing John 2:12 as

an interlude suggests that it is inferior in some way to the fully dra

matized scenes bracketing it. As an interlude, it becomes simply an

intervening inessential episode interrupting the flow of the narrative

and the progress of the story. The position taken in this paper is that

4 John is not always careful to make smooth narrative connections. For example,

were Simon and Andrew (John 1:40-42) present with Jesus at the calling of Philip and

Nathanael (1:43-51)? And exacdy when does Jesus move from a location beside the

sea (6:22-25) to the synagogue in Capernaum (6:59)? 5 Lindars discusses 2:12 in connection with the marriage at Cana, John 2:1-12, and

begins a new section with 2:13. In its present position John 2:12 "appears to be a

pointless addition": Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (The New Century Bible

Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 132. See Thomas L. Brodie, The Gospel

according to John. A Literary and Theological Commentary (Oxford: University Press, 1993) 177-8. Brodie has surveyed the literature for scholarly judgments on John 2:12.

6 Brodie (John, 177-8) lists the following as treating the verse in this way: Loisy,

146-7; Hoskyns, 192; Lightfoot, 111; Schnackenburg 1:342-3; Sanders, 115. 7 Brodie (John, 177) lists the following as treating the verse in this way: Westcott,

39; LaGrange, 62-64; Barrett, 194; Brown, 112-3; Strathmann, 58; Morris, 186-8;

Schulz, 47; Haenchen, 1:175.




John 2:12 is a vestige of a completely independent scene, which for some reason is not fully dramatized.

If John 2:12 is a deliberate transition or interlude, it is an anom

aly. The narrator of John makes no transitions like 2:12 between fully dramatized scenes elsewhere in the gospel (compare 1:51/2:1, 4:54/5:1,

9:41/10:1). Recognizable transitions in John, when used, are usually

simple and abrupt.8

2. Scene Vestiges elsewhere in the Gospel

Another excellent example of a vestigial scene is John 11:54b ("he went from there . . . with the disciples"). John 11:54a is a summary statement describing the cessation of Jesus' typical or usual behavior:

"he no longer was going about [imperfect tense] openly." The vesti

gial scene, on the other hand, uses the aorist tense to describe the trip and the visit to Ephraim, making this vestigial scene a singular par ticular event. Thus John 11:54b is not a summary, like John 11:54a, but rather a description of a particular event, undeveloped and under

dramatized, that goes nowhere as far as the plot is concerned. Like

John 2:12, it happens only once in the narrative. Similar to John 2:12, it is separated from the following scene (people looking for Jesus near

the Passover, 11:55-57) by the transition in time between the visit to

Ephraim and the nearness of Passover ("Passover is at hand," 11:55; and "six days before the Passover," 12:1).

John 11:54b lacks all dialogue, is brief to the point of being schematic, and occurs between two other independent scenes. The narrator makes

little of the vestigial scene. The summary introducing it (11:54a) gives a reason for the trip to Ephraim, but the activities at that location are

unspecified. If the vestigial scene were deleted from the narrative, John 11:54a would be read as the conclusion to the preceding scene and the

ox)v clause would explain the reason for the change in Jesus' behavior.

Another vestigial scene is John 3:22?Jesus' trip out into the Judean countryside. The brief sentence describing the trip is narrated in the

8 See, for example: the use of day/days (sometimes numbered): 1:29, 35, 43; 2:1;

4:43; 6:22; 7:37; 12:1, 12; 20:19. n?Xiv (again): 8:12, 21; 10:7, 19; \iexa xomo/xama

(after this/these thing[s]): 2:12; 3:22; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1; 19:28, 38; 21:1; xama ein?v (these things being said): 13:21, [17:1], 18:1, 38b; ek xomou (from this): 6:66; 19:12; ??: 2:23; 3:1; 5:2, 9b; 6:4, 10b; 7:2, 10; 11:1, 5, 55; 12:20, 44; 13:1; 18:15, 25; 19:14; 20:1, 11, 24; Kai Ttap?ycov (and as he passed by): 9:1; ox>v (therefore): 3:25; 4:1, 46; 8:21; 11:17; 13:31; 18:12, 19, 28; 20:30; x?xe (then): 19:1.




aorist tense. Thus the trip is a singular event that is not repeated as

a customary action of Jesus. On the other hand, the description of his

activities while in the countryside are narrated in the imperfect tense,

indicating that the visit lasted sometime (oietpi?Ev) and that he bap tized on more than one occasion (e?arcTiCev), though the text is ambigu ous on who was being baptized. Hence this part of the vestigial scene

summarizes the kind of activities that occurred in the countryside, but

without dialogue and specifics, the vestigial scene is little more than a

provocative setting. It is separated from the preceding scene (John 3:1

21) by the transitional phrase "after these (things)" (jiexot xavxcx) and

from the developed scene that follows (John 3:25-36) by the transi

tional connective ot>v ("now," 3:25). John 3:23ab is a scene separate from 3:33. John 3:23c, 24 are narrative asides by the hermeneute,9 and not part of the separate scenes narrated in John 3:22 and 23ab.

In this case, however, this vestigial scene does add something to the

narrative not available elsewhere in the narrative: it adds the fact

that Jesus actually was accustomed to perform baptisms on certain

occasions?a fact specifically denied by John 4:2 (a comment by the hermeneute and not by the narrator, who is responsible for

John 3:22).10 In light of the fact that the hermeneute specifically denies that Jesus baptized, John 3:22 adds significant new information,

though readers usually are persuaded by the hermeneute rather than

the narrator.

John 4:43, 45 (Jesus goes to Galilee and is in Galilee) is also an

independent vestigial scene.11 The narrator uses the aorist indicating that it is a particular trip and hence is a singular event that happens on one particular occasion. It is separated from the preceding

scene

(Jesus in Samaria, 4:1-42) by the transitional device "after two days"

(|i?Toc ?? toc? ?t>o fipipa?), and is separated from the scene that follows

(Jesus in Cana, 4:46-54), because it occurs in a different location (i.e., somewhere in Galilee) and features the transitional devices ovv n?Xiv.12

It is brief, schematic, and lacking in all dialogue. The narrator por

trays Jesus receiving a warm welcome from the Galileans (4:45), a

9 Hedrick, "Authorial Presence and Narrator in John."

10 Ibid. 11 John 4:44 is an aside by the hermeneute; see Hedrick, "Authorial Presence and

Narrator in John." 12 The countryside location is unspecified; the reader only knows that the welcome

he received was not at Cana, because he had to leave the undisclosed location and

travel to Cana (4:46).




response that is also indicated in the following scene (4:46-54), where

Jesus is portrayed as receiving "honor" from a "royal" official (4:46

47). Hence the vestigial scene (4:43, 45) adds little to the narrative

that a reader would not perceive from John 4:46-54.

John 6:1-3 is another vestigial scene, including a brief summary

(6:2b). Since the scene is narrated in the aorist tense, the trip (6:1, 3) should not be construed as a summary of typical behavior that occurs

on more that one occasion. It is a singular event, occurring once in

the narrative. That it is not to be construed as the introduction to the

feeding of the 5000 is shown by John 6:15, where it is clear that Jesus is no longer on the mountain as he was in John 6:1-3. In John 6:15

Jesus withdraws "to the mountain again" (i.e., as he had been at John

6:1-3). Hence the location of the feeding of the 5000 is not specified,

except that it occurred in a grassy place (6:10). The vestigial scene, John 6:1-3, is separated from the preceding

scene (John 5:1-9, healing of the paralyzed man, and the debate

between Jesus and the Jews, 5:10-47) by the transitional expression \iE%? Toona, and from the following scene (feeding of the 5000, 6:4

15) by the transitional copula S? and the introduction of a new crowd at John 6:4-5 (the vestigial scene had its own crowd at 6:2a). While

the narrator casts Jesus' trip to the other side of the lake and up the

mountain in the aorist tense, the crowd's observation of Jesus' heal

ing activities and them following Jesus (6:2b) are cast in the imperfect tense?i.e., these are

typical or usual events that happened more than

once on this particular occasion. The same is likely true of the descrip tion of Jesus sitting with his disciples?i.e., he was sitting again (eic?f)

rjTo) with his disciples as he usually did. The description suggests that

Jesus was engaged in teaching, as it occurs frequently in the synoptic gospels. Thus 6:1-3 appears to be a setting for some kind of scene

that is not developed by the narrator.13

13 Although it is not a part of John's gospel, the traditional narrative John 7:53-8:11

is included here in the interest of completeness and because it shares certain literary features with the Gospel of John: the vestigial scene 7:53-8:1 and the hermeneia at

6:1a, and because in the popular mind the preferred location for this traditional story is the Gospel of John. For the text critical rationale that the narrative is not an orig inal part of the Gospel of John see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek

New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2000) 188-9. John 7:53 8:1 describes a singular, particular event in which Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives,

signaled by the use of the aorist ?7C0pet)6T|. The scene lacks dialogue and description. In its present location it is separated from the preceding scene (the discussion between the officers, chief priests, and Pharisees, 7:45-52) by the change in location of the actors in 7:45-52 going to their homes (cf. 20:10) and Jesus going to the Mount of Olives.




John 10:40-42 (Jesus crosses the Jordan) is another vestigial scene

that the narrator does not fully develop. In this case, there is a solil

oquy on the part of the "many" that came to him across the Jordan, but virtually all other specifics are lacking. The vestigial scene is com

plete and independent. It is narrated in the aorist tense making it a

singular event. It is separated from the preceding scene by the narra

tor's comment in 10:39, which effectively closes off the preceding scene, 10:22-38 (Jesus in the temple at the Feast of Dedication). It is sepa rated from what follows (Lazarus, John 11:1-44) by the copula S? (11:1).

The vestigial scene provides an opportunity for the narrator to describe

Jesus' popularity, and it is more developed with soliloquy. Nevertheless, the vestigial scene is not dramatized to the extent that other fully devel

oped scenes in John are. This particular vestigial scene shows how eas

ily vestigial scenes may be expanded into dramatized scenes.14

3. What should be its Narrative Designation?

As noted above the sentence has been called "interlude," "free

floating element," and "transition," none of which seem nearly pre

cise enough?at least not in terms of narrative theory. How John 2:12 should be designated from my perspective depends on the answer to

two questions: what the "author" intended, and exactly how it func tions in the narrative. Even if we could answer both questions suc

cessfully, the answers may not agree, since what an author intends

may not be what the author actually accomplishes. But in any case,

This independent scene describing the trip home by the authorities and to the Mount

of Olives by Jesus is separated from the following scene (John 8:2-11) by the change in time and the copula n?Xiv in John 8:2a. The vestigial scene adds little if anything to the narrative. What is the significance of this singular event: i.e., that the Jewish leaders went to their individual homes while Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives? The

narrator of the traditional pericope makes nothing of Jesus on the Mount of Olives or

the Jewish leaders in their homes. 14 In the classroom of Hellenistic antiquity students would practice embellishing and

abridging texts in such ways as not to compromise an author's meaning: Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, I.ix.2; H. E. Butler, The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian (4 vols.; Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969) 1:156-7. The earliest Greek textbook on Greek

prose composition (Aelius Theon) indicates that Chreia, fable, and narrative are to be

elaborated and condensed as a part of the student's instructional exercises: G. A.

Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Leiden: Brill,

2003) 15-22 (Chreia), 24 (fable), and 34 (narrative). It is, therefore, likely no accident

that we find the gospels of Matthew and Luke expanding (Mark 3:22-27 = Mat. 12:22

30; Luke 11:14-23) and abridging (Mark 9:14-29 = Mat. 17:14-21; Luke 9:37-43) Mark.

Such techniques are consistent with classroom instruction in the Hellenistic period.




the answer to the first question is impossible, for we can never know

what people "intend." The best we can hope for is to know what they tell us they intend. In the case of John's gospel, however, the "author"

is no longer with us, and the many irregularities in the gospel suggest that numerous "authors" may have lent a helping hand in producing the final version of the Gospel of John.15 And, in addition, John 2:12

does not suit the author's stated intention in writing?to lead people to believe that Jesus is the Christ (John 20:31). The second question also seems to lead into a blind alley, for the sentence appears to have no

particular function in the overall narrative. How would such a sen

tence be designated in terms of narrative theory? If G?rard Genette's analysis of narrative discourse is considered,

likely it should simply be called a "scene," since it occurs in a loca

tion different from the Cana wedding or the temple cleansing. Never

theless, the sentence (John 2:12) does not really fit Genette's criteria

for scene. Genette describes only four movements in a narrative: ellip sis, pause, scene, and summary.16 John 2:12 is clearly not a "pause,"

for a pause according to Genette is a "descriptive digression,"17 and

John 2:12 neither digresses, nor measures up to the examples of ful some description Genette characterizes as a

pause.18 The language of

John 2:12 is also not description (?ioppaai?). It scarcely "describes," but

sketchily notes an independent event occurring between Cana and

Jerusalem, between wedding and temple cleansing. The sentence is

ambiguous, schematic, and lacks virtually all description. The sentence might be construed as a "summary," which Genette

defines as "the narration in a few paragraphs or a few pages of sev

eral days, months, or years of existence, without details of action or

speech."19 His observation that a summary is "without details of action or speech" means the summary lacks dramatization and dialogue. The

summary functions for Genette as "a transition between scenes."20 In

John 2:12, however, the trip to Capernaum takes one sentence?not

15 See the discussion by Ernst Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (trans. Robert W. Funk; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984 [German, 1980]) 1:20-90. See also R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 13-49.

16 G?rard Genette, Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method (trans. Jane E. Lewin; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980) 94.

17 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 99-100.

18 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 99-106.

19 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 95-96. See his examples. 20 Genette, Narrative Discourse, 97.




a few paragraphs, and in a narrow sense does not "summarize" what

took place at Capernaum. It only states that a trip took place. Nevertheless John 2:12 is clearly not a scene in Genette's sense; a

scene for Genette is detailed,21 and generally has dialogue.22 In short

Genette's categories do not easily accommodate John 2:12, like they do the Markan summary statements, for example.23

If John 2:12 is a scene, it is a scene pared away to the bare bones?

merely a vestige of a scene lacking all elements of drama. It does not

summarize what happened at Capernaum, but merely notes such a

trip occurred. Chatman uses the word "scenelet" to describe brief scenes separated by intervening summaries and digressing description.24 Thus a scenelet is a briefer than usual scene, of which "the two usual

components are dialogue and overt physical actions of relatively short

duration."25 But the vestigial scenes in John do not generally have the

dialogue and physical actions necessary even to be considered a scenelet as described by Chatman. Therefore I designate John 2:12 as a "scene

vestige," of which all that exists is a brief setting. In narrative a set

ting "is the particular physical location in which [a single episode or

scene] takes place."26

4. The Characteristics of the Johannine Vestigial Scene

The Johannine vestigial "scene" is, in essence, a brief setting for a

scene, lacking dialogue and description.27 Here are the characteristics

of the vestigial scene extrapolated from John 2:12. There are six. a. John 2:12 describes a separate and particular event occurring

between the wedding at Cana and the Temple cleansing; it does not

summarize events at Capernaum. John generally does not use sum

maries and when they are used they are quite brief (cf. 4:40b; 5:16b;

21 Narrative Discourse, 109. 22 Narrative Discourse, 94. 23 Charles W. Hedrick, "The Role of 'Summary Statements' in the Composition of

the Gospel of Mark: A Dialogue with Karl Schmidt and Norman Perrin," NovT 26

(1984) 289-311. 24

Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978) 75.

25 Chatman, Story and Discourse, 72.

26 M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms (6th ed.; Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace,

1993) 192. 27 It is very similar to other settings for fully dramatized scenes elsewhere in the

gospel. See 1:43a; 2:13; 4:43, 46a; 5:1; 6:1, 15; 10:40; 18:1.




6:2b, for example). John 2:12 is a complete scene despite its brevity, but it adds little to the narrative.

b. It is introduced by a transitional connective that separates the

vestigial scene from what precedes, in this case by \iex? to?to. It is

separated from what follows by a time indicator (for a few days, ox)

noXX?q fifi?poc?), indicating the temporal limits of the nonexistent action

in 2:12. A new scene begins with 2:13?after a few days in Capernaum the Passover was "at hand."

c. The sentence lacks dramatization, i.e., dialogue and details, as

are found in the longer narratives in John. d. It provides an appropriate lead sentence for a longer dramatized

scene and raises the question in a reader's mind: what happened at

Capernaum? e. It divides detailed and dramatized independent scenes, is clearly

distinguished from them, and has no evident connection to what pre cedes or follows.28 Were it deleted, the connection between the wed

ding at Cana and the temple cleansing would still fit seamlessly, with

no disconnects or disruption, or indication that anything was ever miss

ing from the text.

f. It is a singular scene?in Chatman's terms, a "singulative narra

tive," for it happens only once.29 It does not describe typical or usual

behavior or activity, which would have required the imperfect tense.

The vestigial scene uses the aorist. For comparison purposes note that

summaries in the Gospel of Mark are typical scenes using the imper fect tense to describe usual or typical kinds of behavior.30

5. The Significance of the Vestigial Scene

In general the vestigial scene does little to further the progress of

the narrative. In rare instances does it contribute new information or

in other ways advance the plot or facilitate a Johannine interest. Hence,

it seems natural to raise the question why are they there at all if they contribute so little to a text whose stated purpose is to facilitate belief

in Jesus (20:30-31). Various reasonable options for explaining the ves

tigial scene may be suggested, although it is not possible to be com

pletely certain which, if any, is the more probable.

28 In spite of Brodie's structural argument for linking the sentence with the temple scene: Brodie, John, 177-8.

29 Chatman, Story and Discourse, 114-5.

30 Hedrick, "Summary Statements."




a. It is an attempt of the author to overcome the mostly episodic character of the narrative caused by the succession of the fully devel

oped dramatic scenes.

b. The author decided to imitate life and make the narrative more

realistic by expanding the number of events that occurred in Jesus' career (compare, for example, Acts 12:17b and 19b)?although that

solution works against 20:31. c. Vestigial scenes may only be settings for longer dramatized scenes

that have been eliminated for some reason.

d. The vestigial scene was never intended to be completed but the

author (or editor) used them as structuring devices to provide thematic

breaks in the narrative resulting in the following divisions: 1:1-2:11;

2:12-3:21; 3:22-4:42; 4:43-5:47; 6:1-10:39; 10:40-11:54a; ll:54b-21:25. e. The vestigial scene may only be a set up for a plotted scene that

was never completed for some reason.

One can scarcely be certain, but this last option may have some

merit as an explanation for the presence of the vestigial scenes in the text. Loose connections between certain scenes and their settings in

John suggest that John's way of composing a narrative unit is to invent a setting and then loosely connect an already fashioned scene to it.

So the scenes are not really dependent on the settings John provides.

They only provide convenient hooks by which a fully formed dramatic

scene, or scenes, can be incorporated into the narrative. The settings

create the illusion of geographical and chronological continuity to the

overall narrative.

Here are several examples of settings that illustrate this point. These

settings ostensibly provide both location and time indicators for the

dramatic scenes they introduce, but the settings are not always com

pletely suitable for the scenes. John 5:1: the location is Jerusalem and

the time frame is during a "feast of the Jews." This setting serves to

locate the three scenes that comprise chapter five (5:2-9a, 9b-18, 19

47) but in only the most general way. In fact, the setting is so gen eral that it does not adequately serve well the second scene (5:10-18), and the "author" finds it necessary to add a more specific time indi

cator ("now that day was the Sabbath," 9b) to accommodate the dis

cussion in the second scene, which features a dialogue between the

healed man and some Jews about Jesus violating the Sabbath. John 5:9b appears to be an attempt to correct the inadequacy of the set

ting in 5:1, but it interrupts the rather close connection between John 5:9a and 5:10. Including the reference to the Sabbath at this point is




clearly awkward and would not have been necessary had the setting in John 5:1 been better conceived and stated so as to fit what is clearly one dramatic performance in two scenes (5:2-18). The third scene

(5:19-47) is comprised of two brief speeches by Jesus (5:19-30, 31-47) that could have fitted at virtually any point in John's overall narra

tive. John has included them at this point simply by hooking them

onto the healing Jesus performs in 5:2-18.

Another such setting is John 10:22-23: the location is the temple in

Jerusalem in the Portico of Solomon and the time is at the Feast of

Dedication in winter. This setting serves to locate the exchange between

Jesus and some Jews, "who had gathered around him" (10:24a). The

exchange between Jesus and his interlocutors could actually have

occurred anyplace. There is nothing in the dramatic scene (10:24-39), which is hooked to the setting (10:22-23), that in anyway requires such a specific setting. In fact, something of a disconnection exists between

the setting and the scene in 10:31, where the Jews again take up stones

to stone him. It is rather odd to have stones available at Solomon's

portico. It is not impossible, of course, but it appears to be the nar

rator again31 trying to provide a context for the content of the scene.

In this case, in 10:31 there should have been some kind of statement on the part of Jesus' interlocutors, for Jesus "answered" them in 10:32. But what we have in 10:31 is a statement that the Jews intended to

stone Jesus. In short, 10:32 is not responsive to 10:31. What has hap

pened is that the narrator is forced to provide in 10:31 something to

accommodate Jesus' subsequent question about stoning in 10:32 and the Jews response in 10:33. At the end of the scene (10:39) surpris

ingly the Jews attempt to arrest him?with the stones apparently still in their hands! These observations tend to weaken the connection between 10:24-30 and 10:32-39 and argue that these are in reality two

separate scenes that the narrator has lumped together at the expense

of the beginning of the second. It is particularly telling that the topics are different.

Here is my last example of such a setting: In John 7:1-2 the loca tion is somewhere in Galilee at the onset of the Feast of Tabernacles.

The setting serves to locate a series of brief scenes in chapter seven

(7:3-9, 10-13, 14-24, 25-31, 32-36, 37-44, 45-52). Four of these scenes

31 Compare John 8:59 where previously "in the temple" (8:2) the Jews had taken

up stones to stone him.




(7:3-9, 10-13, 14-24, 37-44), because of their repeated allusion to a feast

(7:8, 10-11, 14, 37), suit the time and location of the setting (7:1-2)

quite well, but the other three (7:25-31, 32-36, 45-52) are not specifically related to a feast time. They are not temporally specific and only one

is generally located (in Jerusalem [7:25] at the temple [7:28]). These

three are loosely connected to chapter seven similar to the series of

disconnected mini speeches in chapter eight: 8:12-20, 21-30, 31-47, 48-59.



vestigial scenes in john: settings without dramatization

Documents