Two weeks ago I posted a review of Douglas Estes’ (Lead Pastor of Trinity Church in Mesa, AZ, and adjunct professor at Phoenix Seminary) new monograph The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric, and Persuasive Discourse (Leiden: Brill, 2013), which you can read here. As a friend, mentor, and former professor of mine I asked if he would be willing to do an interview about the book and he accepted. This isn’t the first time I have interviewed him. I did a two part interview titled “The Pastor-Scholar” wherein we discussed pastoring for those with an academic bent (read Pt. 1 and Pt. 2). This interview is about his new book and why he thought it was important enough to write. Enjoy!
__________
What is the thesis of The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric, and Persuasive Discourse?
The basic thesis of the book is to better understand why the Fourth Evangelist selects the questions of Jesus he does, and what those questions mean for the reader. Rather than take a theological or literary approach, I used linguistics and rhetoric as my primary method. Along the writing path, I found myself being constantly challenged by Jesus’ questions as I did the linguistic work. I’m always skeptical when scholars claim to find a pattern in a text (unless it’s poetic), but I did begin to notice how the questions of Jesus make a subtle and related rhetorical push throughout the gospel. By the end of my writing the book, the unwritten thesis is that the Fourth Gospel contains a number of rhetorical hooks, of which the asking of questions is one. This partly explains why it is one of the (if not the) most read text ever written.
Why did you write the book? Why do we need to give more attention to the questions of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel?
I wrote the book because I felt the issue of questions (and really, non-statements or non-propositions) is largely unexplored in NT studies. I also felt that many works that deal with questions in the biblical text are feel-good and short on any rigor. I felt it was interesting; and I really wanted my next book as a scholar to be something of an unofficial Habilitationsschrift for me (original, serious research monograph). As far as paying more attention to questions in John, the primary reason we need to do that is that John uses them. If we avoid parts of the narrative, such as question-asking, we will not understand the narrative as well as we could. To put it differently: The way in which many, many people approach the gospel is to see what they can dig out of it (truth, meaning, historical facts, or the lack thereof). In this I find skeptical scholars are actually very similar to faithful churchgoers: they’re all gleaners, gleaning the text for information. I’m not sure John was written to be gleaned in this way!
Did this study change how you understand the Fourth Gospel as a whole? If so, what would you say is the before-and-after impact?
Yes, in a subtle but meaningful way. Before writing the book, I felt I had a basic grasp on John—his modus operandi, so to speak. But with John there are always little riddles that scholars have noted for many years now. Some of those are not always obvious, as they are hidden behind the ‘simple language’ of John. Writing the book certainly changed my view on its rhetorical impact, and design. As I believe you mentioned in your review, an after-impact was that I am now definitely leaning much more to the view that John was more written for outsiders (though such a rigid, binary insider vs outsider view I find too coarse), based on John’s linguistic features especially with his non-declarative expressions like questions.
In the first and final chapters you allude to possible studies that may follow what you have done in this book. You said that there is far more research to be done in the area of questions, especially as questions relate to ancient narrative. If you could list a handful of topics you’d be excited to see some potential scholar engage (e.g., as a graduate thesis or doctoral dissertation) what would those be?
I would love to see someone tackle the way Paul uses questions (or non-declaratives) in order to build up his arguments. That’s a book waiting to be written. I also think there is much more linguistic work that can be done on the NT text—linguistics is somewhat a new field, and its (meaningful) impact on the study of the NT has been minimal. I also think that there are also many studies that could be written on the various forms of question-asking and argumentation in OT books. When I wrote the QJJ, the OT folks were far ahead of NT folks in the study of argumentation (my opinion), but they don’t appear to make much use of linguistics in this particular area (as far I can see). Someone could easily go back and do research on the way interrogatives were used in Hebrew, from a linguistic perspective. One thing I noticed in writing QJJ is that some languages (such as Latin) have more robust resources for handling non-declaratives than our Greek resources do.
In 2008 you wrote The Temporal Mechanics of the Fourth Gospel: A Theory of Hermeneutical Relativity in the Gospel of John that was published by Brill as well. What connection might we find between these two books? Another way of asking this question: Did your first book prepare you for this subsequent study?
Based on the titles, it may seem there is no connection; and in fact, it didn’t seem like it until near the end of writing the QJJ that I realized the connection myself. Temporal Mechanics did prepare me for the study as it gave me a lot of practice in identifying unstated assumptions, and then thinking outside the box without leaving the ranch. So the primary connection is looking at old problems in new ways. I would say that is one thing that is probably consistent in my writing.
Do you plan to write on the Fourth Gospel again? If so, would you be willing to provide a preview? If not, where do you plan on focusing your writing in the near future?
Yes! Unfortunately, since I’m still working out details with publisher(s), I can’t really give much of a preview now (sorry). I can say that I am busy at work. I can also say that my next book out will be a totally different direction, it’s called Better Habits, Better Life: How to Coach Yourself to Life Change, co-written with Matthew Reed and will be published by Cascade Books in 2014. It’s a practical-theological consideration of the nature of personal transformation and change in the spiritual life. Writing this is an enjoyable diversion, but soon back to John!
the archives near Emmaus 
Hi Douglass, you say “I also think there is much more linguistic work that can be done on the NT text—linguistics is somewhat a new field, and its (meaningful) impact on the study of the NT has been minimal.”
Do you have any specific thoughts on how linguistics might help? Linguistics is just such a broad field of study, and now that were down in the comments, I was hoping maybe you could flesh that out for me… Thanks!
Thanks for this interesting interview. Interested especially in his comment that for him:
“an after-impact was that I am now definitely leaning much more to the view that John was more written for outsiders (though such a rigid, binary insider vs outsider view I find too coarse), based on John’s linguistic features especially with his non-declarative expressions like questions.”
Lyle,
As I mentioned in my other comment, I’m coming at this from the perspective of a biblical scholar, not a linguist. Having said that, I think from my view point there are quite a few areas where linguistics can play a bigger role — pick one. Meaning that, you are right, it is a really big field, and so I think picking any small area and doing some test runs on the NT would be a really good way to start. For example: When I first started looking at questions, I did not know at first I would take a linguistic-oriented approach. But as I began to delve into the issue it seemed like a natural fit. One thing I like about it is that it gives a different perspective than grammatical or literary. There are a number of other biblical scholars–even more than me–who have profitably used linguistics, and there is a growing amount of studies in NT that use that approach. It still seems largely untapped.
Hi Doug, If I may please ask a few questions.
I would like to know how the questions that Jesus is depicted as asking in the fourth Gospel compare with the percentage and kinds of questions that Jesus is depicted as asking in the other Gospels?
Also, can you please sum up what you wrote concerning the question Jesus asked Philip prior to the feeding of the multitude story in John? (McGrew focuses on that question in his “undesigned coincidences” argument).
And, sum up what you wrote concerning the questions Jesus asked Nicodemus? I tend to doubt that conversation was historical. It seems to be based on three puns Jesus is making in his reply to Nicodemus. And the first pun (born again/born from above) only exists in Greek, not Aramaic, and I would have expected Jesus and Nicodemus, two Jews, to have conversed in Aramaic.
Hi, Brian and Doug I was reading a social science commentary on the Gospel of John whose author pointed out that the author of the fourth Gospel exhibited a strong in-group mentality, since he used more specialized theological terms that would be meaningful particularly to his in-group, more so than in any other canonical Gospel. Kind of like being a member of an exclusive gang with loads of code words, shibboleths, etc.
And one can’t help noting that the fourth Gospel leaves the least doubt as to “who” Jesus was, and also insists the loudest that what’s most important are not Jesus’ parables about the kingdom (of which the fourth Gospel contains not a single parable), nor Jesus’ command in earlier Gospels to love one’s enemies (the command in the fourth Gospel is for Christians to love one another, never to love enemies, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his FRIENDS,” just look up the use of the word “love” throughout the fourth Gospel, it’s used in an in-group fashion with no command for Christians to love enemies or even neighbors, but loads of commands for them to love fellow brethren. True, God in that Gospel “loved the world” in order to “save” some, but Christians are never told to love the world, nor enemies), nor can you find in that Gospel is Jesus’ command that loving your neighbor is “the law and the prophets” (Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount), perhaps because your neighbor might not believe exactly as you do and to the author of the fourth Gospel you must believe the right things “about” who Jesus was… or else. It’s a lesson the author hammers home time and again, “Anyone who does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.” (a verse that came in handy during the Inquisition). “Those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (Ditto). You must believe even the right liturgical things concerning Jesus’ body and blood, otherwise you are lost. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” The Gospel’s author says it was composed “that ye may believe,” and starts off in chapter one with the author’s own words telling us what to believe about Jesus, and in that same first chapter the disciples are already calling Jesus the messiah and every accolade in the book soon after they meet him, even John the Baptist declares something found in no other Gospel, namely that Jesus is “The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,” something that one “must” believe.
Edward
I will leave it to Douglas to answer questions about his book, but I don’t think it addresses the topics you present here. For example, the book is not concerned with the historical events behind Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus, but rather the literary function of the questions in the Greek text itself. Similarly, because it is focuses on the literary/linguistic aspects of the Gospel it doesn’t address anything related to the Johannine community (that I remember).
Doug: Thanks for responding, twice. (I just now saw your other response you referred to above).
Erotetics. Now there’s a new word for me. From what I read online about it, seems like that would be a good fit for your thesis.
Are you familiar with Information Structure (a subfield of discourse analysis)? I know this is a fundamental component of understanding the workings of a given (declarative) utterance, but I’m not sure what this type of analysis looks like with questions. I can’t imagine it not being anything but helpful as it deals with identifying, generally speaking, given and new information—which (rhetorical) questions have fun toying with.
But your right: linguistics as a whole has MUCH to offer, and biblical language scholars, I think, are slowly beginning to realize the explanatory power that can be brought to the table through such appraisals.
Lyle,
I’m not that familiar with IS–but when I just googled it, the examples were how IS works with interrogatives! So there you are. And I definitely agree that these areas are wide open for more work. Thanks.
Edward,
I cannot answer your first question with precision here, as that is the subject of some additional work I am doing now. In writing my book I had to set fences and one of them was only to focus on John.
As far as your second question, my book has 17 case studies on the way interrogatives function in the text, plus historical/linguistic intros and an interpretative outro. With Jn 6:5-6, I didn’t do a case study on that one in my book as I felt that it was a little less interesting than the other similar-typed questions. Not to mention the fact that the gospel identifies it as a test question, much in the same way a modern logician would understand that as well (laying aside theological overtones).
As far as you third question, I spent my time looking at the question itself, not issues like historical plausibility; but on that note, I found that when you strip away some of the possible word games, the logic of the questions fit very well with the rhetorical plan of John’s discourse. But I fail to see why the existence of puns (if they are there) would serve as a reason to lower its historical plausibility. People emboss their spoken questions, especially those in highly rhetorical situations, with word plays all the time, in every language that I know of.
Thanks for the interesting interview, Brian and Douglas; and for the responses to questions and comments. It’s a little different angle of reading and analysis, indeed. I like the points about linguistics and its role as largely undeveloped as well.
Thank you too, Ed, for some important observations. I’ll just add that I do get the same very much defensive, guarding, condemning flavor from the first epistle of John as the Gospel (without assuming it was from the same author… I’ve not explored that authorship / dating issue in depth, but it does make sense they’d have been connected in the canonization process). I’d not noted the important “null curriculum” (omissions) you noted, as to loving enemies, etc. I would enjoy learning more (not having ever focused on deeper study of John) about the stark either-or language of the book along with the grand and seemingly universal aspects and its focus, along with I John, (at least in a limited way) on love. It clearly bespeaks a kind of split thinking, less than “whole” or “healthy”, that I saw reflected in my own experiences for 45 years deeply involved in Evangelical circles; although now as a “progressive”, in recent years, I see that diminishing in some strands of Evangelicalism, particularly the “Emerging”, and even more specifically, in Brian McLaren….
I happened to hear him at length in 3 sessions yesterday at Chapman Univ., and heard it more clearly than I had before (not having done more than quick perusal of his last 2 or 3 books, btw) that he is looking at and analyzing biblical books more on a literary and broad philosophical/theological (vs. specific dogma) basis than a concern as to whether or not any given passage may be “historical” or the actual words of Jesus. (That point was never made directly, nor asked about in interaction time…. my own conclusion from inference.)
Doug: Cool. I think Runge’s “Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament” would be helpful for you to look at (http://www.amazon.com/Discourse-Grammar-Greek-New-Testament/dp/1598565834). Or if you want to go deeper, Levinsohn’s “Information Structure and Discourse Features of New Testament Greek”. And to the dismal deeps, Lambrecht’s “Information Structure and Sentence Form”.
Biblical Hebrew of course has it’s pioneers, but for what your book covers(ed), the ones I mentioned would be/have been very enlightening.
I have a general direction you might pursue… and probably already know about, Douglas. Check the work of Kenneth Pike, now deceased (2000). He was long-time Bible translator/missionary, educated and then worked with Summer Inst. of Linguistics (where I attended one summer). I don’t know any specific titles but I think he was one helping, as perhaps the 2nd most “acclaimed” linguist of the time, behind Chomsky, with things like “discourse analysis” of the NT, esp. Gospel accounts. This was mid 70s and I didn’t follow much longer where this sort of work went. But I would sure look toward SIL people, and perhaps the work of Pike himself. If anyone has worked in depth with linguistic and translation issues, in relation to MANY and diverse languages, it has been the SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators people.