Sourcebook of the Structures and Styles in John 1-10: The Johannine Parallelisms and Chiasms

Sourcebook of the Structures and Styles in John 1–10

The Johannine Parallelisms and Chiasms

Sang-Hoon Kim

Sourcebook of the Structures and Styles in John 1–10

The Johannine Parallelisms and Chiasms

Copyright © 2014 Sang-Hoon Kim. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

isbn 13: 978-1-62564-492-3

eisbn 13: 978-1-63087-856-6

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Preface

A Journey in John

I

n 1982, I graduated

from university and entered a theological seminary. Two experiences to that point would prove essential to my future Johannine studies. First, I had developed a deep concern about syntax theory (one among a number of subjects within my English literature and linguistics major at the university) because this theory, based on Noam Chomsky, was so logical and even mathematical to me. Second, I had devoted myself to Christian youth ministry, IVCF, where I had learned and practiced inductive Bible study, which became my strong point after entering the seminary and during the following years. It was not known to me then that these two tools would come to have such significant value with regard to my future career.

During my seminary years, I had many opportunities to teach students how to study the Bible inductively, as well as to preach expository sermons. After graduating from seminary, I served as a staff member of IVCF for a few years and then joined a Bible teaching movement, with some professors, which became the Seoul Bible Institute. In this institute, I served as the person in charge of administration and also gave a few lectures, such as inductive Bible study and expository preaching, as well as inductive study–related lectures on various books in the New Testament. Around 1987, the books of Kaiser, Stuart, and Fee, which were based on syntactic theory and its analysis, were first introduced to me, and I felt surprised for two reasons: first, I was so acquainted with their linguistic methods that I easily recognized them; second, I found that those methods would be effective if I applied them to my inductive way of Bible study. I applied the syntactic method of analysis to inductive study, specifically the Korean Bible, not adopting those methods directly, rather reorganizing and applying them according to the Korean syntactic system. It was a success in terms of its efficiency and the practicality of the method because I realized that the inductive method was somewhat more accurate, making the contents comprehensible, easy to grasp, even visualizable. That was in 1988.

The second opportunity at that time was given to me when I got to use the Apple II, an 8-bit computer with an external 5 1/4-inch breakable, floppy disk drive. That was 1987. Since then, it can be said that I came to recognize the interactivity between the user and the computer, and also between the components of the computer, which are interconnected. Whenever I needed to upgrade it, I had to buy the parts and put them into the computer by myself to reduce the cost. In the event of any trouble, whether of software or hardware, it meant that it demanded a lot of patience to fix or to resettle (including booting and resetting) it. Without proper knowledge of how the computer works and how the components are interrelated, trouble in the machine would never have been resolved.

In 1992, I opened my class on the inductive study of 1 John for church ministers, helping them to study the text and create their own expository sermons. It was an intensive course with some practice. Those who participated in the course showed satisfactory responses, but I was not happy, because three questions arose from the study of 1 John and remained in my head: First, what is the structure of 1 John? Second, why does 1 John have two key verses in 1:3 (fellowship) and 5:13 (eternal life), and which one is more significant? Third, what is the relation between 1 John and John? Every Johannine scholar has their own ideas, but they differ from each other. I was not sure about any of the ideas.

My advanced study in Stellenbosch stimulated me to examine the text with various perspectives and in more depth. At the time of writing my doctoral dissertation, I became used to my newly invented tool for analyzing the text, named Relational Reading, which is oriented and organized around two text-based approaches: linguistic and rhetorical. Five steps of reading were suggested: style relation; logical relation; thematic relation; interpersonal relation; relational goals. This relational way of reading drove me to read the text with the interrelated nature of its syntactic components in mind: logical-semantic networks; thematic flows; interpersonal dynamics; and finally, rhetorical goals. It was a special experience in that I realized I had finally found some significant, complex parallels ways of the Johannine style-structure in 1 John that had hardly been detected by other Johannine scholars. In addition, I recognized the structure of 1 John, as well as the reason why the author used the two key verses of 1:3 and 5:13. But one issue—the relationship between 1 John and John—was still left unsolved.

In 2002, after three years teaching as a full-time lecturer, during which time I enjoyed teaching various subjects, I obtained an assistant professorship at the seminary from which I had graduated seventeen years before. At the Chongshin Seminary, where around fifteen hundred seminary students are enrolled per semester, a mandatory subject, the Johannine writings, was assigned to me. For ten years, I had taught this same subject to four classes (each class has around seventy students) every semester, twice a year, with enough time for repeating, revising, improving, and confirming. My Johannine class mainly focused on the structure-styles of the Johannine writings and their macro-micro meanings.

Discerning the structures and styles of the Johannine writings became my interest and specialty. From my earlier study of 1 John, my studies had extended to the rest of the Johannine writings, such as John and Revelation, as well as to other books in the NT, such as Matthew, Ephesians, and Romans, among others. Eventually, I became sure that the relation between 1 John and John was at last disclosed to me regarding their structure-style system. Based on my research on John, 1 John, and Romans, my papers have regularly been presented at SBL and ETS meetings since then. These opportunities to present my papers at international meetings has sharpened my perspective.

In 2012, it was time to write two books regarding the structure-styles of John and of 1 John. Thankfully, I had a precious sabbatical, being away from my normal busy life, primarily focusing on writing my books. In the midst of my teaching career, I was desperate to take a pause to write what I had studied and discovered, expecting to make a small contribution to Johannine scholarship because, I believe, my research was distinctive for a few reasons.

At first, I started to write two books simultaneously, one on John 1–10 and one on 1 John. But it was not long before I realized that all I could do was to finish one of them during my sabbatical. Most parts of this book (on John 1–10) were newly written. Some of it was revised and updated from previous articles, and rewritten according to the harmony of the book. These have become parts of chapters 1 (vv. 1–18),¹ chapter 5 (vv. 19–30),² and chapter 9 (vv. 18–34),³ including the structure of John⁴ and issues of the structures and styles in John 6.⁵ It has been my pleasure to write this book regarding John, re-scrutinizing John 1–10 carefully and confirming its Johannine style-structure chapter by chapter. It was hard work but a blissful experience. Two-thirds of the second book (on 1 John), thankfully, have been written, but it has not yet been completed.

1. Kim, Comparative Study.

2. Kim, Study on the Chiastic Structure.

3. Kim, Johannine Complex Structures .

4. Kim and Go, New Approach.

5. Kim, Discussion of the Structure.

Acknowledgments

T

here are so many

persons to whom I am indebted, but I will mention a few of them here. Professor H. J. Bernard Combrink, who was my doctoral promoter, helped me sharpen my understanding of how to appreciate and evaluate diverse interpretive theories properly and to academic standards. Professor Johannes P. Louw, who was a copromoter, scrutinized my dissertation and was highly supportive and encouraged my relational method and its analyses. The insights drawn from his articles and books were invaluable at that time.

It has been a privilege to have taught my students at Chongshin Theological Seminary—their questions and responses have fed back into my research. I am deeply grateful to the board of governors and my fellow professors at Chongshin University and Seminary (CUS) for allowing me a precious sabbatical.

It was advantageous for me to have my research year at Calvin College, in Grand Rapids. The Henry Meeter Center and Dr. Karin Maag provided me with a suitable room in the Center, with computer and phone accommodations to easily access the library system and with scenic views through my windows. Paul Fields and Ryan Noppen helped me a great deal whenever I needed their help.

Dr. Byung-Chan Go and Kyu Seop Kim were helpful colleagues of mine in the studies of structure-style. I am grateful to Rev. Michael Harris, who helped me with proofreading and polishing my phrasing. Hyungmin Oh assisted me in many ways. I want to deeply thank the Wipf & Stock team for their help.

Last, my deepest appreciation goes to my wife, Eunsim, who has kept me company all the time in my long journey. Jusung and Jueun, my loving children, are steadfast supporters of their father. The warm encouragements from my parents and father-in-law have also helped my journey in John, a journey of blessing that never ends, until the day of calling from above.

Sang-Hoon Kim

Abbreviations

ATR                Anglican Theological Review

BETS                Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society

BM                Beth Miqra

BSac                Bibliotheca Sacra

BTB                Biblical Theology Bulletin

CBQ                Catholic BiblicalQuarterly

CTJ                Chongshin Theological Journal

CTR                Criswell Theological Review

HeyJ                Heythrop Journal

Int                Interpretation

JAF                Journal of American Folklore

JBL                Journal of Biblical Literature

JR                Journal of Religion

JSNT                Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSS                JSNT Supplement Series

JSOT                Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSS                JSOT Supplement Series

KENTS                Korean Evangelical New Testament Studies

LB                Linguistica Biblica

NABPRS                National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Series

NAC                The New American Commentary

NCBC                New Century Bible Commentary

NovT                Novum Testamentum

NovTSS                NovT Supplement Series

NRSV                New Revised Standard Version

NTS                New Testament Studies

RB                Revue Biblique

RE                Review and Expositor

SBL                Society of Biblical Literature

SBLDS                SBL Dissertation Series

SCJ                Stone-Campbell Journal

SJT                Southwestern Journal of Theology

SNTSMS                Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

SVTQ                St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly

TB                Tyndale Bulletin

W&W                Word & World

ZNW                Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Introduction

Since modernism has dominated the academy throughout much of the twentieth century, for most Johannine scholars plausible work on this Gospel has always been rooted in modernist assumptions. It is an understatement, however, to say that modernism has not always enamored everyone. Like any other way of viewing the world, modernism too has had the baggage of its own peculiar discontents.¹

We must be sure that our desire for attractive or attention-drawing analyses of the Gospel does not detract from the emphases that the Evangelist himself makes in his Gospel.²

Johannine Complexity in Writing

J

ohn is written with

plain expressions and easier vocabulary than other sacred writings in the New Testament. For this reason, John, as well as

1

John, has been primarily used by beginner-level students when they continue studying the Greek text of the NT after finishing the beginner grammar of NT Greek.³

However, no other book in the NT compares to John in its complexity. It is difficult to grasp its styles and structures. Many factors confuse Johannine scholars, such as the complexity of styles, repetition, duplication, and seemingly distracting structures that are difficult to discern. Vocabulary seems to be easy, but structures are not. It seems to be written in a plain style, but is complex in its composition.

There are a number of reasons related to inconsistencies in the writing why John may appear to be written by more than one author. For example, if there is just one author, why is the composition seemingly tough and uneven? And although we ignore so many repetitive expressions in John, what about constructions that appear to be illogical in sequence and that contain many leaps in logic? How are we to regard these?

Many Johannine scholars have paid attention to problems such as riddles that have aporias. Fortna explains that the aporias in John show many inconsistencies, disjunctures and hard connections, even contradictions, which the text shows, notably in the narrative portions, and which cannot be accounted for by textual criticism.⁴ According to van Belle, Naturally the literary aporias and inconsistencies in the gospel text play an important role, too. In this regard, Bultmann counts the additions which interpret the text wrongly or differently, pointing to the narratives which are broken or altered, the lack of clarity in construction, and the lack of inner coherence.⁵

Thus, John has long been the primary material used by source-redactional criticism, which assumes that John was written and redacted by not a few authors or redactors through many generations. This seems to have been the sole option for solving the problem of the complexity of John’s structure and composition. However, if these things are not actually true about John, why does it display these seemingly complicated and illogical traits?

It may mean that anyone who has been interested in solving the problematic aporias could not help but choose the historical-critical method over the years. In this regard, Ashton explains that anyone who is convinced (a) that the awkward transitions in the Gospel require some explanation and (b) that the displacement theory is unsatisfactory must choose between two alternatives: either the evangelist has produced different editions of the Gospel (Brown, Martyn, Lindars) or somebody else, an editor or redactor, has made substantial additions to his work (Schnackenburg, Becker). These two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, since a final redaction may have been made after extensive revisions on the part of the evangelist himself.⁶

Aporias

Aporias have been regarded as the definitive proof of many editions or literary strata in John. Fortna, for example, claims that "the unevenness of the text of John is due rather to redaction, so that the aporias are indications—direct or indirect—of editorial seams."⁷

Culpepper elucidates how the historical-critical approach has earned its superiority in the studies of John, highlighting its foci.

In the majority of studies the gospel has been used as a source for evidence of the process by which it was composed, the theology of the evangelist, or the character and circumstances of the Johannine community. Relying on the standard critical methods, Johannine scholars have generally approached the text looking for tensions, inconsistencies, or "aporias which suggest that separate strains or layers of material are present in the text. The next step is usually to place the layers in some sequence by noting the way they are embedded in the gospel and the probable direction of theological development. On the basis of this stratification, the history of the material, the process by which the gospel was composed, and developments within the Johannine community can all be studied. The gospel is seen as preserving evidence of various stages of its origin and various, at times sharply different, theological emphases. The model of research is that of a tell" in which archaeologists can unearth strata which derive from different historical periods. This model depends on the dissection and differentiation of elements within the gospel. Consequently, little attention has been given to the integrity of the whole, the way its component parts interrelate, its effects upon the reader, or the way it achieves its effects.⁸

As Culpepper points out, this historical approach has disregarded the literary integrity of the text, putting priority on extracting aporias regarding how the text reflects various strata by multiple editors. Is it true that aporias warrant a distinction among the strata, or even give proof of many editions?⁹ According to Fortna, the aporias group themselves into recurring patterns.¹⁰ He asserts that these recurring patterns are the product of multiple literary stages—that is, the transition from one literary form to another. Is he correct that so many repetitions or repetitive variations in John are due to various literary stages or strata?¹¹

From Window to Mirror

Objecting to the dissection and differentiation of elements of the historical-critical approach, which focuses on the window of the text, new literary approaches have appeared as alternatives that highlight the mirror of the text. This phenomenon of literary approach is a kind of paradigm shift from a historical perspective to a literary one.¹²

We may list at least four major approaches in this literary field, as Borchert suggests, (1) structuralism, which involves an analysis of the implied structures of meaning (such as deep structures at the root of human realities) inherent in a story; (2) rhetorical criticism, which involves the canons of rhetoric or the effectiveness of communication, the study of which goes back to Aristotle and Quintillian; (3) reader-response criticism, which concentrates primarily on reception or meaning from the subjective point of the reader; and (4) narrative analysis, which is the focus of the present segment of this introduction.¹³ Borchert regards narrative analysis as the principal way of dealing with John because it focuses on the story, ‘the formal content element,’ which involves the dimensions of plot, characters, setting, and point of view, assuming the unity of the work.¹⁴

But the scholars who have still kept to the historical-critical point of view in studies of John raise the question of the integrity of the method. Howard-Brook asks,

(

1

) Hasn’t the editing and transmission process hopelessly corrupted the possibility of finding a coherent interpretation of a complete gospel? (

2

) Doesn’t the subjectivity of reading the Bible as literature destroy the notion of finding the correct meaning of the text? (

3

) If so, are the interpretations of discourse-oriented critics any more than opinions not unlike those of many film and book reviewers? (

4

) Furthermore, doesn’t the tendency of some discourse-oriented readers to bracket historical questions falsely isolate the gospel from what form critics call its Sitz im Leben (life situation)? (

5

) Is it fair to leap two thousand years or more to read a biblical text as if it were a modern novel or film?¹⁵

Among them, questions (2), (3), and (5) are related to the integrity of the literary methods which regard John as a literary-independent document separate from the author(s). Questions (1) and (4) involve more or less the presuppositions of the historical-critical critics who presume aporias as the conclusive proof of literary editions. In these questions, historical-critical critics raise their voices against the literary critics regarding how to escape from the issue of problematic aporias without using their historical methods.

Aporias vs. Literary Unity

It is said that all the issues are more or less related to the issue of literary consistencies in John, whether there is literary unity and consistency or whether there are literary gaps with historical strata as in aporias.¹⁶

Ruckstuhl asserts that throughout the Johannine narrative material the language shows some identical coinage that is different from the Synoptic coinage, and this identity of style suggests that all the Johannine narratives have passed through the medium of one personality who has somehow rethought and recast the traditional material at his disposal.¹⁷ Therefore, the priority of this type of literary approach is how John is constructed—its literary design—and how it is presented in a meaningful system.

Tovey lists three significant benefits to this literary approach: First, literary readings are holistic approaches to the text that do not atomize it into dissected material; second, such readings lay stress on the overall coherence of the narrative and they regard meaning in terms of the relationship of the parts to the whole; third, they understand aporias such as gaps, lacunae, and fissures as sorts of literary strategies or textual signals for the readers. In this sense, he believes that the literary text becomes a dynamic system of gap.¹⁸

Nonetheless, historical-critical scholars such as Fortna and de Boer would not agree with the opinions supported by the literary point of view. They have continuously suspected that literary readings disregard the aporias obvious in John in order to reach conclusions of coherence and unity.¹⁹ De Boer has never withdrawn from his position: A strong case has often been made that the Fourth Gospel is not conceptually coherent nor narratively cohesive, even if it is stylistically uniform. The literary discrepancies and disjunctions which historical critics are wont to label ‘aporias’, have been deemed too numerous and pervasive to be explained (away) simply in terms of a narrative purpose.²⁰

Which idea is right and proper? Are aporias caused by literary-designed strategies (Tovey)²¹ or by different strata of multi-editions (Fortna and de Boer)?²² We may think of another alternative to this issue.²³ Those aporias can mostly be regarded as aporias when we do not understand the Johannine system of arrangement. First, there are aporias if we do not perceive the Johannine arrangement of structures (e.g., the location of the temple cleansing in ch. 2; the relation between two healing events in chs. 5 and 9); second, there are aporias if we ignore literary devices in style such as parallelism or chiasm (e.g., the complexity of the bread discourse in ch. 6; so many repetitions and variations everywhere); third, there are aporias if we fail to read the Johannine writing according to the way it is presented (e.g., dual mode in ch. 1, including the prologue; the existence of ch. 21). We are not, of course, denying that some of these aporias were designed as a literary strategy to get readers to pay closer attention to the text because of its puzzling nature, a characteristic intended to create literary curiosity. However, we still need to maintain the position that more than a few aporias occur when we do not interpret the text according to John’s way, for we have found that the text is presented quite consistently and coherently, whether in a macro or micro way.

Seeing Styles-Structures

The issue of aporias is, therefore, related to authorship. If there are multiple authors or editors, the aporias are definitely due, for the most part, to their existence and consecutive work. If not, many may think that it will be difficult to solve the aporias issue. Yes, it is. However, there is a way to find the proper answers to the Johannine riddles. This issue is related to that of style and structure, which identify a way of writing as unique as a fingerprint. Multiple authors cannot maintain consistency in style and structure throughout the text, either in the macro realm or the micro.

Thus, it is significant to detect its consistency in style and structure. If there is consistency throughout the text, we may conclude that it is by one author. If there is no consistency at all, it may mean that there is more than one author. What about John, in regards to its complex structure?

For this reason, we have to renew our focus on the issue of the styles and structures of John. Styles and structures demonstrate a certain linguistic, literary matrix on which the author has based his or her ways of writing. An author cannot change his or her linguistic, literary context, specific language area, and conventional way of communication of his or her days. Grounded on these factors, the author has his or her own ways of writing, creating literary styles and structures.

The linguistic-literary traits of the author permeate the styles and structures of any literary text. Our task is to find these traits properly and correctly. This task is related to the following questions: (1) What are the traits of styles and structures that we who live in modern days can see?²⁴ We may see and observe what the text looks like according to our ways of reading. This question leads to the next: (2) To what extent or degree are our ways of reading affected by our modern education and its concepts of logic?

Reading according to John’s Way

My assertion is that we have to understand John’s way of writing as we read. If it is not a book that many authors or redactors have written and mixed throughout history without any consideration of literary unity, it cannot help but show certain literary consistency. If we can identify John’s way of writing as a unique style or composition of structures, and if we can recognize them correctly, we may solve many of the difficulties in reading John. Those we cannot easily understand due to logical gaps, unnatural contexts, and perplexing repetitions or variations could be derived from the different logic or types of arrangement in writing in our modern way. Do we have to pay proper attention to its own ways of writing such as the styles-structures of John sufficiently to find them as they were meant to be designed?

For a long time, John’s styles have been misunderstood by those who read them in a modern way. They cannot have noticed them, for John’s styles and structures are not logical when viewed from the modern perspective. If his ways of writing create repetitive, parallel styles and structures, including chiasms, it is understandable why modern-educated scholars have regarded John as a complex book without consistency in writing.

Thus, our first task is to admit that John’s way of writing differs from any of today’s styles and structures. The primary thing is to make an attempt to see into the styles in the text. What kind of methods does the author use in his arrangement of the micro-macro units? Is there certain literary-linguistic consistency in the way of writing? How do the micro ways of writing affect the macro way of producing the system of structures? Namely, what is the relation between styles and structures?

Structure-Style and Meanings

There are deep connections between styles-structures and produced meanings.²⁵ We may interpret the text even though we do not recognize it. However, the style is the external form creating its internal meaning. The meaning varies depending on how one writes or how one speaks. In the late twentieth century, pragmatics in linguistics and socio-linguistics began to emerge regarding language performance compared to language competence. By this time, stylistics in literary studies becomes focused as a new concept, new stylistics. In the biblical interpretation field, a new concern about classical rhetorical theories such as rhetorical criticism began to be highlighted. This approach is more or less related to the pragmatic concept of reading in terms of pursuing the rhetorical impact in communication.

It is reasonable to consider how an understanding of classical frames of dialogue and styles of writing can aid in reading the Greek Bible, an ancient text—that knowing the literary traits in the text may seriously affect the process of reading. Structures and styles are significant in interpreting the text. Styles contain meanings, and meanings are divulged through styles. We cannot separate stylistic expressions from internal meanings. The form, or style, is inseparable from its content, or meaning.²⁶

Macro structures are built up by a combination of thought units or paragraphs, in a particular, unique way for communication to the readers. The structure is the frame of the house; the text shows how ideas flow over. A good work cannot be produced without a frame.

Therefore, what we discern in the text’s styles and structures is itself the interpreting process. (The issue is whether or not we can find the very authorial styles and structures that he or she imprinted in it.) If we fail to pay attention to those styles and structures as they are, we miss the point(s) of the author, which were carefully intended to be made through those devices. In other words, if someone who has a bias due to an existing prejudice or who does not have any deep concern about the style and structure of a given text, and who therefore does not look carefully into that text, he or she may not properly understand the authorial meanings delivered by style-structures.

Let us look at some expressions. In [A + B – C + D], the value of this expression is always the same, although the sequential order is changed, even if their signs, plus and minus, are not changed. Then, how about [A + B × C – D] or [(A+B) × C – D] or [A + B × (C – D)]? These expressions are not the same in value because of the changes in their relationships.

In some cases, as in the first above expression, meanings may not be switched in spite of the changes or rearrangement of style-structures. But in most cases, as in the second expressions, there becomes a considerable difference if there is a change regarding style-structures. Even though the text is arranged in order like [A-B-B’-A’] + [B-C-B’-C’] according to parallelism that was generally used at the time of John, if we read them differently, like [A-B-B’] + [A’-B-C-B’-C’], it will cause a problem in interpretation. The text may become illogical, and the reader cannot recognize the relationships, both in and between [A-B-B’-A’] and [B-C-B’-C’].

The best structure is the one that the author intended to create. Seeing the variety of suggestions about the chiastic structure, why do they differ from each other? Does John have no intended structure? Are there errors or differences caused by their methods or processes? What is the right process to find the structure intended by the author rather than one framed by the interpreter?

Method: Relational Reading (Analysis)

This method of research is based on DA (discourse analysis) from the synchronic perspective.²⁷ Due to its primary focus on interactive relations between phrases, sentences, or paragraphs, it may be called relational reading (or relational analysis).²⁸

The purpose of this method of reading is to grasp how the author formulates his or her literary styles through phrasal combinations, and by this means presents ideas and meanings, and to identify the stylistic relations implanted by the author in the text. It approaches a macro understanding of the structures from the results of the data of micro analyses of styles. The way of networking the phrasal or sentential relations would become the way of constructing the structures into larger units, for styles are related to structures.

Generally, authorial ways of constructing styles and structures are maintained consistently throughout the text. If John is written by one author, this consistency should be kept. In this sense, we have to study the text beyond one paragraph or one chapter when we disclose John’s ways of constructing structures.

The relational reading means reading to analyze the connectivity between phrases, sentences, paragraphs, or even larger units, in terms of how they are related to each other, producing the textual meanings. Connectivity, cohesion in expression, and detachment in meaning are carefully considered. The unit showing its own strong connectivity among the subunits provides its cohesiveness. The integral parts gather to become a larger unit such as a paragraph or a chapter. If we find how they are arranged, we may interpret the meaning of its structures.

Its methodology is different from the historical-exegetical way of reading and any linguistic-literary method at large today. This method is not adopted from existing methods, rather it is created by its own unique frame of research. There has not been introduced any specific frame of analysis, seeing styles-structures in the relational perspective, particularly combining the macro and micro ways of reading.

The foci of this method are as follows. First, this reading attempts to find the Johannine styles-structures as they were arranged. Second, this reading highlights the interrelational connectivity between the literary constituents, such as words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and even beyond. Third, the reading pays attention to the interactive relations between macro and micro units—namely, considering both zoom-in (micro-relations) and zoom-out (macro-relations) regarding literary-linguistic strategies used by the author, complementarily and integratedly.

In the process, two kinds of roles (or functions) among constituents need to be considered: relational roles as well as grammatical-functional ones. Grammatical functions are initially important in terms of the syntactical-semantic dimension. However, interactive relations among constituents and units are no less significant because they create styles-structures in arrangement (or allocation of linguistic resources) of writing in terms of the semantic-pragmatic dimension.²⁹ We will put the priority on the latter instead of the former, which is initially grounded.

The Procedure of Relational Reading

Its procedure of searching for the interactive relations has been as follows. First, the Greek text is diagrammatically arranged in syntax such as phrasing or diagramming.³⁰ The syntactic manner of phrasal arrangements, and its analysis, help us to focus on each phrase or sentence in terms of its connectivity to its consecutive phrase-sentences.³¹

Second, the relations among constituents within a sentence (phrasal and sentential relations) and beyond (relations among larger units) are examined in terms of styles-structures regarding how their interaction or interrelatedness such as similarity, difference, or complexity are produced in phrasal-sentential arrangement, logical-thematic development, character presentation, even spatial-temporal matter. It is specifically focused on how they are designed and arranged in the text. Thus, we are searching for what are interrelated in arrangement as far as possible.

Third, the interactive relations in John, whether in style or structure, are mostly seen as patterns of chiasm, parallelism, combined chiasm, combined parallelism, dual, or triple. (The logic or system in writing is not like ours.) The key to the style in John exists in the pairedness of each related constituent within those patterns. Thus, it is essential to find the pairs, in each relation, which are implanted in the text.³² If we choose the wrong pairs, the literary puzzle is not solved. If we find the right ones, there is no puzzle any longer. Rather, a literary style, in its original design, emerges from hiding.

Fourth, when interactive relations, particularly in the form of style-structure, are found, they are in priority of significance. There are macro relations (structures) and micro ones (styles). There are manifest ones and obscure ones. There are simple ones and complex ones. Macro relations will be treated first and then micro ones will follow. Apparent ones are emphasized in bold type, indicating their significance over the obscure ones, which are treated in normal type. The relations that are regarded as more essential in each unit (or subunit) will be marked for emphasis with 10 percent shading in the box.

Fifth, we have also to consider the complexity of relations. We think very often in John that there are complex relations, whether they combine more than one relation such as chiasm or parallelism within a limited area, or they are made simultaneously in more than two ways. We may call the first ones (combined relations) combined chiasm (an overall chiasm, with an additional parallelism/chiasm added within it) or combined parallelism (a dominant parallelism, with an additional chiasm/parallelism added within it).

When more than two relations are designed altogether, we may call it complex parallelism, disregarding whether or not a chiasm is more dominant than a parallelism. There are at least two interactive relations put together for multiple foci. In other cases, more than two relations may share overlapping spaces as in chain-linking relations. This means that before the first relation ends, the second one starts, overlapping with any part of the first. It seems complex, looking like [acx2 + (bc+ad)x + bd]. This quadratic equation would be not easy to solve if we think solely of the dimension of a linear equation. This complex equation is constructed by multiplication of two linear equations, (ax + b) and (cx + d). Therefore, two equations (or formulas) need to be found separately from each other, such as factoring.

The difficulty in discerning the Johannine styles-structures lies in this type of complex construction of no less than one interactive relation. However, there are ways to solve them, because they are designed consistently and similarly throughout John, if we pay careful attention to them multi-dimensionally.

Interaction between Macro-Structure and Micro-Style

It is natural that the system of writing, if there is one author, reflects its consistency, whether in the macro realm or the micro, whether in structure or in style. If we can see the details in the micro units, such as styles or patterns, in terms of how the text is arranged and located, and moreover find those ways of networks in writing, it becomes possible to grasp the macro way of building up the body of John more easily and properly.³³ Macro and micro are relative terms. One is macro to the other which is micro to the former.

To see the macro structure is similar to seeing a block of apartments. An apartment is a sample that reflects what other similar apartments look like. We have to consider also that there is more than one type of apartment in that block. We may say that even among those various types, there are certain similarities, because they are designed in one mono scheme. It would be also interesting to examine what and how they are different, as well as similar. There is connectivity between them.

A small unit is connected to other neighboring small units and at the same time to the larger ones that comprise it. Regarding this connectivity, we may find similarities among expressions in styles (form) and/or in contents (meaning). We can presume that there are so many similarities in patterns or types throughout John if the text is designed deliberately by one author, although they are seen in complexity. Complexity regarding how to use ways of style-structure itself can indicate the uniqueness of a certain author, like DNA that differentiates one person from others.

Parallelisms and Chiasms

John is Semitic. The arrangement and presentation of ideas are similar to those of the OT, which is full of various parallelisms and chiasms.³⁴ It employs a Hebraistic mode of thinking.³⁵ A rabbinic scholar, Israel Abrahams, an orthodox Jew, once addressed his rabbinic evaluation of John at Cambridge in 1924: To us Jews, the Fourth Gospel is the most Jewish of the four.³⁶