Reading Johannine Dramatic Irony through Ancient Dramatic Devices

By Tat Yan Lee

When studying irony in the Gospel of John, scholars have largely relied on modern literary theories and anachronistic interpretive tools. In this book, Dr. Tat Yan Lee pushes beyond contemporary interpretations to examine the literary context of the Gospel’s original audience. Utilizing Aristotle’s Poetics and drawing parallels between John’s Gospel and ancient Greek tragedy, Dr. Lee offers a fresh perspective on the role of dramatic irony within the text. His exploration of Aristotelian theory highlights the significance of emotion as an intended by-product of ancient drama and provides a critical method for establishing plausible early readings of the Gospel and its dramatic devices.

Offering present-day readers a chance to encounter John’s Gospel through ancient eyes, this book holds valuable insight for Johannine scholars, classicists, students of literary theory, and all those desiring greater insight into the gospel and its impact.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Langham Monographs
• Release date: Nov 30, 2021
• ISBN: 9781839735691

Book preview

Book cover image

This book is the first to examine the topic of dramatic irony in the Gospel of John using literary criteria current at the time of the book’xss composition. While dramatic irony is usually discussed based on modern definitions of the term, this new approach goes beyond modern theories back to Aristotle’s Poetics, and derives concepts of dramatic irony that would have been recognizable to authors and readers in the first century. These are then applied to passages from the Gospel of John. This approach demonstrates how the Gospel evokes tragic emotions in the readers by means of dramatic irony and thus the readers are drawn into the drama of the narrative.

Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, PhD

Honorary Senior Lecturer, New Testament,

University of Aberdeen, UK

Veering away from modern theories on irony and focussing instead on Aristotle’s Poetics, Tat Yan Lee offers the reader a creative rereading of the topic in the Fourth Gospel. Any attempt at interpreting this document in the light of the norms and practices of its time is surely to be welcomed, especially when it is competently executed. Even if some readers are not convinced by Tat Yan’s results, it is certain they will still gain fresh perspectives on this enigmatic Gospel.

Kim Huat Tan, PhD

Chen Su Lan Professor of New Testament

Trinity Theological College, Singapore

Tat Yan Lee proposes that John’s dramatic irony is best interpreted in light of a range of plot devices attested in ancient Greek literature. This wide-ranging and illuminating study argues that the fourth evangelist understands dramatic irony not so much as a literary technique but as a strategy of employment that is to be sustained throughout the narrative. This is a most welcome addition to recent scholarship on the character and function of literary – and especially dramatic – elements in the Gospel of John.

Catrin H. Williams, PhD

Reader in New Testament Studies,

University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, UK

Reading Johannine Dramatic Irony through Ancient Dramatic Devices

Tat Yan Lee

© 2021 Tat Yan Lee

Published 2021 by Langham Monographs

An imprint of Langham Publishing

www.langhampublishing.org

Langham Publishing and its imprints are a ministry of Langham Partnership

Langham Partnership

PO Box 296, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA3 9WZ, UK

www.langham.org

ISBNs:

978-1-83973-240-9 Print

978-1-83973-569-1 ePub

978-1-83973-570-7 Mobi

978-1-83973-571-4 PDF

Tat Yan Lee has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 to be identified as the Author of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher or the Copyright Licensing Agency.

Requests to reuse content from Langham Publishing are processed through PLSclear. Please visit www.plsclear.com to complete your request.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Revised Edition, edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger in cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster/Westphalia, © 2012 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. Used by permission.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-83973-240-9

Cover & Book Design: projectluz.com

Langham Partnership actively supports theological dialogue and an author’s right to publish but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions set forth here or in works referenced within this publication, nor can we guarantee technical and grammatical correctness. Langham Partnership does not accept any responsibility or liability to persons or property as a consequence of the reading, use or interpretation of its published content.

Converted to eBook by EasyEPUB

Contents

Cover

Acknowledgments

Abstract

List of Abbreviations

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Justification and Aims of This Thesis

1.2 Survey of Scholarship

1.3 Conclusion

Chapter 2 Methodology

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Understanding the Ancient Audience

2.3 Aristotle’s Poetics

2.4 Dramatic Concepts and the Gospel of John

2.5 Ancient Dramatic Ironic Criticism

2.6 Conclusion

Chapter 3 The Dramatic Prologue of the Gospel

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Private Communication Channel

3.3 The Identities of the Protagonist

3.4 The Role of the Baptist as a Witness

3.5 The ἁμαρτία of the Gospel and the Solution

3.6 Jesus and the Greek Tragic Heroes

3.7 Conclusion

Chapter 4 Nicodemus, a Samaritan Woman, and an Official

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Jesus and Nicodemus (3:1–21)

4.3 Jesus and a Samaritan Woman (4:1–42)

4.4 Jesus and an Official (4:43–54)

4.5 Conclusion

Chapter 5 The Dramatic Conflicts

5.1 Introduction

5.2 The Healing of a Lame Man (5:1–47)

5.3 The Healing of a Blind Man (9:1–10:42)

5.4 The Resurrection of Lazarus (11:1–57)

5.5 Conclusion

Chapter 6 Towards the Mετάβασις

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Jesus’s Entry into Jerusalem (12:12–47)

6.3 The Last Supper and Farewell Discourse (13:1–17:26)

6.4 The Arrest Scene (18:1–12)

6.5 The Trial of the Jewish Leaders (18:13–28)

6.6 The Trial by Pilate (18:28–19:16a)

6.7 The Crucifixion of Jesus (19:16b–37)

6.8 Conclusion

Chapter 7 The Post-Resurrection Ἀναγνώρισις

7.1 Introduction

7.2 The Ἀναγνώρισις at the Empty Tomb (20:1–9)

7.3 The Ἀναγνώρισις by Mary Magdalene (20:10–18)

7.4 The Ἀναγνώρισις by the Disciples in a Closed-Door Meeting (20:19–23)

7.5 The Ἀναγνώρισις by Thomas (20:24–28)

7.6 The Ἀναγνώρισις for Those Who Have Not Seen (20:29–31)

7.7 Conclusion

Chapter 8 Conclusion

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Summary of Findings

8.3 Implications of this Research

Bibliography

About Langham Partnership

Endnotes

Acknowledgments

My heartfelt thanks to: Dr. Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, my supervisor at the University of Aberdeen, for providing consistent guidance and encouragement throughout my research as a distance student; Prof. Grant Macaskill and Dr. Catrin H. Williams, for providing thought-provoking questions and helpful feedback during the viva; Dr. Vicky Teng, my partner who provided unending support and has made uncountable sacrifices for my sake; and Wallace and Whilma Lee, for brightening my days and filling me with hope.

Thanks to Dr. Paul Barker and friends from Langham Scholars, for partially funding my studies and providing pastoral care and research consultations; Brash Trust, my primary sponsor, for generous funding; Sharon Chelvi Moorthy and Dr. Michael Dalseno, for proofreading; and the late Dr. Yeu Chuen Lim, for being a good friend and a role model.

Thanks to Bible College of Malaysia, for giving me the opportunity to further my studies and for your constant prayer support; First Assembly of God Church Kuala Lumpur, for your prayers and financial support; and City Church Gilc Park, for fellowship and support.

I also give thanks to Frank Morton and family, for hosting me on my first visit to Aberdeen; Jim Purdie and family, for generously hosting me for the past four years; Steven and Mary Moh, for friendship, hospitality, and ministry opportunities; Aunty Daisy and Uncle Lambert, for hosting me; and finally, the Lee family, for your constant encouragement and support.

Abstract

This work re-examines the interpretation of dramatic irony in John’s Gospel with the objective of discovering an ideal reader response to the phenomenon. Johannine scholars mostly identify the ironies in the Gospel and interpret them using methods supplied by modern ironologists, without considering the literary environment of ancient writer and reader. No Johannine scholar has attempted to discover the reader’s response to the dramatic irony in the Gospel without using modern methods of interpretation. Thus, the thesis proposes a new method of studying dramatic irony, namely by using the dramatic theory found in Aristotle’s Poetics.

The study heuristically employs three dramatic concepts from the Poetics, namely περιπέτεια, ἀναγνώρισις, and ἁμαρτία, to make comparisons with the dramatic irony in the Gospel. The thesis discovers that the dramatic ironies in John’s Gospel exhibit significant resemblances to the dramatic motifs in Greek tragedies. Consequently, the Aristotelian framework of analyzing these dramatic motifs can help to provide a better estimation of an ideal reader’s response towards the dramatic irony. This thesis concludes that the dramatic irony in John’s Gospel guides the reader to identify and empathize with the characters in the Gospel, particularly those who manage to discover the true identity of Jesus.

List of Abbreviations

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Justification and Aims of This Thesis

Irony, particularly dramatic irony, is a prominent feature of John’s Gospel (JG),[1] and many commentaries have highlighted its ironic features.[2] Duke, in his study on the irony in JG, cites Abrams’s definition of dramatic irony:

Dramatic irony involves a situation in a play or a narrative in which the audience or reader shares with the author knowledge of which a character is ignorant; the character acts in a way grossly inappropriate to the actual circumstances or expects the opposite of what fate holds in store, or says something that anticipates the actual outcome, but not at all in the way he means it.[3]

Such a phenomenon is found throughout JG as the author has carefully crafted the plot, characters, and dialogues of the Gospel.[4] JG begins with a prologue. It does not only provide a high christological affirmation, but the prologue also serves to provide readers with background knowledge and to prepare them for the dramatic irony in the Gospel.[5]

As the Gospel unfolds, the dialogue partners of Jesus (including the antagonists) often make statements, accusations, and even ask mocking questions, without realizing the deeper meaning or the reality of the words that they are speaking. The reader, who has been informed by the narrator, can perceive the ironic meanings. For example, Culpepper points out When the Samaritan woman mockingly asks whether Jesus is greater than their father Jacob (4:12) and the Jews ask whether Jesus is greater than Abraham (8:53), the readers are sure that they know the right answer while the characters are implying the wrong one.[6] The Jews in JG are often the victims of the dramatic irony. For example, Caiaphas’s statement in John 11:49–50 is commonly taken as an instance of dramatic irony. Caiaphas says, You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish. Brant comments that Caiaphas plays the game of Roman diplomacy by surrendering Jesus as one who claims to be king so that the nation can be spared.[7] However, the reader knows that the statement is truer than what Caiaphas thinks, and the narrator points out the ironic sense in 11:51–52: He did not say this of his own accord, but being the high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. Perhaps the most prominent dramatic irony is found in Pilate’s question to Jesus, What is truth? (John 18:38).[8] The reader knows since the beginning of the Gospel that Jesus is the truth (John 1:17), but Pilate ignorantly asks the question yet still fails to perceive the truth about who stands before him.

Although scholars agree that dramatic irony is pervasive in JG, not much attention has been given to a study of the phenomenon in detail. As noted by Botha, during the past three or four decades there have only appeared two full-length monographs on irony in John.[9] One overlooked problem in this field is the issue of the methodology that Johannine scholars employ in their analysis of the irony in the Gospel. Most Johannine studies on irony apply methods that ironologists[10] developed to study irony in modern literature. These studies aim to determine the ironic meaning of the text and the rhetorical effects that the irony produces on the implied reader. Such an approach may impose modern notions of irony on JG. There is a lack of attention to the literary environment in antiquity that may shed light in understanding the function of dramatic irony for an ancient audience.

As such, my research seeks to revisit the study of dramatic irony in JG with a consideration of an ancient reader. My analysis attempts to discover the expected response of the ideal reader[11] when encountering the dramatic ironies in JG.[12] I consider an ideal reader as the implied reader who is well-informed and has the competence to interpret all the literary devices and rhetorical nuances within the given text.[13] In Iser’s words, an ideal reader is a fictional being, [who] can close the gaps that constantly appear in any analysis of literary effects and responses. He can be endowed with a variety of qualities in accordance with whatever problem he is called upon to help solve.[14] One of the competency gaps that this thesis attempts to fill is the ability to interpret dramatic devices in a text. The analysis is performed by comparing the dramatic ironies in JG with similar literary conventions that are found in Greek tragedies and also in Aristotle’s Poetics. Hence, I will also use Aristotle’s dramatic theory as the framework for my discussion.

The rationale for using ancient dramatic theory is due to three main reasons: (1) many Johannine scholars have demonstrated a significant relationship between JG and ancient dramas; (2) the dramatic irony in JG bears resemblance to three common dramatic devices in Greek tragedies; and (3) Aristotle’s dramatic theory provides a useful framework to analyze the reader’s response towards those dramatic devices. Although the Poetics may not have been universally read in the ancient world, much of Aristotle’s observations are descriptive where he helpfully explains the functions of the dramatic devices that are common in Greek tragedies.[15]

It should be noted that I do not intend to prove that the historical author and readers are conscious of or dependent on these literary conventions. Neither am I arguing for the author or the reader to be dependent on Aristotle’s Poetics. There is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the author’s competence with using dramatic devices. Likewise, there is no data to demonstrate the intended reader’s awareness of such dramatic devices in the text. Nonetheless, the similarities and differences between the dramatic irony in JG and the dramatic conventions in Greek tragedies may suggest a connection between the two. If in JG there are aspects that resemble dramatic motifs, it should be possible to describe these features by means of the ancient dramatic devices and the theory developed to describe how they function. The textual parallels between JG and the Greek tragedies would suggest a similar response by the reader when observing the dramatic conventions in JG. Following Larsen’s approach, my analysis does not explore every stimulus given in the text, but merely attempts to reactivate potential structures of meaning that may have contributed to the ancient reader’s experience of narrative.[16]

My research is a synchronic study that focuses on the final form of the Gospel, and the study refrains from a discussion of the actual author and audience. Having said that, if the intended reader was Hellenistic, it would make my research even more compelling. Some scholars have proposed the possibility of the intended reader being located in Asia Minor where the reader was surrounded by Hellenistic culture.[17] Particularly in Ephesus, the theatre played a major role in civil society of the ancient world.[18] Nonetheless, as I have mentioned, this thesis is not an intertextual study to determine the influence of the Greek tragedies on JG. The focus of this study is on the ideal reader, who may find parallel literary phenomena between JG and the Greek tragedies.[19] This thesis seeks to highlight the possible interactions between these two, which might affect an ancient reader’s reading experience.

The results of this thesis will provide a plausible historical interpretation of the dramatic irony in JG. To my knowledge, no attempt has been made to date by Johannine scholars to interpret dramatic irony in JG with much consideration to its reception by an ancient audience. Therefore, my thesis seeks to fill this gap. The findings of this study may demonstrate the effects of dramatic irony on an audience in antiquity. The outcome will help modern readers take note of the implicit literary conventions in JG. Before presenting my method of study, I will first survey the past studies on dramatic irony in JG.

1.2 Survey of Scholarship

In this survey, I will first assess the works and methodologies carried out by prominent ironologists. By doing so, I will provide a historical development of the study of irony in literature. After evaluating the development of the study of irony, I will then discuss the works by Johannine scholars who have contributed to shaping the contours of studies of irony in JG. This survey will show the gap that this thesis aims to fill. The assessment in this survey involves examining the contributors’ concepts of irony and the methods that they use to analyze irony.

1.2.1 Survey of Prominent Ironologists

1.2.1.1 Connop Thirlwall

Connop Thirlwall was the first person to introduce the study of irony in classical tragedy in his work On the Irony of Sophocles, published in 1833.[20] Thirlwall’s method of studying irony was groundbreaking as he applied modern ironic concepts in the analysis of ancient tragedy, specifically of Sophocles’s tragedies. His work became the foundational basis upon which all later studies of irony in JG are built.

Thirlwall defines irony in three categories, namely (1) verbal irony, (2) dialectic irony, and (3) practical irony.[21] Verbal irony, according to Thirlwall, is the most common type where the speaker says one thing but means another thing.[22] Dialectic irony is the kind of irony that Plato uses in his Dialogues. A writer may use dialectic irony to challenge their opponents’ viewpoint without countering the argument upfront, but undermining all the supporting arguments until the opponents realize the flaws of their viewpoint.[23] Last, practical irony is a non-verbal type of irony, which is commonly used in comedies or tragedies.[24] Practical irony includes all forms of ironic incidents that a person, state, or institution may encounter.[25] There is historical evidence for Thirlwall’s first and second categories of irony (verbal and dialectic irony), where the ancient scholars and rhetoricians did see such phenomena as ironic. However, the third category is too broad to cover all ironic forms. This category of irony was foreign to the ancient understanding of irony. However, it is where the modern concept of dramatic irony is found.

When discussing the role of the playwright, Thirlwall sees them as a god, who is the creator of a little world, in which he rules with absolute sway, and may shape the destinies of the imaginary beings to whom he gives life and breath according to any plan that he may choose.[26] Consequently, Thirlwall assumes that the playwright will express their religious or philosophical reflection through the world presented in the tragedy, and in particular through the unseen hand that moves the events in the play.[27] Based on this assumption, Thirlwall deduces that the ancient playwright uses the contrast between man with his hopes, fears, wishes, and undertakings, and a dark, inflexible fate to create tragic irony.[28]

It is problematic for Thirlwall to impose such a contrast as ironic. Lewis Campbell rightly points out that the description of irony is too comprehensive and too narrow for the phenomenon of contrast in Sophocles’s tragedies.[29] It is too comprehensive as it implies that the notion of being a superior spectator is foreign to the Greek audience, and it is too narrow as the contrast in tragedies does more than just feed the ironic interest of the audience. Thirlwall’s assumption of the playwright’s role and interpretive method is anachronistically based on romantic dramatic theory.

Having said that, Thirlwall makes two important observations on the limitations that the ancient playwright would have had. First, the main characters in the tragedy are limited to gods or heroes. Hence, the audience would be familiar with the deeds and sufferings of the principal characters.[30] Second, the playwright has a definite range of subjects, and even in that he could not expatiate with uncontrolled freedom.[31] The playwright is bound by the worldview of his era, and he has a limited source of legends that he can use as material. It is the mastery of the playwright to creatively transform and fashion the ancient legends to his purposes.[32]

Thirlwall is aware that his methodology is based on modern philosophy and ironic criticism.[33] Aristotle, despite being one of the most comprehensive ancient scholars of Greek tragic poetry, is assumed to be entirely silent on the irony found in the tragedies. Thirlwall defends his arguments by stating that Aristotle is not all-knowing and perhaps he overlooked this subject. Thirlwall also justifies his study by pointing to dissension between the religious sentiments of Sophocles, and those of an earlier age.[34] He tries to keep his analysis within the boundary of Sophocles’s worldview, and he proves that the ironic phenomena in Sophocles’s tragedies were the result of Sophocles’s religious and philosophical reflections.

As much as Thirlwall attempts to address the issue of anachronism in his methodology, it remains an apparent fact that there is no evidence that ancient scholars and writers had such a sophisticated understanding of irony. Dane rightly comments that the so-called irony in drama

. . . is then itself subject to reinterpretations that depend largely on the contemporaneous critical reception of particular plays. Thus, dramatic irony comes to be defined by our literary-critical interpretation of Sophocles’ Oedipus plays. Dramatic irony is only as dramatic or even ironic as are our own literary-critical objects and interpretations.[35]

Therefore, Thirlwall’s work provides a modern interpretation of the contrast in ancient drama without giving sufficient consideration to ancient dramatic theories. Nonetheless, Thirlwall has successfully drawn attention to the phenomenon of dramatic irony that is consistently found in ancient dramas.

1.2.1.2 Søren Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard has a different approach to the study of irony compared to Thirlwall. His interest is not in the analysis of ironic phenomena, but in the concept of irony in history. He submitted his master’s thesis entitled The Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates in 1841. Later scholars, such as Booth and Duke, often quote this thesis.[36]

In this work, Kierkegaard argues that Socrates introduced the concept of irony that is known to the world. To reconstruct the Socratic concept of irony, Kierkegaard searches out comments about Socrates from his immediate contemporaries, namely Xenophon, Plato, and Aristophanes. Kierkegaard concludes that it is the consequences of the historical condition in that era that produced Socrates’s ironic expression.[37] Irony is the expression that Socrates used to protest against the establishment.

In the second half of his dissertation, Kierkegaard discusses the technicality of the concept of irony. He categorizes irony into two major groups, namely executive irony and contemplative irony. He defines executive irony as irony that asserts a relation of opposition in all its various nuances.[38] For example, the ironist may present themselves differently to conceal their jest in seriousness. As for contemplative irony, it is similar to the modern perception of verbal irony (saying something but intending an opposite meaning). For example, praise to blame or vice versa.[39]

Most of Kierkegaard’s thesis deals with the philosophical aspect of irony, especially Hegel’s works on Socratic irony. His work is a reflection of the concept of Socratic irony, and it has no intention to identify the function of irony in literature. Moreover, his executive irony category is too vague to describe the phenomenon of dramatic irony. Nonetheless, his work highlights the importance of classical Greek literature for the study of irony.

1.2.1.3 G. G. Sedgewick

Sedgewick builds on the work of Thirlwall. In a series of lectures, he highlighted a few important observations on studying irony in ancient drama.[40] In his first lecture, Sedgewick presented the historical development of the concept of irony. He traces the development of irony back to the ancient Greek rhetoricians and philosophers. When discussing the usage of irony by ancient authors, Sedgewick is cautious to distinguish the modern concept of irony from the ancient.

He points out that the ancient Greeks understood irony as a verbal figure for rhetorical purposes.[41] For example, Aristotle saw irony as a form of understatement.[42] Nonetheless, the Greeks perceived irony negatively, as a kind of deception. Sedgewick notices that Cicero had a different view of irony, where he praises Socrates for his ironic pretence.[43] After Cicero, many later scholars discovered new concepts of irony based on Socrates’s way of life. Sedgewick, just like Kierkegaard, believed that Socratic irony contains the germs of all the new ironies which have so afflicted the literature of the last century.[44]

One of the key concepts of irony in drama is the idea of detachment, which means the attitude of mind held by a philosophic observer when he abstracts himself from the contradictions of life and views them all impartially, himself perhaps included in the ironic vision.[45] Modern scholars often discuss this concept, particularly the irony in drama. According to Sedgewick, Lucretius (first-century Roman playwright) highlighted the phenomenon of detachment, but it was not named as irony.[46] It was Thirlwall who introduced the term dramatic irony to describe the phenomenon of detachment. After Thirlwall, writers used the term dramatic irony to refer to the different detachment phenomena that are found in drama. In the present essay, Sedgewick describes dramatic irony as follows: The spectator knows the facts, the people in the play do not. A character’s actual situation is one thing, his idea or interpretation of it is another; the promise things have for him is at variance with their outcome – they are not what they seem.[47]

When discussing dramatic irony, Sedgewick divides the form of dramatic irony into two main categories, namely general irony of drama and specific irony of drama.[48] The general irony of drama refers to the pleasurable experience of the audience watching the world of the drama from an omniscient point of view. In Sedgewick’s words, The whole attitude of the interested spectator is ironic; by the very fact that he is such a spectator, he is an ironist.[49] By contrast, a specific irony of drama refers to the experience of the audience who see an event happen on the stage that contradicts their opinion.[50] Nevertheless, Sedgewick does not distinguish the two forms of irony when he discusses the irony in the dramas.

Based on four dramas – two from Sophocles, one from Shakespeare, and one from Ibsen – Sedgewick attempts to highlight the characteristics of dramatic irony. He points out three common features of dramatic irony. First, there is a conflict of forces or elements in the play. Second, at least one of the characters in the play is ignorant of their situation. Third, the audience always knows both the appearance and the reality, for which the audience can see the contradiction between what the ignorant character does and what he would do.[51]

Sedgewick points out that the two essential characteristics of ancient dramatic irony are anticipation and reminiscence. He explains anticipation as the ironic sense [that] drives the mind forward from the episode which is engaging its immediate attention.[52] This effect of irony is more often found in Greek drama than in modern drama. The reason for such a phenomenon is the repetition of dramas at the theatre. Sedgewick observes, "One of the pleasures that such a spectator obviously had, when he went to see the Agamemnon or Oedipus Rex or the Medea, was the watching of dramatic action tend, mount, to an end he knew."[53] Since the audience knew the outcome of the drama, they would compare the present act or episode with foreknowledge of the future.

As for reminiscence, Sedgewick explains that there are scenes that turn an eye upon the past rather than the future.[54] The irony in the drama compels the audience to recall previous words and acts which are mocked by words and acts of the present.[55] In other words, it is a post-reflection of the drama. Sedgewick points out that Aristotle’s term for such phenomenon is recognition, where the audience is awakened to a certain truth after witnessing a tragic reversal of fortune at the theatre.[56] Johannine scholars who study the dramatic irony in the Gospel have often neglected Sedgewick’s discussion of anticipation and reminiscence.

Sedgewick has been cautious in his treatment of ancient dramas. He quotes from ancient scholars such as Aristotle when discussing ironic phenomena in the Greek tragedies. He also cautions ironologists to be aware that ancient audiences had a different set of competencies in appreciating a drama.[57] Sedgewick comes to a different conclusion from Thirlwall with regard to the function of dramatic irony. He observes that when irony is used in drama, "it points the significance of the situation, it brings the conflict of dramatic forces into clearer view, it heightens the sense of pity and terror."[58] Sedgewick’s conclusion is glaringly missing from Johannine studies of dramatic irony. In addition, later Johannine scholars have often neglected Sedgewick’s work. Thus, this thesis is an attempt to return to Sedgewick’s initial goal of discovering dramatic irony through the lens of ancient dramas.

1.2.1.4 Douglas Colin Muecke and Others

Muecke attempts to do what his predecessors did not: to free the study of irony from its historical limitations. He argues that the ironic phenomenon in literature predates its terminology.[59] In other words, the concept of irony existed since ancient times, although it was not named irony then.[60] Consequently, Muecke developed a method that allowed him to analyze ironic phenomena in the literature of all ages.

Muecke’s methodology has received the most attention from ironologists. He attempts to define irony in a way that does justice to all forms of irony. In The Compass of Irony, he lists three essential elements of irony. (1) It displays a double-layered or two-storey phenomenon, (2) the two levels are in some kind of opposition, and (3) it has an element of innocence or pretence.[61] In another monograph, Muecke adds three more elements: (1) It has a comic element that triggers the emotion of the audience, (2) it has an element of detachment, and (3) the irony requires an aesthetic element.[62] This basic description of irony later became the framework for detecting irony in JG.[63] However, this approach towards analyzing irony imposes a modern concept of irony on ancient literature. It assumes those elements as irony in the ancient world.

Many studies on the irony in JG use Muecke’s method of studying situational irony. Muecke uses four criteria to detect an ironic situation. (1) There is a kind of duality in the situation; (2) the two-levels are in opposition; (3) there is an element of alazony (unawareness of being victimized by the irony); and (4) there is an observer or audience who can read the sense of irony.[64] This method seems to provide a clear guideline to determine the validity of irony in a text. However, the criteria are based on the modern definition of irony, and the method has not paid much attention to the literary techniques in the ancient world.

After Muecke, the study of irony changed its focus to reader response analysis. Booth builds on Muecke’s method with the focus on how a reader or an audience understands irony.[65] He attempts to construct a method that analyzes how the reader forms meaning as the reader encounters irony. Amante refines the methodology of Booth and Muecke by introducing the method of speech-act theory into the study of irony. Amante’s method provides more comprehensive rules to detect all kinds of irony.[66] Nevertheless, these methodologies by Muecke and Amante are also based on a modern categorization of irony, and they have not considered the ancient concept of irony.

Undeniably, the methods developed by scholars starting from Muecke are helpful for the modern research of irony. They provide the necessary terminologies and concepts to discuss the interaction between irony and the reader. However, they fail to take heed of Sedgewick’s warning that the audience’s competence should be taken into account. They assume that all readers may react in a similar way to the phenomenon of dramatic irony.

1.2.1.5 Conclusion

As shown in this survey, ironologists since Thirlwall used the term dramatic irony to describe the phenomenon of contrast that is commonly found in dramas. Except for Sedgewick, ironologists are inclined to generalize the response of the audience towards dramatic irony without giving much consideration of ancient literary practices. In the following segment, I will demonstrate how Johannine scholars engage with the methodologies proposed by the ironologists. The survey will trace the development of the research on irony in Johannine studies.

1.2.2 Survey of Johannine Studies

1.2.2.1 Henri Clavier

Clavier is one of the early French Johannine scholars who had an interest in the irony in the Gospels. He investigates the question of whether the historical Jesus would have used irony in his teaching.[67] Like Kierkegaard, Clavier traces the concept of irony to Socrates.[68] He also points out another genre of irony by Aristophanes, which ridicules everything, including gods.[69] From Aristophanes, Clavier shifts the focus to