I think it's interesting how you frame the Gospel of John as humorous. It seemed to me that the language is intended to highlight where the characters are on the gradient of faith and faithfulness, e.g. some people thought they recognized the man who was born blind, but others made up an excuse why it couldn't be him.
Also, in the case of the formerly blind man when he says, "do you want to become his disciples too," I thought that was an indication that people who have recently come into faith, or are coming into faith, in Jesus aren't necessarily the meekest of saints right away but still have some rough edges.
I think there are lots of valid, and helpful, ways of reading the text - my view of the humour which I find embedded in John's work is reasonably widely shared, certainly not unique to me (sadly).
Let me list some of the scenes I think are intended to be funny, they fall into a few broad categories:
The “Misunderstanding” Scenes - In these scenes, the audience are in on the joke - they are smarter than the story characters like Nicodemus: “How can anyone crawl back into their mother’s womb?” (John 3) or the disciples: “Who gave him lunch?” (John 4:33).
Then there are the “Over‑the‑Top Literalism” bits, including JOhn 19:15 where the religious leaders parody themselves with “We have no king but the emperor!” And the one I mention in the article - where the The man born blind says: “Do you also want to become his disciples?” It feels very sarcastic to me - from a literary pov.
There are also some “Comic Reversals” like the water to wine 'incident' in the wedding at Cana where the steward praises the groom - even though it was Jesus, and the bit where the disciples lock the doors and Jesus still appears. (John 20)
John doesn't make the disciples quite as dumb as they seem in Mark, but they definitely seem to have some comic moments - some people see this as part of John's comedic 'texture'.
I certainly think John is satirical, the interchange with Pilate makes the leader look confused and out played, for instance. And there's more - when Peter puts his clothes on to jump in the sea, when the disciples dont recognise Jesus (another misunderstanding).
I guess the important thing form my perspective is that we understand this is a sophisticated piece of literature, it's not always treated that way. I could be wrong about the comedy - I could be wrong about everything! But I don't think so - I think John was a very clever and humorous writer.
Wonderful (as usual).
Thanks- very kind of you (as usual).
I think it's interesting how you frame the Gospel of John as humorous. It seemed to me that the language is intended to highlight where the characters are on the gradient of faith and faithfulness, e.g. some people thought they recognized the man who was born blind, but others made up an excuse why it couldn't be him.
Also, in the case of the formerly blind man when he says, "do you want to become his disciples too," I thought that was an indication that people who have recently come into faith, or are coming into faith, in Jesus aren't necessarily the meekest of saints right away but still have some rough edges.
Hey! Thanks for the comment.
I think there are lots of valid, and helpful, ways of reading the text - my view of the humour which I find embedded in John's work is reasonably widely shared, certainly not unique to me (sadly).
Let me list some of the scenes I think are intended to be funny, they fall into a few broad categories:
The “Misunderstanding” Scenes - In these scenes, the audience are in on the joke - they are smarter than the story characters like Nicodemus: “How can anyone crawl back into their mother’s womb?” (John 3) or the disciples: “Who gave him lunch?” (John 4:33).
Then there are the “Over‑the‑Top Literalism” bits, including JOhn 19:15 where the religious leaders parody themselves with “We have no king but the emperor!” And the one I mention in the article - where the The man born blind says: “Do you also want to become his disciples?” It feels very sarcastic to me - from a literary pov.
There are also some “Comic Reversals” like the water to wine 'incident' in the wedding at Cana where the steward praises the groom - even though it was Jesus, and the bit where the disciples lock the doors and Jesus still appears. (John 20)
John doesn't make the disciples quite as dumb as they seem in Mark, but they definitely seem to have some comic moments - some people see this as part of John's comedic 'texture'.
I certainly think John is satirical, the interchange with Pilate makes the leader look confused and out played, for instance. And there's more - when Peter puts his clothes on to jump in the sea, when the disciples dont recognise Jesus (another misunderstanding).
I guess the important thing form my perspective is that we understand this is a sophisticated piece of literature, it's not always treated that way. I could be wrong about the comedy - I could be wrong about everything! But I don't think so - I think John was a very clever and humorous writer.
Superb onion peeling. Thank you.
apologies to anyone who felt themselves starting to cry.
For myself - quite the reverse - elation and excitement. I could not turn away.