{"title":"The Receiver’s Paradox: Agency and Essence in John 13:20","authors":"D. Estes","doi":"10.1353/cbq.2023.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The Gospel of John contains not only paradoxical thought but also formal paradoxes—short logical riddles of a kind put to rhetorical use by ancient speakers. One overlooked formal paradox is the aphorism in John 13:20. The evangelist models this paradox on a reversal of the logic of Heraclitus’s river paradox. While Heraclitus’s river paradox is a means to deliberate essence, Jesus’s “receiver’s paradox” is a means to deliberate agency. Jesus intends the paradox as a way to help the disciples reflect further on their concerns for mission. As a result, this interpretation alleviates concerns that the utterance is unrelated to the discourse.","PeriodicalId":45718,"journal":{"name":"CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"85 1","pages":"109 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cbq.2023.0005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract:The Gospel of John contains not only paradoxical thought but also formal paradoxes—short logical riddles of a kind put to rhetorical use by ancient speakers. One overlooked formal paradox is the aphorism in John 13:20. The evangelist models this paradox on a reversal of the logic of Heraclitus’s river paradox. While Heraclitus’s river paradox is a means to deliberate essence, Jesus’s “receiver’s paradox” is a means to deliberate agency. Jesus intends the paradox as a way to help the disciples reflect further on their concerns for mission. As a result, this interpretation alleviates concerns that the utterance is unrelated to the discourse.