Ecce Homo: John 19:5, a Portrait of Jesus and a Tangle of Stories
-
Andrew P. Wilson
Abstract
In the context of the Bible, reception history is about the inter-play of text and context. It is also about the capacity of stories to continue to be told, the practice of ongoing interpretation and about creativity and meaning making, often in ways that challenge the text/context divide. In exploring this challenge, I ask how a roughly drawn picture of Jesus as Ecce Homo from John’s trial scene (John 19:5), a piece of devotional art from 1940s Europe, might demonstrate the capacity of texts—John 19:5 and others—to act across a range of (loosely connected) contexts. How might diverse narratives—artistic, historical, ideological, biographical—engage with thought on reception theory and trouble the distinction between text and context, so as to demonstrate the surprising expansiveness of texts and textuality? When viewed via this picture, the words on the pages of canonical text are revealed to be dynamic, travelling through the cultural and devotional history of varying locations, times and epochs. These words are in a state of flux, continually being re-written, embellished upon and otherwise shaped and changed. Following their trails in connection with this picture of Jesus, I explore the complex qualities of story and textuality. These qualities have parallel implications for John’s Gospel, as an ongoing and increasingly tangled story of Empire, irony and ambivalence, a story that continues to play out in multiple, messy and often conflicting ways. Ultimately, to gather a number of narratives and to bind them within the frames of this picture becomes a way of demonstrating the slipperiness and even arbitrariness of historical reception. It elucidates the competing interests of context, scholarship and tradition, not to mention the ever-widening scope of possibilities for biblical textuality.
References
Aichele, G. 2006. The Phantom Messiah: Postmodern Phantasy and the Gospel of Mark. New York, NY: T&T Clark.Suche in Google Scholar
Arrian the Nicomedian. 1884. The Anabasis of Alexander: Or The History of the Wars and Conquests of Alexander the Great. Translated with Commentary from the Greek by E. J. Chinnock. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Suche in Google Scholar
Beal, T. 2011. “Reception History and Beyond: Towards the Cultural History of Scriptures.” Biblical Interpretation 19: 357–72. https://doi.org/10.1163/156851511x595530.Suche in Google Scholar
Beard, M., J. North, and S. Price. 1998. Religions of Rome. Volume 1. A History. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Breed, B. W. 2014. Nomadic Text: A Theory of Biblical Reception History. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1970. The Gospel According to John, XIII–XXI. New Haven: Yale University Press.10.5040/9780300262025Suche in Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1977. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorti Spivak. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
England, E. and W. J. Lyons, eds. (2015). Reception Theory and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice. New York: Bloomsbury, T&T Clark.Suche in Google Scholar
Exum, C. 2012. “Toward a Genuine Dialogue between the Bible and Art.” In Congress Volume 2010, edited by M. Nissinen, 473–503. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004221130_023Suche in Google Scholar
Exum, C. J., and E. Nutu. 2007. Between the Text and the Canvas: The Bible and Art in Dialogue. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Johnson, B. D. 2006. “‘Salvation is from the Jews’: Judaism in the Gospel of John.” In New Currents Through John: A Global Perspective, edited by F. Lozada Jr. and T. Thatcher, 83–99. Atlanta, GA: The Society of Biblical Literature.Suche in Google Scholar
Keener, C. S. 2003. The Gospel of John a Commentary, Vol. 1. Henrickson: Peabody MAS.Suche in Google Scholar
Knight, M. 2010. “Wirkungsgeschichte: Reception History, Reception Theory.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33: 137–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x10385858.Suche in Google Scholar
Kristeva, J. 1980. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Language and Art. trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine and Leon S. Roudiez, ed. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Moloney, F. J. 1998. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina Series 4. Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Moore, S. D. 2010. “‘The Romans Will Come and Destroy Our Holy Place and Our Nation’: Representing Empire in John.” In The Bible in Theory: Critical and Postcritical Essays, 327–49. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.Suche in Google Scholar
O’Kane, M. 2005. “Isaiah 53: Picturing the Man of Sorrows.” Religion and the Arts 9 (2): 62–101. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568529054573451.Suche in Google Scholar
O’Kane, M. 2007. “The Biblical Elijah and His Visual Afterlives.” In Between the Text and the Canvas, edited by C. Exum, and E. Nutu, 60–80. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.Suche in Google Scholar
O’Kane, M. 2010. “Wirkunsgeschichte and Visual Exegesis: The Contribution of Hans-Georg Gadamer.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33: 147–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x10385859.Suche in Google Scholar
Sawyer, J. F. A., “The Role of Reception Theory, Reader-Response Criticism and/or Impact History in the Study of the Bible: Definition and Evaluation.” Delivered at: EKK biennial meeting in Germany, 21–3 March 2004.Suche in Google Scholar
Sanford, M. 2014. “On the Past and Future of New Testament Studies: A Response to Larry Hurtado.” Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception 4: 229–40.10.11157/rsrr4-2-652Suche in Google Scholar
Spear, R. E. 1997. The “Divine” Guido: Religion, Sex, Money and Art in the World of Guido Reni. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Stalin’s Moustache: Roland Boer’s Blog: Marxism, Religion, Politics, Bible, Whatever. Also available at: http://stalinsmoustache.org/.Suche in Google Scholar
Swan, P. M. 2004. The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on the Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books 55–56 (9 B.C. to A.D. 14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195167740.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Wilson, A. P. 2016. “‘Beholding the Man’: Viewing (or is it Marking?) John’s Trial Scene alongside Kitsch Art.” Biblical Interpretation 24: 245–64. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-00242p06.Suche in Google Scholar
Wilson, A. P. 2019. Critical Entanglements: Postmodern Theory and Biblical Studies. Brill Research Perspectives in Biblical Studies. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/24057657-12340013Suche in Google Scholar
Zumstein, J. 2008. “Intratextuality and Intertextuality in the Gospel of John.” trans. Mike Gray. In Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature, edited by T. Thatcher, and S. D. Moore, 121–36. Atlanta, GA: The Society of Biblical Literature.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Allegory and Ambiguity in Late Antique Canon Lists
- The Artistic Character of the Spirit in the Beatus Tradition
- Jesus’ Descent from the Cross in Ancient and Medieval Reception
- Ecce Homo: John 19:5, a Portrait of Jesus and a Tangle of Stories
- Genre as Reception: A Multidimensional Network Approach
- Rabbi Jesus in Martin Luther’s Bible Translations
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Allegory and Ambiguity in Late Antique Canon Lists
- The Artistic Character of the Spirit in the Beatus Tradition
- Jesus’ Descent from the Cross in Ancient and Medieval Reception
- Ecce Homo: John 19:5, a Portrait of Jesus and a Tangle of Stories
- Genre as Reception: A Multidimensional Network Approach
- Rabbi Jesus in Martin Luther’s Bible Translations
