The Fourth Gospel does not contain many explicit quotations of the OT. In fact, there are fewer explicit quotations of the OT in the Fourth Gospel than in Matthew and Luke, but it is clear that the OT forms the foundation upon which the author constructs his Gospel. Most studies on the Gospel of John focus on explicit quotations rather than on the literary and rhetorical roles of the OT. Moreover, these works do not focus on how the appeals to the OT contribute to the characterization of Jesus. In Characterizing Jesus, Alicia Myers seeks to examine how OT texts contribute to the Gospel of John's characterization of Jesus in light of ancient rhetorical techniques. She argues that the background of ancient rhetorical handbooks and other comparative literature from the first century helps us to better understand and see how the evangelist uses the OT in his portrayal of Jesus. Her approach combines interdisciplinary research of three areas: rhetorical criticism, characterization studies, and the use of the OT.

Other studies in these areas typically focus on one area to the exclusion of the others. Rhetorical studies have been done on the farewell discourse and Jesus' speeches, but do not use rhetoric to explore how the OT functions in the characterization of Jesus. Studies on the characterization of Jesus typically follow narrative-critical categories. Myers's study uses rhetorical handbooks in its analysis of the characterization of Jesus rather than employing modern categories. Additionally, studies on the use of the OT in the Fourth Gospel usually study Jewish exegetical techniques or intertextuality in order to understand the use of the OT in the Gospel. However, Myers utilizes rhetoric to build on both approaches, arguing that her examination of “the Fourth Gospel's use of Israel's Scriptures through the lens of Graeco-Roman rhetoric offers a new way to approach the characterization of Jesus in this Gospel” (p. 21). The evangelist uses rhetorical categories because he “aims to persuade his audience that Jesus truly is the Logos of God made flesh” (p. 21).

Myers begins by outlining the key definitions of rhetorical categories and providing examples in the Greco-Roman literature. In this same chapter, she argues that the prologue of the Gospel establishes key concepts that are later explored in the Gospel. In chapter three, she identifies where these rhetorical categories exist in the discourses of Jesus, but focuses only on the discourses that contain scriptural appeals. In chapter four, she turns her attention to other passages narrated by the evangelist, but once again limits her study to those passages that contain some allusion to the OT. In both chapters, she notes connections these passages have with the prologue and how the evangelist characterizes Jesus through his use of the OT.

Characterizing Jesus has a number of strengths. First, Myers rightly sees the foundational nature of the prologue for the rest of the Gospel. She notes that in the prologue the audience is made privy to Jesus' origins while the rest of the characters in the Gospel are unaware of these details. Furthermore, she sees the major role that the OT plays in the prologue, which prefigures its importance in the remainder of the Gospel.

Second, Myers is consistent and clear with her methodology. She outlines the major features that characterize rhetorical handbooks, and these features appear in the rest of her work. Her work is a good example of how an author can lay out a methodology in a systematic manner and consistently work through it in the remainder of the study (though it is also true that the definitions of key terms are a little unclear).

Third, it appears that at least some features of rhetoric are present in the Fourth Gospel. The evangelist is concerned to establish the credibility of Jesus (e.g., when Jesus mentions those who testify about him in 5:32-39) as well as his own credibility with the audience (which he establishes through eyewitness testimony, 1:14; 21:24). Myers correctly points out that the evangelist seeks to be brief (20:30-31) and clear. Though the aspect of clarity is a bit obscure, the dramatic irony in 2:21; 6:71; and 12:33 bears this out when the evangelist offers clarifying comments for the reader in situations when Jesus speaks obscurely to the others in the story.

While Characterizing Jesus has much to commend it, there are a few weaknesses as well. First, Myers seems to stretch the evidence to make it fit the rhetorical categories. For example, she mentions that a common topos is that of upbringing and notes that the evangelist's omission of Jesus' upbringing in the prologue is an argument that Jesus does not need human education because of his heavenly origins. It is likely that the evangelist is not utilizing every rhetorical category, so it is speculative at best to argue that the omission of this topos is an argument on the part of the evangelist. In addition, Myers also claims that the “deeds” (another common topos) of Jesus mentioned in the prologue is a reference to giving life. However, Jesus's giving life to humanity seems to be categorically different than the deeds mentioned in other bioi, which are typically heroic actions. It seems that other actions of Jesus would better fit this category (such as healing the lame man, raising Lazarus, etc.), but the description of him giving life stretches the category. In addition, Myers observes that the prologue mimics OT style and imagery. This begs the question of whether OT allusion would be a better candidate for the primary category of the prologue rather than bioi. This point is not discussed.

Second, it is unclear how an understanding of the rhetorical categories helps a reader to better understand any of these passages beyond understanding the original context of the allusion to the OT. For example, in John 6, Myers mentions the five differences between Jesus and the exodus narrative. If a reader knows the context of the OT allusion, it seems like he or she would reach the same conclusion about the characterization of Jesus in this passage without knowing the ancient rhetorical categories. Therefore, it is not always clear how a knowledge of these rhetorical categories enhances the message the evangelist is communicating. As it stands, it seems that knowing the original context of the OT allusions and comparing it with how the Gospel utilizes the allusion is all the reader needs to know in order to properly understand the characterization of Jesus.

Characterizing Jesus will be a good resource for academics seeking a better knowledge of ancient rhetorical categories and examples of them within the context of a Gospel. It would also greatly aid preachers who want to see the importance of the prologue and how its themes are carried throughout the Gospel.

---