In the early 1960s a Pentecostal movement broke out in Ethiopia and formed the Mulu Wongel (the Full Gospel) Church throughout the country. During the free spirited revival at the early stage of the movement and when the church was closed during the socialist regime, women enjoyed key ministerial and leadership positions. However, women ministers were sidelined when peace was restored and an organized body was established. This article is mainly interested in uncovering women’s role in the history of Ethiopian Pentecostal revival and its aftermath based on the information gained from main participants of the movement and important secondary documents. It also underlines the eventual achievement of ministerial equality between men and women despite problems that are still hindering women’s involvement in the higher ministerial posts.
This article is a new study of the word θεός in the Gospel of John, especially in the cases in which it does not refer to the Father. In the Prologue, θεός is twice used to define the Word, the one close to the Father (1:1, 18). These instances are mostly understood as denoting divine quality shared by the Father and the Word. It is argued that linguistic considerations are compelling enough to consider a different interpretation: the Word can be understood as a second, non-competitive deity, a notion that is not as incompatible with John’s monotheism as is generally thought.
This study seeks to trace the role and significance of pneumatology within the Gospel according to John and 1–2 John using a narrative, literary approach that has emerged with an amazing amount of consistency among a variety of biblical scholars who have sought to discern an approach to the interpretation of Scripture worthy of the Pentecostal tradition. This exploration draws heavily from and builds upon my previous studies on this theme within the broader Johannine literature.
In this response essay, which culminates with an application of my theory of narrative empathy to the Parable of the Good Samaritan, I comment on an article by Cornelis Bennema and engage with the ideas in the framing, introductory essay by Jan Rüggemeier and Elizabeth E. Shively. In the course of carrying out these tasks, I also offer what I hope will be broadly useful comments on fictional and nonfictional contexts for character construction, on characters and characterization, and on the way diverse actual readers engage with characters. This essay concludes with some thoughts on narrative empathy, responding to the final section of Rüggemeier and Shively’s essay, which offers comprehensive overview of empathy and sympathy as aspects of emotional reading.
This study employs an array of cognitive linguistic (cl) models to reveal some of the details in how contemporary readers understand and interpret characters in a New Testament parable, the one often tagged “The Good Samaritan.” It also uses cognitive narrative analysis to explore how Luke constructs and develops the dialog partners in the pericope and the characters in the parable. The larger goal is to use cl to reveal some of the ways in which meanings are evoked, constructed, constrained and opened up. The parable is embedded in a larger narrative and immediate co-text, its characters selected from the stock of Lukan personae. The study explains how narrative spaces are built up; how characters serve as anchors and links to the larger narrative; and how viewpoint shifts proliferate as the story unfolds.
The Lukan narrator makes Jesus’ viewpoint clear: “Do this, and you will live!” Readers are implicitly invited to identify with the compassionate character of the parable and emulate him. But the opening question and closing dialog shape the parable’s point, expanding its trajectory beyond mere moral rule revision or definitions of “neighbor” or even of “good” character. This parable allows readers to imagine with Luke a way of life lived in the light of the new epoch Jesus is announcing and inaugurating.
The Roman senator Marcellus plays a prominent role among the considerable number of characters mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Peter. He was very important for the Christian community, and his house was a central meeting place for widows, orphans, foreigners, and the poor, before it became the residence of Simon Magus and his followers. By applying a specific approach of cognitive narratology and by taking serious an active participation of readers in analyzing a character more closely, this study intends to analyze the extent to which such an approach might help to perceive and understand Marcellus more appropriately and to highlight his function within the story and his impact on readers.
This response article reviews the contributions of Kirsten Marie Hartvigsen and Thomas Kraus to this special issue, and uses them as the basis for a discussion of some theoretical and methodological issues relevant to cognitive narratology and cognitive literary studies more broadly. Without offering substantial answers itself, the response poses questions concerning (i) the compatibility of different scientific frameworks used in cognitive models of characterization, particularly in the light of currently dominant ‘4ea’ models of cognition (there is a particular focus on the relationship between affective and (other) cognitive aspects of reader response, and on the role of memory); and (ii) the adaptability of cognitive models to dealing with “synthetic” and “thematic” (as opposed to “mimetic”) aspects of literary character. A brief conclusion argues for two-way traffic between the cognitive sciences and literary criticism.
In the Gospel of Luke 1–2, the narrator focuses on two couples and their (future) sons. The plot of the narrative emphasizes the main characteristics of the characters, which in turn accentuate important characteristics of God. Audience members construct these characters like real-life persons based on the discourse aspect (textual features which indicate character traits, plots, focalization, etc.) and the suggestion aspect (memories, emotions, schemata that are activated or primed, etc.). In this article, the construction of characters is analyzed with insights into mental character models and social schemata. The linear presentation of information in orally performed narratives structures the first part of the analysis. The latter part draws on conceptual blending theory to explore how the character of God is constructed based on selected information projected from the utterances of the other characters to the blended space.
The discipline of cognitive narratology applies insights of cognitive linguistics to narrative analysis. This study seeks to demonstrate the value of cognitive narratology by exploring the role of the reader and the extent of the reader’s knowledge in constructing characters. While traditional narrative criticism often limits itself to the world of the text, cognitive narratology recognizes that the reader’s knowledge from other texts and the real world also contributes to the construction of characters. This study will show that the extent of the reader’s literary and social knowledge of a text affects the construction of characters. As a case study, we will examine the calling of Peter in the canonical Gospels and show how four readers with varying degrees of knowledge will arrive at different constructions of Peter’s character.
This Introduction provides an overview of a cognitive-narratological approach to characters and characterization in New Testament narratives. We begin by comparing conventional and cognitive approaches to New Testament characters and characterization, and delineating a practical methodology designed to sensitize readers to a variety of interpretative possibilities that arise from the cognitive turn within narratology. Afterwards, we apply that methodology in three ways. First, we acquaint readers with the prospect of tracing characters within one New Testament narrative. Then, we hint at the analysis of character migration, that is, a character’s development across more than one narrative. Finally, we provide insight into the analysis of character emotions and the readers’ empathy with characters. To illustrate these aspects, we focus on examples from the Gospel of Mark.