Biblica_1_Layout 1 20/01/12 11:44 Pagina 595 595 PROSOPOPOETICS AND CONFLICT: SPEECH AND EXPECTATIONS 8. Rather, it offers clarification for how this dialogue functions rhetorically in the Fourth Gospel. For the Gospel audience, characters like the believing Jews in 8,31-59 arguably had an edge in recognizing Jesus from seeing and hearing him in person. Yet, without the privileged information pro- vided by the Gospel writer, these Jews are unable to correctly iden- tify Jesus. It is not that their reaction is out of proportion in light of the knowledge available to them. Indeed, the appropriateness of the Jews’ response actually adds to the rhetorical force of the Gospel’s presentation, since without the insider information provided by the narrator, those listening to the Gospel arguably would have re- sponded to Jesus in a similar manner. Thus, rather than sparking hat- red for those struggling to comprehend Jesus in 8,31-59, this text creates a connection between these characters and the audience who can sympathize with their situation. At the same time, this passage works alongside the rest of the Gospel to reaffirm the audience lis- tening to the entire narrative. Although physically distant from their Savior, they have greater access to him through the Gospel narrative and the interpretive traditions of their community. By offering his audience a fuller portrait of his protagonist, the Gospel writer ele- vates his audience’s post-resurrection perspective, encouraging them to believe in spite of their perhaps self-perceived lack of sight. * * * In conclusion, this article suggests that neither the Jews’ words, nor those of Jesus, are rhetorically inappropriate in John 8. Instead, both speak according to the broad specifications of the rhetorical practice of prosopopoiia, in that their words fit their characters as laid out by the writer of the Fourth Gospel. By focusing his atten- tion on convincing his audience rather than characters within the text, the Gospel writer uses the misunderstandings and conflicts surrounding Jesus to reinforce his characterization of Jesus as the logos. Like the audience of Plutarch’s Alexander, the Gospel audi- ence knows how the story ends, and therefore knows more about the person of Jesus even than those who saw him face to face. Thus, while the words of Alexander and Jesus surprise those within the narrative, they conform to the characters known by the audience. Unlike Plutarch’s Alexander, however, there is a theological ele-