Proposer l'existence de théories infantiles de la mort suppose de considérer la mort, au même titre que la sexualité, comme un organisateur psychique. Toutefois, si elle oriente le désir, il n'est pas aisé d'accéder à ses effets sur le sujet. Le sujet se supporte d’une certaine dénégation face à la finitude de l'être afin de ne pas succomber à l'impossible de la mort. Cet impossible se manifeste par un gel du désir du fait de la crainte de la mort ou, à l'inverse, face à l'horreur qui se manifesterait d'une vie qui rejaillirait indéfiniment. Le démenti qu'émet le sujet transite par un tressage entre ses théories infantiles de la mort. Nous en proposons trois, "la théorie du retour dans le sein maternel", "la théorie de la survivance" et "la théorie du meurtre et de la loi du talion". Au-delà de ce triple rapport à la mort qu'offrent les théories, le sujet peut se définir par une position alternative, celle de l'entre-deux-morts, afin de ne pas céder sur son désir. / Think about childhood theories of death supposes to consider death, in the same way as sexuality, as a psychic organizer. However, if death directs the desire, it is not easy to notice its effects on the subject. The subject bears itself of a certain denial in front of finiteness of being so that he does not succumb in to the impossible of death. This impossible shows itself by a frost of desire because of deaths fear or, by contrast, in front of the horror which would show itself from a life which would spatter infinitely. The subject’s denial passes by a plaiting between its childhoods theories of death. We propose three of them, “the return in the mother's breast theory”, “survival theory” and “murder and the lex talionis theory”. It is here that reappear the childhood theories of death according to the events crossed by the grown-up subject. Taking in consideration one’s mortal condition is necessary to desire, as much as it is to cover it. So, beyond this triple relationship with death that childhood theories offers, it could be a position in which the subject would pass, between - two deaths,  in order to not give in to the desire.

John 21 tells of the “miraculous draught of fishes.” The disciples fish all night and catch nothing. In the morning, they fail to recognize Jesus on the shore, instructing them to cast their net again. After an amazing catch and subsequent breakfast, Jesus thrice questions Peter’s love and commissions him to “feed my sheep.” Using Narrative Criticism, this study examines this recognition scene, specifically in light of recognition scenes in Genesis. Previous work used primarily Greco-Roman texts to analyze Johannine recognition. This study adds the Hebraic perspective, asking, “How would a reader, well acquainted with Genesis, understand recognition in John 21?” This study labels characters who withhold recognition from others as “manipulators,” and argues that biblical recognition can be understood within a context of “manipulation.” It proposes a taxonomy of manipulation with six narrative kernels. This yields four patterns gleaned from Genesis: 1) Manipulation narratives are focused around chosen leaders—manipulators—undergoing a character development process; 2) These manipulators disempower others while empowering themselves for gain; 3) Genesis manipulation stories often contain evocative déjà vu motifs: repetitive words and themes connecting the units, reinforcing the story, and sometimes haunting manipulators; 4) Manipulators are often “counter-manipulated” in a reciprocal manner ironically similar to their own previous behavior. This may correct and transform the manipulator. The taxonomy and patterns are applied to John 21:1-19 as a lens for a new reading. The study also examines Greek diminutives in John 21, which enhances the reading. This reading characterizes Peter’s earlier behavior in John 18 as manipulative, when he withheld his identity three times. When the disciples go aimlessly fishing in John 21, Jesus actively withholds his identity in ironic counter-manipulation, mirroring Peter’s earlier denials. The disciples’ lack of recognition underscores their dullness, especially Peter’s. Jesus’ three questions to Peter continue the ironic counter-manipulation, paralleling Peter’s earlier three denials. Finally, Jesus predicts Peter will glorify God in his death, indicating his future turn toward ideal discipleship. / New Testament / D. Th. (New Testament)

John 21 tells of the “miraculous draught of fishes.” The disciples fish all night and catch nothing. In the morning, they fail to recognize Jesus on the shore, instructing them to cast their net again. After an amazing catch and subsequent breakfast, Jesus thrice questions Peter’s love and commissions him to “feed my sheep.” Using Narrative Criticism, this study examines this recognition scene, specifically in light of recognition scenes in Genesis. Previous work used primarily Greco-Roman texts to analyze Johannine recognition. This study adds the Hebraic perspective, asking, “How would a reader, well acquainted with Genesis, understand recognition in John 21?” This study labels characters who withhold recognition from others as “manipulators,” and argues that biblical recognition can be understood within a context of “manipulation.” It proposes a taxonomy of manipulation with six narrative kernels. This yields four patterns gleaned from Genesis: 1) Manipulation narratives are focused around chosen leaders—manipulators—undergoing a character development process; 2) These manipulators disempower others while empowering themselves for gain; 3) Genesis manipulation stories often contain evocative déjà vu motifs: repetitive words and themes connecting the units, reinforcing the story, and sometimes haunting manipulators; 4) Manipulators are often “counter-manipulated” in a reciprocal manner ironically similar to their own previous behavior. This may correct and transform the manipulator. The taxonomy and patterns are applied to John 21:1-19 as a lens for a new reading. The study also examines Greek diminutives in John 21, which enhances the reading. This reading characterizes Peter’s earlier behavior in John 18 as manipulative, when he withheld his identity three times. When the disciples go aimlessly fishing in John 21, Jesus actively withholds his identity in ironic counter-manipulation, mirroring Peter’s earlier denials. The disciples’ lack of recognition underscores their dullness, especially Peter’s. Jesus’ three questions to Peter continue the ironic counter-manipulation, paralleling Peter’s earlier three denials. Finally, Jesus predicts Peter will glorify God in his death, indicating his future turn toward ideal discipleship. / New Testament / D. Th. (New Testament)