lovelylil....Well, another major probable interpolation is ch. 21. This epilogue is generally regarded as secondary to the text. Notice the original ending in 20:30-31: "There were many other signs that Jesus worked and the disciples saw, but they are not recorded in this book. These are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you may have life through his name." A jolly good ending...but then ch. 21 relates one more miracle (v. 11) and adds a few more scenes before we encounter a second concluding verse (21:25), imitating the style of the first conclusion. Moreover, the language used in this chapter is quite different from the rest of the gospel and there may even be manuscript evidence...one early Coptic MS has just come to light that ends at John 20:31 (officially announced in the following publication: http://www.peeters-leuven.be/boekoverz.asp?nr=8105).
John 8:3-11
by Zico 49 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
lovelylil
Thanks Leolaia for the example,
I see what you mean, as I looked up the verses you mentioned. It could seem like John should have ended where it did but then, like you said another miracle was listed and thus it must have been added by someone else later. This is how it looked to me until I read it over again, this time taking my time to really analyze these verses.
I think after doing this, I am seeing things a little different than maybe you do and the writer of that information you gave me in your post.
In John 20:30 John is saying he picked among the many miracles that Jesus performed as he could not write all of them down. Then, as if he remembered more that he could have written, he adds another chapter containing yet one more miracle.
I am a writer and I do this exact thing sometimes, I add more thoughts as they come to me and then slightly adjust the ending of the material to try and show why I included more. He then repeats his closing statement almost verbatim but with some slight modifications that Jesus did many things that he could not write down for lack of space to contain them all. Thereby emphasising that he has at last, included all he can about Jesus' miracles. This inclusion of course being the one more chapter with the last miracle he feels in important to record (John 21:25)
This addition of the line "lack of space to contain them all" is what made me realize why another chapter was added. It seems like John really wanted to add all the information he thought he possibly could and therfore, instead of ending in chapter 20, as an after-thought decided to add one more thing. Then ends it with even more emphasis on why he could not add any more after this. From my own experience of doing things like this, it makes perfect sense to me.
The fact that this last verse in John 21:25 seems to state the same as the concluding verse of chapter 20, with minor adjustments for emphasis, seems to me to show that John was the writer of both. Not that someone else wrote it. As far as the writting being so different in chapter 21 than chapter 20, I do not see that at all. I think it is a good theory but it is only that, at least to me anyway. I hope I explained this well enough for people to understand the point I am trying to make.
As always Leolaia, I appreciate your input. Maybe peacefulpete will return tonight and give me some more examples.Thanks again, Lilly
-
peacefulpete
Lovelylil, its true I'm sometimes too brief even cryptic. I do it intentionally. If someone wants to know more they'll ask, if not they'll just ignore volumes I or anyone else posts. Leolaia has identified some widely recognized issues. There are many more. For a quick one check out how chapter 14 ends with Jesus saying he's done talking and headed out to the arrest scene but then chapters 15-17 interupt the scene with extensive unrelated dialogue then once again resumes with the garden story in chapter 18. These two chapters are widely regarded as either original but displaced or interpolations. Here's a site that lists many of these issues: The Formation of John's Gospel
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Hi Lovelylilly
Let me start off by saying that I'm most fond of this passage (8:3-11) and I have a strong affinity for how this gospel portrays human/divine interaction. At the same time, I find alot of interesting clues that this gospel may have been edited in several spots.
I appreciate how you tried to posit an explanation for the two conclusions. You were clear and the individual points were reasonable, but I still think that the overall evidence is better explained by Chapter 21 being an addition. (By the way Leolaia, thank you for making us aware of that coptic manuscript evidence!). I can't offer any better and more solidly backed up examples than Leolaia's but here's some other interesting possibilities of editing:
1:6-8 also 1:15 -- throwing in the bits about Johnny B interrupts the otherwise smooth flow of thought about the Word and the incarnation.
6:51-56 -possibly an addition made by those in favour of the orthodox view of the eucharist, since it stresses the importance of the flesh and blood sacrifice but then what do we read in verse 63?
7:15-24 - would really flow nicely if it was placed right after 5:47 And like this example, there are others but I don't have them marked off in my present copy of the NWT.
-
Hellrider
The JehoWatchtower is very good at using scholarly, modern material when it comes to erazing things from the NT that they don`t like. When it comes to what they do like (for example such as showing the Jehovah-name into every other sentence in the NT although it never was there in the first place), they couldn`t give a flying prophet about "modern scholarship". They are very interesting people (in a kind of sickening, repulsive way).
-
lovelylil
Thanks you to:
Leolaia, pete, midget for the information - I can see where you are all coming from. I will look at the evidence again. But let me ask you all this: lets say this text was an addition, are you bringing this out to disprove the bible and say it is not from God, or is there another thing this may show?
I think to me it shows that not every letter and comma was put in by God but rather Man, under guidance of the Holy Spirit wrote their words that they thought at the time was important to prove that Jesus was the son of God like John said. And some texts certainly could have been altered but will I don't think we have to disregard the whole bible because of it.
What are your views on this? Thanks in advance, you have all been very helpful.Oh, and Pete, thanks for the second example. Lilly
-
Leolaia
Lilly....I appreciate your comments. The possibility you mention that ch. 21 could have been added by the author as a postscript (i.e. still as a secondary insertion) after completing the rest of the book but before publication has been discussed in the literature and largely turns on the evaluation of various pieces of evidence. There is first the literary argument. Your suggestion would assume that there was no subsequent editing by the author and the book was published with the two clausulae (i.e. 20:30-31, 21:24-25) and the add-on appendix in place. The book otherwise shows signs of deliberate plan and editing (cf. the seven "signs" throughout the gospel, the organization around festivals, etc.), so there is no reason to suppose that the author could not have smoothed out the ending of the book (which as you say would have been added as an "afterthought") before publishing it. All the author would have needed to do was move the first clausula to a position immediately before the second or after 21:14, but this was not done. Moreover, there are other minor problems that suggest a literary seam, such as the abrupt change in setting and scene, the christological and theological climax in 20:27-31 (i.e. the confession of Jesus as God, tying the end to the first verse of the gospel, and the fact that the author then uses Thomas' confession and directly addresses the reader in v. 31 to do likewise -- thus "bridging the gap between story and reader"), and the misnumbering of the Galilee appearance as the third appearance (21:14), even tho three appearances have already been narrated(cf. 20:11-18, 19-23, 26-29).
The fact that this last verse in John 21:25 seems to state the same as the concluding verse of chapter 20, with minor adjustments for emphasis, seems to me to show that John was the writer of both. Not that someone else wrote it.
Actually it is very easy for a later editor or copyist to imitate or resume and earlier statement in the text; indeed such an imitation can be taken as evidence of less imaginative hand at work. Also there is the stylistic argument. It may not be apparent to you that the phrasing and style of ch. 21 is different from the rest of the book because you are reading an English translation. In the original Greek there are numerous signs in terms of vocabulary choice and grammatical differences that may indicate another hand. Third, the author of this chapter even seems to distinguish himself from the Beloved Disciple who he claims is the author of the gospel as a whole. After reporting the erroneous tradition that the Beloved Disciple would not die, the author writes: "This disciple is the one who vouches for these things and has written them down, and we know (oidamen) that his testimony is true" (v. 24). Note that the "we" here includes the "I" (oimai "I suppose") of v. 25, i.e. the author of this passage, but excludes the "he" (autou "of him", i.e. the Beloved Disciple who is the authority behind the gospel who "wrote it down"). The "we" would thus be understood as the people responsible for the publication of the gospel or otherwise involved in its redaction who placed their imprimatur in v. 24 testifying to the truthfulness of the Beloved Disciple's testimony.
The pericope about the Beloved Disciple in v. 20-23 also "reflects consternation that the Beloved Disciple has died even though Jesus has not yet returned" (Allison 1996:114), and treats as a "rumor" the positive prediction earlier given in Mark 9:1 and 10:35-40 (the former text claims that some disciples would not die until the "coming" and the latter text concerns the fate of John son of Zebedee). According to Papias, the gospel of Mark was associated in the early second century with the testimony of Peter and interestingly, John 21:20-24 asserts that (1) the misunderstanding about the Beloved Disciple's death rests on what Jesus told Peter and (2) the testimony of the Beloved Disciple is accurate and true.
A fourth argument is that ch. 21 has a different theological perspective than the rest of the gospel. PE Spencer (Journal for the Study of the New Testament, vol. 75, 1999) has recently published a study that explores this issue and concludes that this chapter is an exegetical re-reading of John that further develops the meaning of themes earlier in the gospel. And if the new Coptic MS evidence can be judged to indicate that an early edition of John circulated without ch. 21 (and this judgment must wait until Schenke's article appears), then there may also be textual evidence as well.
Note that the evidence does not establish the secondary status of ch. 21 as strongly as, say, in the case of 7:53-8:11 which is widely omitted in early manuscripts (i.e. all unicals aside from the Codex Bezae, all Coptic and Syriac manuscripts, etc.), floats around in different locations in other manuscripts (some place it at the end of the gospel as a second appendix, another places it after John 7:36, another even puts it after Luke 21:38, in an entirely different gospel), and which also clearly has non-Johannine style and vocabulary. Moreover, the present pericope de adultera was not mentioned by any Greek-speaking church father before AD 1118 (when Euthymius Zygadenus mentioned it as missing in all accurate copies of the gospel), aside from other versions mentioned by Didymus the Blind and Eusebius, who attribute the story not to John but to Papias and apocryphal gospels. So I would not claim that the interpolative status of ch. 21 is more than a "probability" but is still in my judgment a good probability.
In this connection, a final comment concerns your comparison of the text of John with your modern-day experience of writing, when the two situations are really quite different. What this comparison overlooks, among other things, is the phenomena of textual transmission in which accretions occur as a matter of course. There are examples such as the new ending to Job in the LXX, the interpolations into Esther and Daniel in the LXX, the various endings to Mark in the manuscript tradition, the many interpolations into the epistles of Ignatius, etc. In light of this phenomenon and the fact that the manuscript tradition rarely attests the early stages of transmission, the possibility of accretion should probably be given more of the benefit of the doubt when there is otherevidence indicating it as a possibility.
-
Leolaia
lets say this text was an addition, are you bringing this out to disprove the bible and say it is not from God, or is there another thing this may show?
Well, the pericope de adultera shows the messiness of textual transmission and the fact that there were a larger body of stories about Jesus that circulated in the first and second centuries, only a portion of which have survived today (cf. the Egerton Gospel fragment and POxy 840). I for one am glad that this story survived, even tho it probably did not originate with John, for it is probably one of the most beautiful and inspirational stories of the Jesuine tradition. I don't think its uncertain status should affect its didactic value, which is intrinsic to the story itself.
-
lovelylil
Leolaia,
Thank you for all your comments. I have a different perspective in some ways on this verse now. It does not change my overall view of God or the bible but in some ways has broadened my view of the NT. And I personally believe it is always good to broaden our views. That is why I like to question others on what they think, where they get their information and so forth. I hope you don't think I was trying to be arguementative or flip with you or anything like that. I really am interested in your views as the information you give is very interesting and you have done much to help me widen out in my faith. Thank you again for all the time you took in your very detailed explanation.
Hope you are having a good day today! Lilly
-
peacefulpete
Your disposition is lovely...Lilly. Even if few ever actually live the adage it is good advice, "Make sure of all things".
Just to add a word about the results of redaction. Sometimes the editors were highly skilled and left us little to recognize their work. I say sometimes but of course if they did a very good job we don't know about it. So thank goodness for clumsiness. For example notice in john 13:36
36 Simon Peter said to Him, "Lord, where are You going?" Jesus answered, " (BB) Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but (BC) you will follow later."
Yet 16:5
5 "But now (I) I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, ' (J) Where are You going?'
Oops