The Gospel of John certainly had a complex (pre-)history, but chapter 21 (coming after a first conclusion to "the book" addressed to the readers/hearers in 2nd person plural, 20:30f) is very clearly one of the latest additions to it, dealing with problems of a later age (especially the relationship between Peter and the Beloved Disciple as representatives of concurrent traditions within the church, beyond the death of both figures) and calling for another conclusion (in the 1st person plural this time). At the previous stage (which was definitely not the first either), Thomas' confession (and Jesus' response) ended the book.
Narkissos
JoinedPosts by Narkissos
-
40
"My God and My Lord" Ps. 35:23 - Need OT version
by jonathan dough inwhen thomas said "my lord and my god," he used the exact words that david used at psalm 35:23 with reference to god, writing, "awake, be vigilant in my defense, in my cause, my god and my lord," (rsv, nab, kjv and green's literal translation).
"lord" here is translated from the hebrew adonai used exclusively of god.
thomas would never have used these same words when addressing the risen christ if he were just a man.
-
-
-
11
Simon Peter and the Keys of the Kingdom
by sd-7 inyes, the title is an intentional indiana jones joke.
anyway, so i was reading the new book, 'bearing thorough witness etc.
', and they mentioned an often-used doctrine in the borg--the belief that peter was given 3 keys to the kingdom.
-
-
Narkissos
Wobble,
"Loose and bind" are a quasi-technical expression in rabbinical Judaism for judicial / disciplinary, and by extension legislative / casuistic authority, with the sense of "absolve and condemn" or "allow and forbid" respectively. But associated with the "kingdom of heavens" a sense of allowing or forbidding access (i.e. salvation) is quite likely. The privilege/responsibility of loosing and binding is extended to the apostles in 18:18 (cf. John 20:23).
Another interesting parallel in the context of Matthew is found in 23:13: "woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock (kleiô, from which kleis, "key" is derived) people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them." (The Lukan parallel, 11:52, as well as Thomas 39, mention the "key of knowledge".) Cf. also "the door was locked" in 25:10.
-
11
Simon Peter and the Keys of the Kingdom
by sd-7 inyes, the title is an intentional indiana jones joke.
anyway, so i was reading the new book, 'bearing thorough witness etc.
', and they mentioned an often-used doctrine in the borg--the belief that peter was given 3 keys to the kingdom.
-
-
Narkissos
The plural can be indefinite (as in "give me the keys", lol), and I would certainly not look for an allegorical/prophetic application of this Matthean expression in (two or three) episodes in the book of Acts. The phrase is vaguely reminiscent of Isaiah 22:22 but the key (maphteach, from ptch "open") is singular there (as in the clearer allusions to this text in Revelation 1:18; 3:7), and the metaphor is lost in the LXX ("I will give him the glory of David"). It is a symbol of authority, and the book of Acts emphasises Peter's authority in many circumstances, but I would not press the connection further.
-
40
"My God and My Lord" Ps. 35:23 - Need OT version
by jonathan dough inwhen thomas said "my lord and my god," he used the exact words that david used at psalm 35:23 with reference to god, writing, "awake, be vigilant in my defense, in my cause, my god and my lord," (rsv, nab, kjv and green's literal translation).
"lord" here is translated from the hebrew adonai used exclusively of god.
thomas would never have used these same words when addressing the risen christ if he were just a man.
-
-
Narkissos
PS,
The vocative (kurie) is the normal case for the address in direct discourse, how you call somebody when you talk to him/her (think kyrie eleison, "Lord, have mercy"). Kurios (as found in John 20:28) is the nominative case, used when the word is subject of any verb or predicate of a verb of state (e.g. kurios estin, he is lord), but it also frequently substitutes the vocative in koinè Greek. However, it's quite possible that the use of the nominative in John 20:28 (unusual with vocative function for kurios in a narrative, as Leolaia pointed out) adds a solemn, almost liturgical ring to the pronouncement, which would suit both a reminiscence from Psalms and the climactic position of the final confession in the Gospel (at least in version 2.1.0
). Cf. a similar use of the nominative with vocative function in the liturgies of Revelation (4:11, axiôs ei, ho kurios kai ho theos hèmôn...).A possible parallel for the nominative, though, can be found in John 13:13, humeis phoneite me ho didaskalos kai ho kurios, which must stand for a vocative in direct discourse (an object predicate would normally be accusative and anarthrous), "you call me 'Teacher!' and 'Lord!'" (rather than "you call me teacher and Lord").
-
14
How long until religion is no more?
by lifelong humanist inwhat do you think - how long before all religion is no more?.
i live in rural scotland, a country that is probably still quite religious on the surface.
yet, i rarely come across anyone that is in the least bit religious.
-
-
Narkissos
When technology enables massively extended lifespans (sometime from around 2040) religion will have lost its last big sales feature
May I ask why?
How dying at 200 or 2,000 (while keeping each individual's ego intact, if not reinforced by a longer lifespan!) would pose less of a metaphysical or existential problem than dying at 30 or 80? What exactly would that change to my self-understanding and my relationship to the "Other" (what "I" never was, am not and will never be, at least on a purely phenomenal level)? This is precisely what religion has been increasingly about, and religious "answers" to this issue would be even more needed in your hypothesis.
-
80
Are we following men?
by jookbeard inschipper, you never answered the post's on your previous topic, and you go and open another topic, go back to your previous topic please.
-
-
Narkissos
Being influence-free (the perfect idiotic ideal maybe, at least by the etymology) is not a practical option; human culture is always acquired by "following men" (and women) at some point; whoever cannot be taught will never learn ("mathematics" derives from the same Greek verb as the word for "disciple": to learn).
The quality of one's education (and his/her ability to think "independently" to an extent) is related to the diversity of teachers and teachings s/he has been exposed to, directly or indirectly. This makes the difference between cult and culture.
-
40
"My God and My Lord" Ps. 35:23 - Need OT version
by jonathan dough inwhen thomas said "my lord and my god," he used the exact words that david used at psalm 35:23 with reference to god, writing, "awake, be vigilant in my defense, in my cause, my god and my lord," (rsv, nab, kjv and green's literal translation).
"lord" here is translated from the hebrew adonai used exclusively of god.
thomas would never have used these same words when addressing the risen christ if he were just a man.
-
-
Narkissos
JD:
What I meant to point out is that the WT did not really settle on any one "correct" exegesis of John 20:28; this itself is characteristic if you think of it. They are absolutely assertive about the one and only "correct" understanding of their own prooftexts (they would never admit, for instance, that the "other sheep" in John 10:16 could also refer to the Gentiles). But when it comes to "anti-prooftexts" so to say, i.e. texts they cannot argue from but have to explain away, they do not "lock" the interpretation.
This imo is useful tactics in several ways: (1) in the defensive part of a doctrinal discussion they appear less dogmatic, hence more "reasonable" than their adversaries; (2) the audience gets the (wrong) impression that several interpretive hypotheses among which they do not choose are somehow stronger than the one they oppose (a fallacy, since logically only one of them can be "right"); (3) it characteries the "anti-prooftexts" as difficult or obscure, and move them to the periphery of the debate (contrary to their prooftexts which they treat as if they were crystal-clear), even if they are actually climactic in the text (as is the case of John 20:28, especially when you consider that the book once ended there, whence the inclusio with 1:1).
The three interpretations of John 20:28 which the WT retains as possible without choosing between them are, in effect: (1) "Jesus, my lord! Jehovah, my God!" (an exclamation addressed to two distinct persons, which sounds overly farfetched even for a NWT reader); (2) "Jesus, my lord and my god" (in principle ruled out by the capitalisation of "God" in the NWT, but still mentioned as a possible explanation by WT literature); (3) "Jesus, my Lord and my God" implying that the Father (= Jehovah in WT doctrine) is addressed through Jesus (not besides Jesus as in option # 1).
Option # 3 is not that far from the Johannine perspective, especially as developed in 14:6ff:
Thomas (!) said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?" Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."
Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?N.B.: Jesus is not the Father but the Father is in Jesus, hence reached, known and seen through Jesus.
It is not at all impossible imo that the scene in chapter 20 portrays Thomas as finally "seeing" the Father (= God) in Jesus (whom he already addressed as Lord in chapter 14). This is an important nuance, which differs from both (neo-)Arian (including JW) and Trinitarian uses of this text.
[Unrelated detail, I'm nitpicking only because you come across as very assertive: it is fairly meaningless to say that "the Catholics regard verse 28 (not John 1:1) as "a literary inclusion with the first verse of the gospel: “and the Word was God” (NAB notes John 20, 28)". Catholic official dogma does not "lock" exegesis as your wording implies. Catholic scholars are largely free to discuss and disagree about the original meanings of particular texts, a fortiori broader literary consideration such as the inclusio structure (with which I agree in that particular case), even in books which are granted the official imprimatur, and the church is not officially committed to their views.]
-
164
My sister died in a head on collision last night
by Bumble Bee ini still can't believe it.
she was here for the bbq, we had an awesome time, laughing, her telling stories from our childhoods.
i gave her a hug and told her i loved her before she left.
-
-
-
40
"My God and My Lord" Ps. 35:23 - Need OT version
by jonathan dough inwhen thomas said "my lord and my god," he used the exact words that david used at psalm 35:23 with reference to god, writing, "awake, be vigilant in my defense, in my cause, my god and my lord," (rsv, nab, kjv and green's literal translation).
"lord" here is translated from the hebrew adonai used exclusively of god.
thomas would never have used these same words when addressing the risen christ if he were just a man.
-
-
-
40
"My God and My Lord" Ps. 35:23 - Need OT version
by jonathan dough inwhen thomas said "my lord and my god," he used the exact words that david used at psalm 35:23 with reference to god, writing, "awake, be vigilant in my defense, in my cause, my god and my lord," (rsv, nab, kjv and green's literal translation).
"lord" here is translated from the hebrew adonai used exclusively of god.
thomas would never have used these same words when addressing the risen christ if he were just a man.
-
-
