|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: John 21.23
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
"So the rumour spread in the community that this disciple would not die."
I don't much like this translation. I'd prefer:
"So the word went out to the brethren that this disciple was not to die."
Conspiracy theory? Of course it is. But it does seem very odd to me that this mighty word LOGOS, intoned with great pomp at the beginning of the gospel - the WORD - God himself - the WORD that became flesh - has suddenly become nothing more than a rumour.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I don't get what you're saying about Jesus.
The incident you refer to is a rumour that spread amongst the disciples that the disciple Jesus loved, popularly assumed to be John, would not die before Christ's return.
This on the basis of a misinterpretation of a rhetorical question on the part of Jesus to Peter in v22: "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
John goes on, rather laboriously, to correct this misapprehension in the end of v23.
Many years ago I used this text as a starting-point for a talk at a pastors' fraternal about the importance of checking sensational second-hand testimonies with the original source. It didn't go down too well.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Host hat on
Here is the text of John 21:21-23. quote:
When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, what about him?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!’ So the rumour spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’
When you cite a Bible passage, please give the text or a link.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
What's actually being translated here? Is it in fact logos, or another word for which "word" is a possible translation, but so is "rumour"? Word-for-word translation is very rare, and so is this always leading to the translation of a word in one language by another single word in another language. Therefore clarity about this is essential for the debate to be real. Sorry, I don't know any Greek so can't answer my own question.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The word is "logos", but I don't think that's very relevant.
If in English one says "word has it" then one understands that this "word" is an unconfirmed report, i.e. a rumour.
I can't see any way this "logos" in John 21:23 can be confused with the word "logos" being used to refer to Jesus in, say the Prologue to John's gospel.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Surely, pimple, the force of "The Word" in John's theology is precisely because it is the same - er - word as "word" in everyday speech. Jesus is God's Word - when he speaks it is creatively and authentically so. Less so when we do it.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I still don't get it. The structure of the sentence makes it indubitably plain that the "word" among the disciples in John 21.23 is that the disciple Jesus loved wouldn't die. It says nothing at all about Jesus.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
As ever, context is important. The word 'Kyrios' for example, is used to describe Jesus as 'Lord' even to the point where the context implies he is 'the LORD' in the sense of 'YHWH', as used in the LXX OT. But 'Kyrios' can also sometimes just mean the polite "Sir" even when it is applied to Jesus himself. Context decides which is meant.
In John 21 the reference is clearly not to Jesus as 'THE Word' but simply to a 'word' that went out in the church as a result of people misunderstanding Jesus' words to Peter. (YES, I know it says 'ho logos/the word' but Greek uses articles in a different way to English - often for example referring to Jesus as 'ho Iesous/the Jesus'; in English terms the context in John 21 makes that 'ho' relatively weak rather than an emphatic "THE").
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I still don't get it. The structure of the sentence makes it indubitably plain that the "word" among the disciples in John 21.23 is that the disciple Jesus loved wouldn't die. It says nothing at all about Jesus.
Nor, essentially, did my post. My argument is with the translation of LOGOS as "rumour". This is an ingenuous paraphrase, to hide the sinister implication of "the word went out to the brethren..." That is, as an injunction, not a prophesy, which sounds more like Jesus is (mis)heard as saying "This disciple is not to die", not "This disciple will not die.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
My argument is with the translation of LOGOS as "rumour".
λογος was a commonly used word with various meanings. When it acquired a theological meaning, it kept all its old meanings.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
My argument is with the translation of LOGOS as "rumour".
λογος was a commonly used word with various meanings. When it acquired a theological meaning, it kept all its old meanings.
Moo
It does not follow from this that you can choose any of them you please to translate λογος in any particular context.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
No, but 'rumor' fits the context better than the other meanings.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I'm with Moo here - context decides. As I pointed out above, in different contexts the word 'ho Kyrios' may either identify Jesus as Yahweh or simply address him politely as 'Sir'. In some contexts the word 'Logos' means Jesus is the incarnation of a Person of the Trinity - in other cases it just means 'word'. John 21; 23 is a case where it pretty much just means 'word'.
In this case the 'word' Jesus spoke was invested by some with a significance he never intended; and John, who was there, has made clear in a kind of 'appendix' to the main body of the gospel (which ends with Thomas' confession of Jesus as 'Lord and God' in ch 20) that this interpretation is wrong. To translate this situation as 'a (false) rumour spread...' seems quite reasonable. The literal translation as 'word' is ambiguous in English.
Yes, literally, 'the word got out'; but the word that got out was a misunderstanding with potential to do mischief - the English word for that kind of 'word' is 'rumour'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, literally, 'the word got out'; but the word that got out was a misunderstanding with potential to do mischief - the English word for that kind of 'word' is 'rumour'.
"Rumour" does not imply potential to do mischief. It doesn't even imply misunderstanding. It just implies unreliable or of dubious origin.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
"rumour", "report", "saying", "word", "story". All appear in various translations.Take your pick.
(The Vulgate has "sermo", for which my Latin dictionary gives, as well as the above, "conversation", "talk", "learned discussion", and more. As a translation of "logos" into Latin, then why not "verbum" here, as in John 1.1?)
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
"rumour", "report", "saying", "word", "story". All appear in various translations.Take your pick.
No. You don't get to take your pick. Those don't all mean the same thing in English, and therefore you can't use them indiscriminately. The translator has to determine from context which of them most closely translates the concept conveyed by the original in the original language.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
So how do I, with no adequate knowledge of the original language, pick between the diverse translations?
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Context is all. And the context here is devilish difficult. We can reasonably assume that the Beloved Disciple is dead. But not when or how or why. And we really do not know for sure who he/she was.
The context generally understood by Christians is that when Peter blurted out "What about him ?" he was referring to the Beloved Disciple.
And that the question was in answer not to what Jesus said (a terse rebuke of the hothead) but to what the evangelist tells us he [meant[/I] - a glosss I find difficult to accept.
But neither parts of that generally accepted context are inarguable.
To use that awful Facebook phrase, I do not "like" Peter, but both he and those he had dealings with deserve an empathetic hearing. Why did Peter make the mistakes he did? Jesus does not condemn him. But in this interview, he uses the formal appellation "Simon, son of John" rather than the friendly "Cephas". I think he does this for two reasons, to let Peter know who is still boss, and to slow down the dialogue, which is getting Peter overheated.
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
If I understand this thread correctly, you are arguing that John's use of the word "logos" here refers to Jesus issuing an authoritative directive ("Don't put this man John to death!") rather than simply "the word got out," as we would say it in English.
I'm sorry, but you can't do that. You may not ignore context and insist on loading a very common word (logos) with all of the theological freight it carries in John 1 (for example) now that it is occurring in a wholly different context with no textual support whatsoever for any such freight. Indeed, if anything, the context of THIS usage of logos is that "the word went out"--not that Jesus sent it out, but that it more or less escaped, dispersed, was rumored, was overheard--and it is immediately contradicted by John (the person most concerned) both with regard to its content and as to whether Jesus said it at all. Nope. "Rumor" is the best translation for it.
Really, can't you give poor Peter a rest? Making him out to be a potential murderer such that Jesus has to issue a word-of-command protecting his potential victim John--sheesh.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
"So the rumour spread in the community that this disciple would not die."
I don't much like this translation. I'd prefer:
"So the word went out to the brethren that this disciple was not to die."
Conspiracy theory? Of course it is. But it does seem very odd to me that this mighty word LOGOS, intoned with great pomp at the beginning of the gospel - the WORD - God himself - the WORD that became flesh - has suddenly become nothing more than a rumour.
So I've gone back to the original post to just double check.
In the original of John 21; 23, according to my 'interlinear' version, which puts the English text word for word under the Greek, the literal translation is
quote:
Went forth therefore this word to the brothers that disciple that does not die
"disciple that" just reflects that Greek often puts words the opposite way to our convention - so it's "...that that disciple does not die".
In other words some people took Jesus'
quote:
"If it is my will that he remain until I come..."
as a statement that this actually was Jesus' will, and that John would not die before the second coming; and this idea grew sufficiently to cause confusion in the Church. John, who actually witnessed the original statement, adds in effect a postscript to the main gospel to correct this misapprehension.
As regards the use of the word 'logos' it is of course the regular Greek word for 'word' and no doubt acquired a few extra meanings in different contexts; it is for example the root of the '-logy' part of words like 'biology', 'theology' etc - that is, the academic disciplines are 'words about' life, God, etc.
In Jewish context the Scriptures as Word of God would be the 'logos' of God - using the ordinary term but with the overtone that we represent by giving it, in that context, that capital letter. In another context (philosophical and also I think what would eventually become 'Gnosticism) 'ho Logos' came to mean something like "The Divine Reason" (again a usage that has continued into modern English with our words 'logic, logical' etc).
John at the start of the Gospel uses both these ideas to describe Jesus - He is the "Word of God" in the sense of an embodied/incarnated communication from God, and he is "the Divine Reason" within God. In other words, John takes two specialised usages of the word 'logos' and combines them to explain who Jesus is, including that as "Word" he actually is God.
Elsewhere in the NT, logos carries its ordinary meaning of 'word'; often it clearly means 'The Word of God', on other occasions applied to things Jesus says, it seems to carry a bit of an overtone of 'this authoritative word I (Jesus) am giving you'. But Young's Concordance tells me that on various occasions the KJV translators decided from the context to translate as
account, cause, communication, doctrine, game, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, rumour, saying ( the most frequent ), shew, speech, talk, thing, tidings, treatise, utterance
'Rumour' is in the saying 'ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars', and also in Luke 7;17 where a 'rumour' about Jesus spreads through the land.
It seems reasonable to suppose that 'logos' would, depending on context, carry a similar range of meaning in everyday Greek outside scriptural use as well.
In other words, just as 'kyrios' could not only be the Septuagint translation of YHWH, but also mean a merely human lord or just a polite 'Sir' to a respected but not actually aristocratic person, logos has a range of meanings and the appropriate meaning is decided by context.
In John 21; 23, the context is a 'word' that spread widely in the Church but was based on a misunderstanding. KJV translated it as a 'saying' - but 'rumour' also seems fair enough in the circumstances.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
So how do I, with no adequate knowledge of the original language, pick between the diverse translations?
I'm not sure you can, in the sense of use knowledge of the originals to inform your choice. Choice clearly has to be made on some other grounds. Largely what has been written about the translations by competent scholars (professional or amateur), I should think, with an eye to which scholars you find more competent than others.
===================
I wonder if we have to translate "word" here at all, if we're trying to get at the meaning of what is being said. I propose, "Some of the brethren started saying..."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If I understand this thread correctly, you are arguing that John's use of the word "logos" here refers to Jesus issuing an authoritative directive ("Don't put this man John to death!") rather than simply "the word got out," as we would say it in English.
I'm sorry, but you can't do that. You may not ignore context and insist on loading a very common word (logos) with all of the theological freight it carries in John 1 (for example) now that it is occurring in a wholly different context with no textual support whatsoever for any such freight. Indeed, if anything, the context of THIS usage of logos is that "the word went out"--not that Jesus sent it out, but that it more or less escaped, dispersed, was rumored, was overheard--and it is immediately contradicted by John (the person most concerned) both with regard to its content and as to whether Jesus said it at all. Nope. "Rumor" is the best translation for it.
Really, can't you give poor Peter a rest? Making him out to be a potential murderer such that Jesus has to issue a word-of-command protecting his potential victim John--sheesh.
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Oops! Premature something-or-other. You do not understand the thread correctly. But that's not necessarily your fault. When I said it was a conspiracy theory I was just anticipating your reply. It's no where near complete enough for a theory, just an observation on several uncomfortable "things that may not be thought".
The context is there - but if it were obvious, someone far cleverer than me would have pointed it out centuries ago - and got burnt at the stake for her troubles!
Where, please, do I call Peter a murderer?
Where do I suggest that Jesus was telling Peter not to murder the Beloved Disciple?
I say what I think, but I don't think you think before you jump to conclusions about what I think.
I'm no good at exegesis and I'm no theologian, but I think the bible - and John's gospel in particular, is full of interesting possibilities.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
P.S Yes of course I should be kinder to Peter. Certainly kinder than he was to some of his contemporaries. Mea culpa.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
"So the rumour spread in the community that this disciple would not die."
I don't much like this translation. I'd prefer:
"So the word went out to the brethren that this disciple was not to die."
Conspiracy theory? Of course it is. But it does seem very odd to me that this mighty word LOGOS, intoned with great pomp at the beginning of the gospel - the WORD - God himself - the WORD that became flesh - has suddenly become nothing more than a rumour.
So I've gone back to the original post to just double check.
In the original of John 21; 23, according to my 'interlinear' version, which puts the English text word for word under the Greek, the literal translation is
quote:
Went forth therefore this word to the brothers that disciple that does not die
"disciple that" just reflects that Greek often puts words the opposite way to our convention - so it's "...that that disciple does not die".
In other words some people took Jesus'
quote:
"If it is my will that he remain until I come..."
as a statement that this actually was Jesus' will, and that John would not die before the second coming; and this idea grew sufficiently to cause confusion in the Church. John, who actually witnessed the original statement, adds in effect a postscript to the main gospel to correct this misapprehension.
As regards the use of the word 'logos' it is of course the regular Greek word for 'word' and no doubt acquired a few extra meanings in different contexts; it is for example the root of the '-logy' part of words like 'biology', 'theology' etc - that is, the academic disciplines are 'words about' life, God, etc.
In Jewish context the Scriptures as Word of God would be the 'logos' of God - using the ordinary term but with the overtone that we represent by giving it, in that context, that capital letter. In another context (philosophical and also I think what would eventually become 'Gnosticism) 'ho Logos' came to mean something like "The Divine Reason" (again a usage that has continued into modern English with our words 'logic, logical' etc).
John at the start of the Gospel uses both these ideas to describe Jesus - He is the "Word of God" in the sense of an embodied/incarnated communication from God, and he is "the Divine Reason" within God. In other words, John takes two specialised usages of the word 'logos' and combines them to explain who Jesus is, including that as "Word" he actually is God.
Elsewhere in the NT, logos carries its ordinary meaning of 'word'; often it clearly means 'The Word of God', on other occasions applied to things Jesus says, it seems to carry a bit of an overtone of 'this authoritative word I (Jesus) am giving you'. But Young's Concordance tells me that on various occasions the KJV translators decided from the context to translate as
account, cause, communication, doctrine, game, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, rumour, saying ( the most frequent ), shew, speech, talk, thing, tidings, treatise, utterance
'Rumour' is in the saying 'ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars', and also in Luke 7;17 where a 'rumour' about Jesus spreads through the land.
It seems reasonable to suppose that 'logos' would, depending on context, carry a similar range of meaning in everyday Greek outside scriptural use as well.
In other words, just as 'kyrios' could not only be the Septuagint translation of YHWH, but also mean a merely human lord or just a polite 'Sir' to a respected but not actually aristocratic person, logos has a range of meanings and the appropriate meaning is decided by context.
In John 21; 23, the context is a 'word' that spread widely in the Church but was based on a misunderstanding. KJV translated it as a 'saying' - but 'rumour' also seems fair enough in the circumstances.
Good. Back to basics! We know (we think) what the brethren thought Jesus meant. And it's pretty clear from the context that they were wrong, because the Beloved Disciple is dead (Ah, now that also is arguable. I have always thought that by the time John's gospel was finished, both Peter and the Beloved Disciple were dead. Of course this cannot be so of the Beloved Disciple himself wrote the gospel, including chapter 21. But that would make John's explanation "he Jesus) said this to show in what way he (Peter) would die" distinctly odd. It would imply that the Beloved Disciple himself knew in advance how Peter would die. Doesn't it?
Well I can see how all that last paragraph could be rubbished but the point I'm taking so long to get at is this:
What
did Jesus mean by his "If it be mu will..." and why did he say it? I've alreasdy heard some fatuous answers to this, on the lines of it being an unimportant off-the-cuff remark, but I credit you with more intelligence.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
We know (we think) what the brethren thought Jesus meant.
We know without a shadow of doubt what they thought he meant according to the text. That's good enough for me here. quote:
And it's pretty clear from the context that they were wrong, because the Beloved Disciple is dead
It's also what the text says: Jesus did not say or mean that the Beloved Disciple would never die. If John is the Beloved Disciple, he can correct this misapprehension on the basis of first-hand understanding of what Jesus meant.
He doesn't have to prove it by dying; he simply has to state, as he does, that Jesus never said, or implied, that the Beloved Disciple would never die. quote:
that would make John's explanation "he Jesus) said this to show in what way he (Peter) would die" distinctly odd. It would imply that the Beloved Disciple himself knew in advance how Peter would die. Doesn't it?
I had always assumed, naively perhaps, that by the time this gospel was written Peter had died, but not its author, presumed to be John.
And whoever the author is, Peter simply needs to be dead by the time the gospel is written for this observation/interpretation not to require any special predictive powers, because it would be after the fact.
quote:
the point I'm taking so long to get at is this:
This is indeed a very different point from what I now understand your OP to be about, which is whether translating "logos" as "rumour" here somehow impugns Jesus' reputation as being the Logos™...
quote:
What
did Jesus mean by his "If it be mu will..." and why did he say it? I've alreasdy heard some fatuous answers to this, on the lines of it being an unimportant off-the-cuff remark, but I credit you with more intelligence.
It has always seemed to me that Peter was uncomfortable with the situation and trying to shift the attention away from himself to the Beloved Disciple (always easier to speculate on others' fate than our own).
The thrust of Jesus' response is "that's irrelevant, back on topic, it's up to you what you do with your life".
I think other passages show Jesus is not above a little irony, or hypotheticals, and that taking his remark about "if I want him to..." as a rhetorical device is not inconsistent with other declarations.
"Find them something to eat yourselves" seems to be in a similar register, as does "I could call down twelve legions of angels...".
I think you are seeing hidden meanings where, as far as I'm concerned at least, simple ones explain the whole of this exchange quite adequately.
And provide the added bonus of a nice application: always check your sources, especially for fantastical claims.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Oops! Premature something-or-other. You do not understand the thread correctly. But that's not necessarily your fault. When I said it was a conspiracy theory I was just anticipating your reply. It's no where near complete enough for a theory, just an observation on several uncomfortable "things that may not be thought".
The context is there - but if it were obvious, someone far cleverer than me would have pointed it out centuries ago - and got burnt at the stake for her troubles!
Where, please, do I call Peter a murderer?
Where do I suggest that Jesus was telling Peter not to murder the Beloved Disciple?
I say what I think, but I don't think you think before you jump to conclusions about what I think.
I'm no good at exegesis and I'm no theologian, but I think the bible - and John's gospel in particular, is full of interesting possibilities.
I'm with Lamb here-- completely confused by what you're trying to say or argue for or wonder about-- in this thread in general or in the above post in particular. Your "I say what I think, but I don't think you think before you jump to conclusions about what I think"-- while somewhat reminiscent of Jesus' more cryptic sayings-- is so tangled with negatives and ambiguities it only muddies the already thoroughly muddy waters.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It has always seemed to me that Peter was uncomfortable with the situation and trying to shift the attention away from himself to the Beloved Disciple (always easier to speculate on others' fate than our own).
The thrust of Jesus' response is "that's irrelevant, back on topic, it's up to you what you do with your life".
My thoughts as well. It fits very well the context, coming as it does immediately after a rather cryptic but ominous prophesy of the way Peter would die, "... they will bind you and take you where you do not want to go..." I think many of us, including, yes, a rather, outspoken, impulsive guy like Peter*, might want to complain at this point, "Really, Jesus? I get to suffer this fate? What about your favorite over there-- does he also get taken away to some scary-but-unnamed place?" And Jesus rightly knocks him down a peg, as he does all of us when we take our eyes off the path we're on and start speculating about others'.
The context also sounds to me like John was getting a bit of blowback from the rumor, egged on perhaps by the fact that John is by now fairly old for ancient lifespans and I'm guessing most or all of the other 12 are now deceased. Hence the need for this parenthetical statement to squash what may have become a troublesome rumor.
* my mental picture of Peter is of one of those enormous fluffy dogs that is always bounding into a room full of energy, unable to contain his excitement to see his friends, jumping up on everybody and slobbering big sloppy kisses-- meanwhile knocking over all the lamps and tables and a plate of delicious sushi.
[ 08. September 2016, 23:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by pimple;
quote:
Good. Back to basics! We know (we think) what the brethren thought Jesus meant. And it's pretty clear from the context that they were wrong, because the Beloved Disciple is dead (Ah, now that also is arguable. I have always thought that by the time John's gospel was finished, both Peter and the Beloved Disciple were dead. Of course this cannot be so of the Beloved Disciple himself wrote the gospel, including chapter 21. But that would make John's explanation "he Jesus) said this to show in what way he (Peter) would die" distinctly odd. It would imply that the Beloved Disciple himself knew in advance how Peter would die. Doesn't it? Well I can see how all that last paragraph could be rubbished but the point I'm taking so long to get at is this: What did Jesus mean by his "If it be my will..." and why did he say it? I've already heard some fatuous answers to this, on the lines of it being an unimportant off-the-cuff remark, but I credit you with more intelligence.
The exact circumstances of John's gospel are a bit unclear. As I understand it, if John wrote the Apocalypse/Revelation (which I know some would dispute...), then the Gospel is in a higher quality Greek and probably NOT actually penned by the same person as the Revelation.
My broad view is that the Gospel has John as its source providing both the historical account and occasional meditations on the meaning of the events - but the actual writing has been done by a secretary/collaborator in a Greek style slightly different to John's own.
Where Mark, for example, appears to be simply recording as much as he could remember of his knowledge of Jesus' life, with probably Peter as his main source since Mark seems to have spent some time as Peter's secretary, John's Gospel is rather more 'intentional/deliberate' and a bit more artistically designed and composed, starting with a deliberate intention to supplement the already existing 'synoptic' gospels. It is almost certainly 'compiled' shall we say, after Peter's death with Mark's gospel also probably issued after that event to make Peter's teaching/memories available in writing when Peter could no longer personally go round telling everybody.
The 'climax' of the Gospel is Thomas' confession of Jesus as "My Lord and my God" in ch20. Ch21 is in effect an appendix, again sourced by/from John. The straightforward interpretation is that the 'word/saying/rumour' in John 21; 23 had become comparatively widely known and as John aged, the idea that he would live until the Second Coming became common and it was felt necessary to correct the misunderstanding.
So ch 21 is effectively an appendix to the Gospel, authoritatively retelling this widely known incident to make clear the popular misunderstanding. It's penned by the same secretary/collaborator as the main Gospel, and in the same style. I can't tell you for sure whether it is written/published before or after John's death.
I think I agree with Eutychus about the implication of the original word/saying from Jesus - Peter has been told something relevant to himself, he asks "What about John?", and Jesus says, in effect, "None of your business!"
Because as probably the youngest of the 'Twelve' John considerably outlived the others, the 'rumour/misunderstanding' that he would live till the Second Coming acquired some plausibility - John and his associates felt it necessary to issue a correction. Anything beyond that would appear to be speculation....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If I understand this thread correctly, you are arguing that John's use of the word "logos" here refers to Jesus issuing an authoritative directive ("Don't put this man John to death!") rather than simply "the word got out," as we would say it in English.
I'm sorry, but you can't do that. You may not ignore context and insist on loading a very common word (logos) with all of the theological freight it carries in John 1 (for example) now that it is occurring in a wholly different context with no textual support whatsoever for any such freight. Indeed, if anything, the context of THIS usage of logos is that "the word went out"--not that Jesus sent it out, but that it more or less escaped, dispersed, was rumored, was overheard--and it is immediately contradicted by John (the person most concerned) both with regard to its content and as to whether Jesus said it at all. Nope. "Rumor" is the best translation for it.
Really, can't you give poor Peter a rest? Making him out to be a potential murderer such that Jesus has to issue a word-of-command protecting his potential victim John--sheesh.
What?!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If I understand this thread correctly, you are arguing that John's use of the word "logos" here refers to Jesus issuing an authoritative directive ("Don't put this man John to death!") rather than simply "the word got out," as we would say it in English.
I'm sorry, but you can't do that. You may not ignore context and insist on loading a very common word (logos) with all of the theological freight it carries in John 1 (for example) now that it is occurring in a wholly different context with no textual support whatsoever for any such freight. Indeed, if anything, the context of THIS usage of logos is that "the word went out"--not that Jesus sent it out, but that it more or less escaped, dispersed, was rumored, was overheard--and it is immediately contradicted by John (the person most concerned) both with regard to its content and as to whether Jesus said it at all. Nope. "Rumor" is the best translation for it.
Really, can't you give poor Peter a rest? Making him out to be a potential murderer such that Jesus has to issue a word-of-command protecting his potential victim John--sheesh.
What?!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Many of the above replies are consistent enough with their own a priori premises. But two of them - that John son of Zebedee was the author of the fourth gospel and also the so-called Beloved Disciple - are both arguable and not universally accepted by far more theologically competent people than me.
When I say "So-called" I mean so-called by the church. Nowhere in the gospel is he thus described. "That disciple whom Jesus loved" means exactly what it says and does not preclude the possibility of not being loved by one or more of The Twelve, who on biblical evidence were an argumentative and power hungry lot - some of them!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
All true to a greater or lesser degree, as I suspect most on this thread are aware. But not really the point. And sometimes it's just easier to say "John" or "Paul" or whatever and get on with your point rather than go off on some speculative tangent re authorship when that's not central to the OP
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye cliffdweller, common sense on tradition. The forensic truth is forever out of reach.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All true to a greater or lesser degree, as I suspect most on this thread are aware. But not really the point. And sometimes it's just easier to say "John" or "Paul" or whatever and get on with your point rather than go off on some speculative tangent re authorship when that's not central to the OP
Yes, it's convenient to refer to the texts by their attributed titles without necessarily implying that the attributions correctly identify the actual authors. But it does make a difference in this discussion whether you suppose that the Beloved Disciple and the author of the Gospel is the same person or not. If they are the same, it places the (unusually aged) author's references to predictions about his own death and reasons for mentioning them into a very different context than if the gospel was written by someone else after the Beloved Disciple's unexpected death -- which might in turn have cast doubt on other premises of faith. (My own supposition is that the Beloved Disciple is not the author.)
It makes sense to me that the word logos has many different connotations in Greek, just as "word" does in English, and I don't see any reason to suppose that the author (whoever he was) would always have used it to convey only one of those meanings consistently every time. I trust the consensus of the translators as well as the context of the surrounding narrative that the meaning here is something closer to "rumor" or "idea" or "notion" or "message" or "saying" than the logos of Greek philosophy invoked in the Prologue, which was generally understood to be the eternal, pre-existent, omnipresent, all-pervasive fundamental organizing principle of the universe.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
