I have a jelly belly. This was the male ideal promulgated in our Life Be in it campaign in my childhood. The character, Norm, was always watching telly, smoking and drinking, and his wife was always trying to get him to even go for a walk. She was quite the fitness freak, with the ideal female body of the era in cartoon form.
I'm not being fair to those who are genuinely trying to engage with the OP, by remaining silent. So I'll cut to the chase. John 21:23 reads, in the Greek: "So this word went out to the brethren. that this disciple was not to die." This is turned into a craven lie - not by the evangelist, who was merely copying the witnessed document he was given, but by the modern translation of "This rumour spread among the brethren. ," It was not a rumour, it was an edict, probably sent out by James.
But the evangelist is embarrased by the common knowledge that the edict was ignored. Hence his weaseling excuse.
I'm not being fair to those who are genuinely trying to engage with the OP, by remaining silent. So I'll cut to the chase. John 21:23 reads, in the Greek: "So this word went out to the brethren. that this disciple was not to die." This is turned into a craven lie - not by the evangelist, who was merely copying the witnessed document he was given, but by the modern translation of "This rumour spread among the brethren. ," It was not a rumour, it was an edict, probably sent out by James.
But the evangelist is embarrased by the common knowledge that the edict was ignored. Hence his weaseling excuse.
No comprendo (I don't understand). An edict is a command. Nobody (well, Jesus, but no one else) can command someone to live and not die, and get the results they're commanding.
Oh, I get it now. You're misreading it as some sort of command not to kill him, right? The Greek is ἀποθνῄσκει, which means "he would not die". It's a subjunctive indicative, not an imperative of any sort. So you can NOT translate this either as "don't kill him" or as some sort of esoteric command to John himself, "Don't die if you know what's good for you." It's indicative. No edict of any sort.
Of course, exelthen can mean simply came or went out, and indeed, spread. But the default meaning - check its use in Revelation, Matthew, and elsewhere, is "went forth" with its old testament connotation of direction, purpose and immediacy. If you choose another translation, you need to justify it. And please don't, please, insult me by saying "context is all". The context here is one contrived by a church determined to preserve its traditional power base (especially via Peter -the man who almost certainly
got the revenge he was looking for when he said "HIM - WHAT?")
Um, can you please engage with the grammar of ἀποθνῄσκει? Because it doesn't matter two hoots in a holler what you think about exelthen if the content "that disciple would not die" is indicative. It's like saying, "This word went out to the brethren, that pistachio icecream is yummy."
You can't adequately define what a word in a source language (in this case, Greek) means by referring to idiomatic expressions in a target language (in this case, English).
And just because something can be understood as an imperative in the target language doesn't mean it can be in the source language, as @Lamb Chopped has pointed out.
And how can the English "went forth" used as a translation of NT Greek have an "Old Testament connotation"? The OT was written (mostly) in Hebrew, not English.
I think you'd do well to get some more Greek study. If you're just grabbing bits out of a book or off the internet, you're going to get hold of the wrong end of the stick more often than not. Languages don't work that way.
Eutychus, you're right. Clumsy of me. Lamb Chopped, the word-for-word translation in my old RSV interlinear has "Went forth therefore this word to the brothers that disciple that (i.e. that disciple)does not die". That doesn't sound like your subjunctive to me. Would "should not die" be a subjunctive?
I have to admit that I was going with my gut feeling here, and thought the Greek supported it, or even prompted it. But of course I could be wrong. That whole chapter bothers me, with the obvious (to me) subtext that this is not about reinstating the coward Peter so much as rehabilitating the unseemly treatment of the Beloved Disciple.
AGAIN so clumsy ! I mean about rehabilitating the shamefully treated Beloved Disciple - the guy who never got to be one of the Twelve, even after the death of Judas, who was there when Peter was not, who helped Peter after the arrest, who was given charge of Jesus' mother at the cross, who got there before Peter at the empty tomb, who recognised his master while Peter was still looking for fish (on the wrong side of the bloody boat - how typical!). What really angers me is that the disciple Jesus loved never once treated Peter with anything but - well, there again, we can't be sure, can we.
Honesty, perhaps. I sometimes wonder if the Q document was written by the disciple's amanuensis, and perhaps all those references which show the Twelve for the squabbling idiots they were got under Peter's skin.
I think I'm wandering off the point a bit. I'm 83, and I might not be here next week. And I'm a gardener, so its important to sow stuff, plant stuff, while I can. Before the bug or the world catches up with me, and turns all my gardens into carparks. De rien!
Before Eutychus goes for the jugular agin (down boy!) Peter didn't even give the disciple the courtesy of acknowledging him as a human being. He didn't say HIM - WHAT? but THAT ONE - WHAT? Triple posting is probably a planking offence.
Sorry sorry sorry that the gangway over there...?
Leaving the whole Peter thing aside for the moment...
This is my screw-up, actually. It's not subjunctive, it is indeed present indicative, and I need to go refresh my Greek grammar! But English rules of grammar require us to use "would" in this situation--we cannot properly say "that this disciple doesn't die"--that just comes off as ungrammatical and weird.
In any case, the point stands--this is NOT an edict, because an edict is a command, and there's no commanding here. It's a prediction, a rumor about the future... but no edict. And with that, I fear, your point falls to the ground. If I've understood it correctly.
Oh, I get it now. You're misreading it as some sort of command not to kill him, right? The Greek is ἀποθνῄσκει, which means "he would not die". It's a subjunctive indicative, not an imperative of any sort. So you can NOT translate this either as "don't kill him" or as some sort of esoteric command to John himself, "Don't die if you know what's good for you."
"What if I do? What are you going to do, kill me?"
I take your point, Lamb Chopped. But it's more a problem of usage, than grammar, I think. The message I'm hearing (through my cloth ears?) going out to the brethren is this:
"This disciple lives - understand? Leave him alone!" But reported speech in foreign languages is not something I'm an expert in.
Yes, we have met before. I morphed from chemincreux to pimple. I've come back as the ditch-dweller (or literally, the ditch!) Still the same old nuisance, probably. Pleased to meet you again.
@Chemincreux * does this mean the OP was not really about "forth" but actually about a fresh take on John 21:20-24?
If it does, then it looks to me as though you are trying to marshall 'innovative' translation to buttress a preconceived and elaborate idea about what the text means (that it was an attempt to reinstate John). That rarely works out well either.
Again, I'm not a Hellenist (although I am a linguist and translate for a living), but it seems to me that the text is a perfectly understandable attempt by John to correct a false rumour by explaining the detail of how it got started. Indeed, I've preached on that text more than once on that topic, including recently with respect to Christians' propensity to spread rumours, especially if they concern supernatural excitement, without checking the source. Why make it more complicated?
*Your French screen name doesn't mean 'ditch-dweller', it literally means 'hollow way', i.e. 'sunken lane'.
Eutychus - Who said anything about an attempt to reinstate John? And far from complicating matters, I'm trying to unravel them. The plain (though admittedly ptoblematic) text says "The word went out to the brethren, that this disciple (Not John) was not to die" (Using the already accepted default translation.) It is clear from the following verses that the disciple did die. It is also quite clear from the preceding verses what Jesus' wishes were. It is the evangelist who complicates matters with "But Jesus didn't say..." The so-called rumour was not that "Jesus said this disciple will not die." The evangelist is negating a non-existent belief, his own contrived Aunt Sally, and the modern translators are confusing matters even more by trying to make the whole passage fit their preconceived (and to my mind misguided) notion of what the passage is all about. Of course I am reading stuff into the story that is not literally there - just as the evangelist does )("He said this to show in what way he (Petetr) would die" - I'm quoting from memory here). Everybody does this except those who cheerfully believe that every word is clear, and to be understood literally, and that conversations in biblical times were rational and logical with nobody talking over his collocutor or butting in or making deliberate misunderstandings.
Er, where was I? Ah yes, on the hollow road
quite overcanopied with arching trees, but with lots of dappled sunshine and a strong ;ight at the end of the tunnel.
I still think you're reading far more into the English "went out" and "was not to die" than is there in the Greek.
Unless a Hellenist can demonstrate otherwise, I'm sure the verb translated by "went out" is unlikely to mean "was deliberately put about", and the phrase translated by "was not to die" does not carry with it any sense of instruction or command, even if it could be construed that way in English.
(In French, when asked about somebody's whereabouts, one can say Il ne doit pas être loin. This can be literally translated as "He must not be far away", which could be construed, in English, as "he is under orders not to stray far", but this sense is not supported by the French; the French for that would be il ne doit pas s'éloigner. What it actually means is "He can't be far away". It seems to me that you are mistranslating the Greek in similar fashion in an attempt to support your theory).
My take on the passage is that in response to Peter's attempt to divert the subject from his own shortcomings, Jesus made a hyperbolic remark: "John can live forever, sprout wings, fly up to heaven like an angel, who cares? The point at issue here is you, buddy". This comment was overheard by some excitable disciples ("wait, what, he said John would live forever?") and thus was a Christian conspiracy theory born. John attempts to correct this by explaining the context and the sense ("he didn't say he wouldn't die, he said 'even if he were not to die'"), perhaps unaware at that time of the Streisand effect.
This all makes perfect sense to me both in terms of the text and in terms of my own experience. No need to import any other speculation, least of all about Jesus supposed "wishes".
Eutychus, I was hoping that you were somebody I could do business with, so to speak. I still do. You are obviously a much more accomplished linguist than me. But look, friend, at your post above, where you describe Jesus making a hyperbolic remark, and then refer (somewhat dismissively?) to
Jesus' "supposed wishes". Are you honestly saying that the text gives no indication of what those wishes were? The "rumour" postulates that he was suggesting that his friend
should live forever. But this is John reading his current knowledge (of the disciple's - and Peter's) death back into his narrative, I think.
Suddenly, I think I'm beginning to understand why we are talking past each other, so to speak, instead of face to face, You keep referring to John, the evangelist (and also the Beloved Disciple - the instigator if not the author of the fourth gospel - the son of Zebedee?) If so, we are talking hopelessly at cross-purposes. My favourite authority on these matters is the late R.E.Brown,. the American author of "The Community of the Beloved Disciple" though I don't agree with everything he writes. He supported much of what I wrote in the last sentence or two, but
does not belive that the Beloved Disciple was
John, the son of Zebedee. Wikipedia gives us a bewildering number of optional beliefs - some held by thousands of believers. Personally, I don't think his identity is the most important point at issue. It's not who he was, but what he was, that concerns me. Brown says he was "obviously a hero of his community. But his community, historically speaking, included the Twelve, and there is absolutely no biblical evidence that he was a hero to them. Especially Peter. I hope we can go on talking. You make a lot of sense, and I am inclined to get over-emotional at times . At least I have managed to post without drinking and making a bundle of typos. I thank you for that.
But look, friend, at your post above, where you describe Jesus making a hyperbolic remark, and then refer (somewhat dismissively?) to Jesus' "supposed wishes". Are you honestly saying that the text gives no indication of what those wishes were?
I’m not @Eutychus, who can certainly answer for himself. And I can only read it in English, not the Greek, but I don’t see any indication in my English versions that Jesus was expressing any wish about the Beloved Disciple.
The NRSV has it this way, after Jesus tells Peter that he’ll be martyred:
“Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 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 rumor 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?”
This seems pretty clear to me—Jesus is telling Peter what does or doesn’t happen to the Beloved Disciple is not Peter’s business. Jesus’s answer to Peter is the same as Aslan saying to Shasta “Child, I am telling you your story, not hers. No one is told any story but their own.” (The Horse and His Boy.)
John notes the rumor went around that Jesus said the Beloved Disciple wouldn’t die. The straightforward meaning of what he writes next seems clear that John is saying “Jesus didn’t tell Peter that the Beloved Disciple wouldn’t die. He told Peter not to worry about someone else’s story.”
It seems to me that trying to make more of it than that is importing assumptions not in or supported by the text.
It seems to me that trying to make more of it than that is importing assumptions not in or supported by the text.
Absolutely. The text makes perfect sense as it stands regardless of who wrote or edited it.
@Chemincreux, drawing the conclusion you do on the basis of so many external assumptions reminds me of the way conspiracy theories are put together, all the more so in that (unless a Hellenist can tell us otherwise) it is absolutely unsupported by the Greek text.
"The text makes perfect sense as it stands, not matter who wrote or edited it."
Indeed. It's the interpretation that's the bugbear. What makes perfect sense to me is perfect hogwash to you. I've been reading a great article in the current issue of Philosophy Now which describes this communication problem very well. When our core beliefs are challenged, we find it hard to compromise on peripheral issues which seem to be more of a threat than they really are. Unless both sides in an argument are prepared, in the light of reasonable evidence, to modify their views, no movement, no development can take place.
My take on the last chapter of John has changed a number of times, and there's no guarantee that I'm getting nearer the truth with every change. The problem for me is that very few, if any, of my non-churchgoing friends find biblical study very edifying, and
the "faithful" are even more scared of John than I am. R.E.Brown was right, I think, when he said that the fourth gospel, as well as being the most exciting, is also the most dangerous!
"The text makes perfect sense as it stands, not matter who wrote or edited it."
Indeed. It's the interpretation that's the bugbear.
As I think has been said earlier on this thread, a kind of Occam's razor should nonetheless be applied. So far as I can see your interpretation is not supported by the construction of the Greek and relies on a whole raft of extra-textual assumptions, particularly about Jesus' wishes.
This kind of approach is what gives conspiracy theories legs.
Occam's razor? Yes. Very useful. The interlinear word-by word translation of the Greek, by The Revd Alfred Marshall, the basis for the RSV, NRSV, and NRSV/NIV New Testaments, offers the following basic interpretation:
Therefore this word went forth/went out to the brethren, that this disciple would not die.
Alternatively, that this disciple was not to die
[For more help on this, read Marshall's notes
to his translation, particularly with regard to the difference between Greek and English use of tenses in reported speech, and his very useful example of what the original statement was in one particular example].
But in every final recension "this word went out to " becomes "this rumour spread among..." I believe this is what the evangelist meant us to understand. But it's based on a set of false premises, including ones invented by himself, including the idea that "he said this in order to show in which way he (Peter) was going to die."
"John" the evangelist laid a number of false trails, not all necessarily from ingenuousness,
and to be fair he may not have realised that by including the colophon "this is the disciple that saw these things " etc might lead future readers into the false belief that he was talking about himself.
I won't go on, for now. And I wont invite you to Hell for your insolence, Eutychus. My own
small expertise is in Russian, Polish and Arabic and I have two French grandchildren, so I'll thank you to spare me the little lectures on faux amis.
Comments
Yes, it does have rather a "fried food left to go cold in the pan" feel to it, doesn't it?
But the evangelist is embarrased by the common knowledge that the edict was ignored. Hence his weaseling excuse.
Huh?
The words after "reads, in the Greek" in this post are... not in Greek.
got the revenge he was looking for when he said "HIM - WHAT?")
And just because something can be understood as an imperative in the target language doesn't mean it can be in the source language, as @Lamb Chopped has pointed out.
And how can the English "went forth" used as a translation of NT Greek have an "Old Testament connotation"? The OT was written (mostly) in Hebrew, not English.
Might I suggest a Chick tract instead?
I have to admit that I was going with my gut feeling here, and thought the Greek supported it, or even prompted it. But of course I could be wrong. That whole chapter bothers me, with the obvious (to me) subtext that this is not about reinstating the coward Peter so much as rehabilitating the unseemly treatment of the Beloved Disciple.
Honesty, perhaps. I sometimes wonder if the Q document was written by the disciple's amanuensis, and perhaps all those references which show the Twelve for the squabbling idiots they were got under Peter's skin.
I think I'm wandering off the point a bit. I'm 83, and I might not be here next week. And I'm a gardener, so its important to sow stuff, plant stuff, while I can. Before the bug or the world catches up with me, and turns all my gardens into carparks. De rien!
Sorry sorry sorry that the gangway over there...?
Leaving the whole Peter thing aside for the moment...
This is my screw-up, actually. It's not subjunctive, it is indeed present indicative, and I need to go refresh my Greek grammar! But English rules of grammar require us to use "would" in this situation--we cannot properly say "that this disciple doesn't die"--that just comes off as ungrammatical and weird.
In any case, the point stands--this is NOT an edict, because an edict is a command, and there's no commanding here. It's a prediction, a rumor about the future... but no edict. And with that, I fear, your point falls to the ground. If I've understood it correctly.
"What if I do? What are you going to do, kill me?"
"This disciple lives - understand? Leave him alone!" But reported speech in foreign languages is not something I'm an expert in.
Yes, we have met before. I morphed from chemincreux to pimple. I've come back as the ditch-dweller (or literally, the ditch!) Still the same old nuisance, probably. Pleased to meet you again.
If it does, then it looks to me as though you are trying to marshall 'innovative' translation to buttress a preconceived and elaborate idea about what the text means (that it was an attempt to reinstate John). That rarely works out well either.
Again, I'm not a Hellenist (although I am a linguist and translate for a living), but it seems to me that the text is a perfectly understandable attempt by John to correct a false rumour by explaining the detail of how it got started. Indeed, I've preached on that text more than once on that topic, including recently with respect to Christians' propensity to spread rumours, especially if they concern supernatural excitement, without checking the source. Why make it more complicated?
*Your French screen name doesn't mean 'ditch-dweller', it literally means 'hollow way', i.e. 'sunken lane'.
Er, where was I? Ah yes, on the hollow road
quite overcanopied with arching trees, but with lots of dappled sunshine and a strong ;ight at the end of the tunnel.
Unless a Hellenist can demonstrate otherwise, I'm sure the verb translated by "went out" is unlikely to mean "was deliberately put about", and the phrase translated by "was not to die" does not carry with it any sense of instruction or command, even if it could be construed that way in English.
(In French, when asked about somebody's whereabouts, one can say Il ne doit pas être loin. This can be literally translated as "He must not be far away", which could be construed, in English, as "he is under orders not to stray far", but this sense is not supported by the French; the French for that would be il ne doit pas s'éloigner. What it actually means is "He can't be far away". It seems to me that you are mistranslating the Greek in similar fashion in an attempt to support your theory).
My take on the passage is that in response to Peter's attempt to divert the subject from his own shortcomings, Jesus made a hyperbolic remark: "John can live forever, sprout wings, fly up to heaven like an angel, who cares? The point at issue here is you, buddy". This comment was overheard by some excitable disciples ("wait, what, he said John would live forever?") and thus was a Christian conspiracy theory born. John attempts to correct this by explaining the context and the sense ("he didn't say he wouldn't die, he said 'even if he were not to die'"), perhaps unaware at that time of the Streisand effect.
This all makes perfect sense to me both in terms of the text and in terms of my own experience. No need to import any other speculation, least of all about Jesus supposed "wishes".
Jesus' "supposed wishes". Are you honestly saying that the text gives no indication of what those wishes were? The "rumour" postulates that he was suggesting that his friend
should live forever. But this is John reading his current knowledge (of the disciple's - and Peter's) death back into his narrative, I think.
Suddenly, I think I'm beginning to understand why we are talking past each other, so to speak, instead of face to face, You keep referring to John, the evangelist (and also the Beloved Disciple - the instigator if not the author of the fourth gospel - the son of Zebedee?) If so, we are talking hopelessly at cross-purposes. My favourite authority on these matters is the late R.E.Brown,. the American author of "The Community of the Beloved Disciple" though I don't agree with everything he writes. He supported much of what I wrote in the last sentence or two, but
does not belive that the Beloved Disciple was
John, the son of Zebedee. Wikipedia gives us a bewildering number of optional beliefs - some held by thousands of believers. Personally, I don't think his identity is the most important point at issue. It's not who he was, but what he was, that concerns me. Brown says he was "obviously a hero of his community. But his community, historically speaking, included the Twelve, and there is absolutely no biblical evidence that he was a hero to them. Especially Peter. I hope we can go on talking. You make a lot of sense, and I am inclined to get over-emotional at times . At least I have managed to post without drinking and making a bundle of typos. I thank you for that.
The NRSV has it this way, after Jesus tells Peter that he’ll be martyred: This seems pretty clear to me—Jesus is telling Peter what does or doesn’t happen to the Beloved Disciple is not Peter’s business. Jesus’s answer to Peter is the same as Aslan saying to Shasta “Child, I am telling you your story, not hers. No one is told any story but their own.” (The Horse and His Boy.)
John notes the rumor went around that Jesus said the Beloved Disciple wouldn’t die. The straightforward meaning of what he writes next seems clear that John is saying “Jesus didn’t tell Peter that the Beloved Disciple wouldn’t die. He told Peter not to worry about someone else’s story.”
It seems to me that trying to make more of it than that is importing assumptions not in or supported by the text.
Absolutely. The text makes perfect sense as it stands regardless of who wrote or edited it.
@Chemincreux, drawing the conclusion you do on the basis of so many external assumptions reminds me of the way conspiracy theories are put together, all the more so in that (unless a Hellenist can tell us otherwise) it is absolutely unsupported by the Greek text.
Indeed. It's the interpretation that's the bugbear. What makes perfect sense to me is perfect hogwash to you. I've been reading a great article in the current issue of Philosophy Now which describes this communication problem very well. When our core beliefs are challenged, we find it hard to compromise on peripheral issues which seem to be more of a threat than they really are. Unless both sides in an argument are prepared, in the light of reasonable evidence, to modify their views, no movement, no development can take place.
My take on the last chapter of John has changed a number of times, and there's no guarantee that I'm getting nearer the truth with every change. The problem for me is that very few, if any, of my non-churchgoing friends find biblical study very edifying, and
the "faithful" are even more scared of John than I am. R.E.Brown was right, I think, when he said that the fourth gospel, as well as being the most exciting, is also the most dangerous!
This kind of approach is what gives conspiracy theories legs.
Therefore this word went forth/went out to the brethren, that this disciple would not die.
Alternatively, that this disciple was not to die
[For more help on this, read Marshall's notes
to his translation, particularly with regard to the difference between Greek and English use of tenses in reported speech, and his very useful example of what the original statement was in one particular example].
But in every final recension "this word went out to " becomes "this rumour spread among..." I believe this is what the evangelist meant us to understand. But it's based on a set of false premises, including ones invented by himself, including the idea that "he said this in order to show in which way he (Peter) was going to die."
"John" the evangelist laid a number of false trails, not all necessarily from ingenuousness,
and to be fair he may not have realised that by including the colophon "this is the disciple that saw these things " etc might lead future readers into the false belief that he was talking about himself.
I won't go on, for now. And I wont invite you to Hell for your insolence, Eutychus. My own
small expertise is in Russian, Polish and Arabic and I have two French grandchildren, so I'll thank you to spare me the little lectures on faux amis.