Peter Kirby

Reading the Gospel of John, we find this.

John 19 [New American Bible]
31 Now since it was preparation day, in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken and they be taken down. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and then of the other one who was crucified with Jesus. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, 34 but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out. 35 An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may (come to) believe. 36 For this happened so that the scripture passage might be fulfilled: "Not a bone of it will be broken." 37 And again another passage says: "They will look upon him whom they have pierced."

I want to start this thread from the assumption that the following words were an addition to an older text without them: "and immediately blood and water flowed out. 35 An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may (come to) believe."

If we start from this assumption (as we will in this thread), what else might have been written by this redactor? What can we discern about his purpose and themes?

regards,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

While I have labeled it an assumption that 19:34b-35 are from a redactor's hand, I think we might start by looking at what that assumption might be based on.

Bultmann writes, "That v. 34b (and 35) is a secondary addition is indicated at once by the consideration that in v. 37 the point of the citation is seen to be the lance thrust as such (this alone is prophesied in Zech. 12.10), whereas for the writer of v. 34b this is only the means by which the really important event is caused, the significance of which is emphasized by v. 35." (The Gospel of John: A Commentary 677 n6)

What is the significance of the "blood and water"?

--
Peter Kirby

Ben C Smith

Do you mean what else in this passage, or do you mean what else in the gospel as a whole?

Ben.

Peter Kirby

I mean to take the gospel as a whole and see what else might have been the work of the writer of Jn 19:34b-35.

--
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle

The redactor presumably wrote John 21:24 and quite possibly all of John 21

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby

Andrew,

Good observation. The 21st chapter does appear to be an addition. The reference in 21:24 is very similar to 19:35, and strengthens our presumption that the redactor was responsible for both.

The themes and purposes of 19:34b-35 are:

* Sacramentalism (the blood and the water = eucharist and baptism)
* The witness (of the beloved disciple)

The themes and purposes of John 21 are:

* Sacramentalism (the bread and the fish = eucharist)
* The witness (of the beloved disciple)
* The parousia (and its delay)

Can we identify these themes elsewhere in the Gospel of John, and are they good candidates for being the work of a redactor?

--
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Let me split my last questions into the three distinct questions, to see if they might be answered that way.

The other place in John we find Eucharistic sacramentalism is chapter six. Could the section 6:51b-58 be the work of the same redactor?

We find the beloved disciple elsewhere, but not as a witness to the Fourth Gospel. Does this mean that the entire bit about the beloved disciple is interpolated, or just the two verses from chapters 19 and 21?

Do we find the parousia (imminent end of the world) elsewhere in the Gospel of John? If so, where?

--
Peter Kirby