Köstenberger on “oimai” in John 21:25 and the Authorship and Integrity of the Gospel

Tags

Authorship of John, John's Gospel

 

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:24-25 NRSV)

Andreas J. Köstenberger, ‘‘I Suppose’ (oimai): The Conclusion of John’s Gospel in Its Literary and Historical Context,’ in Williams, P.J., Andre D. Clarke, Peter M. Head, David Instone-Brwer (eds.), The New Testament in its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B. W. Winter on His 65th Birthday (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004): 72-88.

In this article Köstenberger takes a fresh look at the term oimai (‘I suppose’; John 21:25) in the context of debate over the authorship of the gospel; specifically, how the term oimai needs to be given due weight in the debate concerning the status of vv.24-25 as an original part of the gospel or a later addition(s) by a different author(s). After briefly surveying the various interpretations of the first person plural in v24 (“we know”) and first person singular in v25 (“I suppose”) as they pertain to judgements on authorship, Köstenberger turns to extrabiblical usage of the term. He offers a sample of instances from Greek literature from the first centuries BC and AD (Diodorus of Sicily; Dionysius of Halicarnassus; Josephus; Plutarch)[1], and summarises his findings as follows (87):

the term oimai is a literary term frequently used by historians reflecting authorial modesty in stating a claim or opinion. It is commonly part of authorial discourse, not infrequently at the beginning or conclusion of a literary unit or at points of transition. In its extrabiblical instances the term regularly forms an inextricable part of the author’s argument that cannot be easily separated from the larger context by source or redaction-critical means.

Köstenberger interprets John 21:25 in line with these as an instance of ‘authorial modesty’ which constitutes ‘an integral part of the authorial message.’ (87) It is on the basis of a lack of precedent in his survey of an instance where a later editor/group of editors use the term to authenticate ‘the message of an original author or witness,’ that he concludes that its presence in John 21:25 ‘would render redaction-critical proposals unlikely’ (87).

This line of reasoning may fault on the grounds that it disallows innovation. However, I do think that the first person singular oimai (“I suppose”) needs to be given due weight and not interpreted against its grain (and without known historical precedent) to bring it into line with hypotheses of later aditions and communal authorship/redaction.  

Köstenberger also mentions an article by H. M. Jackson[2] in which he argues that the third person singular (“this is the disciple”) and first person plural (“we know”) in v.24 reflect the ancient conventions of self-reference, and therefore can no longer be seen as compelling grounds indicating a change of authorship in 21:24-25 (73-4).

—

[1] Köstenberger’s survey was limited to occurrences of the present-tense first person singular where it is followed by an accusative and infinitive, as in John 21:25.

[2] Köstenberger both states that he is building upon Jackson’s findings even while his proposal stands apart from it. H. M. Jackson, ‘Ancient Self-referential Conventions and Their Implications for the Authorship and Integrity of the Gospel of John,’ JTS 50 (1999): 1-34.

*In the title and body of the article oimai is in greek characters. Unfortunately I do not know how to display greek fonts in WordPress, but if anyone does please let me know how*

More thoughts on Biblical/Theological Education

More thinking out loud. I think there are two distinct tasks that need to be approached:

1. Understanding the Biblical writings within their original setting as theological documents intended to be formative for God’s people (a generalisation I know)

2. Drawing together the findings of such study in order to address the questions concerning our following Jesus today that we want to bring to Scripture, in conversation with such activity from church history

I would be happy to label these Biblical Studies and Theological Studies respectively.[1]

Of course the first will in many instances be received as a fresh address to us (especially NT writings), and we should not keep them at an arms length, we should study them as living word rather than as ancient artifacts. But because in many instances we will require the whole counsel of Scripture to answer our questions, and because we do not want to inadvertently transform the text in the quest to answer our questions, we need to seperate the tasks.

How might this be embodied in an educational setting? I would have to say that those who teach should not be confined to one task or the other, for concern this may result in competence in one but not the other, and in the case of Theological Studies, knowledge of and an ability to work with the Biblical texts skillfully would be a necessity. So there would still be courses on individual biblical writings and groups of writings (e.g. prophets, Paul’s letters, etc.) which would form the backbone of the curriculum, and then courses on various themes and issues that draw on such work to shape our following of Jesus.

Let me know your thoughts…

[1] I don’t see much of a place in Christian biblical/theological education or ministry training for the sort of speculative theology or goals often persued in contemporary biblical studies such as source criticism that (I think) do not provide resources for following Jesus.

Another miracle of the internet

I have the privilege of a blog title and Url which often comes up among the first few items (2nd place on Google!) on an internet search for “hermeneutica” which I think is the french translation of hermeneutics. But today I noticed that the excerpt which currently appears in the search is not exactly what I want advertising my blog.

This is of course part of a post were I used this as an example of bad hermeneutics, not representitive of my own! If you know if and how this can be changed, let me know…

Reflections following the Colloquium on Theological Interpretation

Tags

Theological Education, Theological Interpretation

Just to venture some thoughts freshly stimulated by the Colloquium on Theological Interpretation held over the past couple of days at Laidlaw College in Auckland New Zealand. I was only able to attend the second day, but nevertheless have come away with fresh insights and questions, and a delight to be a part of the conversation. Daniel Kirk has offered some of his own thoughts at Storied Theology, and presented a paper which I unfortunately was not present for but hear was very helpful.

At the close of the colloquium Joel B. Green noted how it was the first colloquium on biblical studies to begin with prayer that he had attended in a very long time. This was both a shock and saddening, but at the same time indicated the ‘life’ that was present at this colloquium and showed that what took place was actually carried out in the Spirit of TI itself.

Some thoughts…

• What we need is study of the Biblical documents in line with their nature as confessional documents intended to proclaim, teach and shape lives. Perhaps recapturing the Bible as a personal confession (within a wider social,  geographical, and historical confession), rather than “someone elses mail”, will assist us in doing biblical studies that can more direclt speak to the church.
• Sometimes those who advocate Theological Interpretation seem to be saying that we need to set aside the ‘historical critical’ questions biblical scholars have been taking to the text and replace these with theological questions. But in my humble opinion the many questions asked of the texts–whether concerned with sources, historicity, literary features, etc.–are all legitimate. Can we not ask questions concerning the theology of the texts as well as all these and more?
• As someone who is entering into the realm of teaching within the context of a Bible college, and who has been interested in the form and function of theological education for some time, I often ponder the pros and cons of the division between Biblical studies and Theology. Does the departmental split need to stand? Or does this need rethinking? While we do not want to collapse one into the other, I think we need to reconfigure their relationship. How we should do so is of course the big question.
• My thought experiment is to retain the distinction in departments but to not associate lecturers with either one. So while retaining OT, NT, and Theology departments, gone will be NT and OT professors, and professors of Theology. Room would still need to made for particular specializations within each field, but these would be all determinative for what one teaches, researchs, and publishes on. Possible? Im not sure…

Kevin Vanhoozer

We must put feet on our hermeneutics  

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ‘Hyperactive Hermenetics: Is the Bible being Overinterpreted?’ Catalyst Online

Re-Interpreting Biblical Narratives

Tags

Biblical Narrative, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Male Leadership

In Genesis 2 we learn that men were created first, and that women were then formed to be men’s helpers. Men, therefore, are in a position of leadership over women who were created to assist them in their tasks. In Genesis 3 we learn that it was a woman who took the fruit that had been forbidden by God, and who gave it to man. The fall, then, was the result of women taking the lead where man should have been. Man’s great sin was yielding his right and responsibility as leader, and the woman’s was seeking it for herself. Here, at the very beginning of the world’s story, we learn that the consequences of men failing to take leadership over women are grave! We must not continue this primal sin today.

I conjured this up this morning and while I haven’t personally heard this argument made before (it in all likelihood has been), I have heard quite a few preachers make the same sort of hermeneutical moves with biblical narratives that is made above.[1]

Whats actually happening in this argument is a re-narrating of the events or a re-telling of the story, partly based on their narration in Genesis, but now told so as to address the issue of male/female leadership. In doing so a message appears to be drawn out of the biblical narrative, but we would be right to question this, because the narratives in Genesis 2 & 3 do no make the connections made in the argument, the story there is not told to address the issue of male/female leadership.

All narratives are susceptible to a great degree of interpretive variety, which I think is because the events that they interpret by narrating them can themselves be interpreted differently. And the way they are narrated can still appear to mean something that the narration was not intended to.

This all raises an interesting question: if in any instance the Bible is narrating a real set of events from the past (as opposed to telling a fictional story), can we plumb these events for implications that the story as it is told in Scripture does not pick up on? Can we re-interpret these events? And what status would these have for our theology?

[1] Just in case the post has not made it clear, I do not think the above is a good argument. I am also not a proponent of male leadership although this could change.

Confessions of a Young Student of Scripture

Tags

Theology and Experience

A mentor of mine has long stressed that there is a problem with academic study of theology/Bible that results in a mass of “head-knowledge” that has not been “experienced” as “heart-knowledge.” Essentially, one can learn a lot about God without ever knowing the reality of this in ones life. Such knowledge is fruitless and ultimately counts for nothing.

I grant the concern, and there is a depth of knowledge that only comes with personal acquaintance. But I would say that the problem is not inherent in academic study of the Scriptures. Rather the danger arises when we start to think that having an intellectual grasp of the truth is the goal and so fail to press on to embody and experience the reality. It also becomes a danger when we become so consumed and focused on gathering truth that we give little time to follow its lead. The truth, we might need reminding, is a person we must come to know and serve.

Still, knowledge of the truth beyond our “experience” of the reality may very well keep us from the danger of heresy. It also means that we have the means to rightly interpret our experiences when they come about, after all, “experience” is constituted both by what comes to us through our senses and how we make sense of it with our mind; there is an irreducible element of interpretation in experience.

Furthermore, we need to be subject specific. For example, growing in familiarity and understanding of Colossians so that one can receive from it in no way requires immediate or subsequent experience of the theological realities it refers to, even while these would deepen our understanding. An understanding of the text brings us to engage the realities it speaks of.

Now for my confessions of those dangers I have at times succumbed to.

I have often read, studied and written, only for the benefit of others, to prepare my mind for teaching by gaining the necessary knowledge so that I can competently and helpfully assist them in their discipleship. My error; not seeking to prepare my heart by learning for my own discipleship.

I have at times become so focused on interpreting the Scriptures correctly that I have given little time to seeking the realities they point to.

I have often got lost in the aesthetic appeal of a theological system, hermeneutical program, or exegetical and historical details, when the point of such in-depth research was to ensure that I was rightly grasping the simplicity of the gospel.

What confessions do you have to make?

Hermeneutics of authenticity, further throughts

Tags

Criteria of Authenticity, Historical Jesus, Rafael

In Rafael’s recent post on the hermeneutics of authenticity, he writes of how the application of the criteria of authenticity to sayings of Jesus in the gospels is dependent upon the given saying already receiving an interpretation:

…when NT scholars judge a particular logion an authentic saying of Jesus (or, more typically, when they reject a saying as inauthentic), they do so on the basis of a particular interpretation of the saying in question.

That is to say, uninterpreted material cannot be judged for authenticity because how can we judge the plausibility/probability of Jesus really having said a particular saying if we have not understood it? This is almost self-evident, and Rafael expresses his disapointment that certain historical Jesus scholars ”continue to ignore the hermeneutical assumptions underlying their employment of the criteria.”

In considering this point I wondered whether there is yet another level of complexity in this equation: If (1) sayings of Jesus need to be placed within the context of Jesus ministry as a whole (=actions, sayings, aims, intentions, contexts, etc.) in order to be rightly interpreted, and (2) the purpose of the criteria is to establish historically reliable (to some degree) parts of the tradition in order to employ in constructing the whole, then the application of the criteria already presupposes the historical reliability of a larger swath of the traditions on the basis of which an understanding of Jesus ministry as a whole has been (at least provisionally) established, and as part of which the saying in question has been interpreted. If this is the case, then at this point in my thinking the application of the criteria to a saying (in as much as it depends upon an interpretation of this saying informed by a larger interpretation of Jesus ministry) has not fallen to circularity but to incoherence.

I hope that this is clear enough. I suspect that this equation may appear to have a stronger sting in the abstract than it does when we actually engage the gospel material, but I wonder. Many sayings are clear enough without requiring the interpretive framework provided by an interpretation of Jesus ministry as a whole, and so here the application of the criteria would avoid this incoherence. Thoughts please…