Tagging of "he" in John 19:35

Graham Criddle

The tagging shown above shows John (son of Zebedee) as the one who testifies to some of the events at the cross.

I find this interesting as there is significant debate over who this person actually was.

Anyone from Logos able to comment on this one?

Thanks, Graham

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Milford Charles Murray

Peace, Graham! *smile* Thanks for your post! I'm not from Logos as you know; however, I've always believe that this was the young John! *smile*

And, when I look at this passage, I'm always reminded of:

The Word of Life

1　^aThat which was ^bfrom the beginning, ^cwhich we have heard, ^dwhich we have seen with our eyes, ^ewhich we looked upon and ^fhave touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— ²^gthe life ^hwas made manifest, and we have seen it, and ⁱtestify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, ^awhich was with the Father and ^hwas made manifest to us— ³^cthat which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed ^jour fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. ⁴And we are writing these things so ^kthat our¹ joy may be complete.

again, thanks for your post! I'd also love to hear from Logos! Indeed! *smile*

Lee

If not John, what are the alternatives?

Milford Charles Murray

If not John, what are the alternatives?

Peace, Lee! *smile* My question also! Up to now I've never heard of any alternatives ............. I started using Lenski around 1959 and still find him a favourite ...

I was a little surprised, then, when I just now read this section, and even in Lenski's time, there were those who disputed John's authorship --

Here is Lenski in case you want to peruse ... Blessings!

35) And he that has seen has borne testimony; and genuine is his testimony. And that one knows that he says things true, in order that you, too, may believe. So weighty is what John reports that he, too, now does something entirely exceptional. No evangelist, and not even John in the rest of his Gospel, breaks the narrative to address his readers personally and to assure them in regard to his testimony. Yet John now does this. It ought to go without saying that he refers to himself when he writes, “he that has seen.” John loves these perfects which carry the past acts down to their present effects. This perfect means that what John once saw is still, as it were, vividly before his eyes although many years have passed. With this perfect the next accords: “he has borne testimony,” namely right here in this record, and this testimony, once borne, now stands indefinitely and speaks on and on. We know that John never mentions himself or any member of his family or wider relationship by name. He always uses the third person and even this only when literally compelled to do so. Yet critics have used the present passage in their efforts to deny John’s authorship of this Gospel. Here the supposed writer forgets himself in an impersonation of John and speaks of John without detecting that his impersonation is thus betrayed. Those who will may believe in such a forger. We cannot, of course, share their views.

“Genuine is his testimony,” ἀληθινή, the adjective being emphatic. His testimony is competent, based on personal vision, not on what others have seen and told him. Any court would accept his testimony.

The battle about the next statement will, no doubt, continue indefinitely: “and that one knows that he says things true,” ἀληθῆ, things really so, not mere imaginings or falsifications. Who is referred to by ἐκεῖνος? Is it John himself or a second witness corroborating John? The word itself can be understood in either way. Sometimes it implies a contrast with another, yet often it does not. A case in point for the latter is 9:37; R. 707 presents his personal opinion as far as the language is concerned. B.-D. 291, 6 falls back on textual criticism, as though this makes it uncertain whether John wrote v. 35; but the textual evidence is solid for the genuineness of v. 35, the only variant reading of the verse amounts to nothing. This means that no one has really been able to glean anything decisive from the words as they stand. We must fall back on other considerations. John has made the matter one of testimony and has shown that his testimony is competent. If by ἐκεῖνος he refers to himself, he would appeal for the truth of his testimony only to his own consciousness that he is indeed stating the truth. But this would add nothing whatever to his testimony, for who would think of charging him with something that he feels is not true, or that, to say the least, is doubtful to his own mind? He has shown us that in the case of Jesus himself, when it comes to testimony, Jesus offered more than his own word although he knew his own testimony to be true. Jesus appeals to the corroborating testimony of the Baptist (5:32, etc.), of his works (5:36; 14:10), and of his Father in the Scriptures (5:37, etc., 8:18). Can John do less when he appears as a witness? Can he exempt himself from this essential requirement in regard to testimony, that whatever he testifies must be corroborated and supported by another witness in order to evoke credence?

It is thus that ἐκεῖνος comes to refer to a second witness, who indeed knows that what John has here testified is true and a statement of the facts. John might have in mind the thought that this other is God himself, and an appeal to him would be proper; for John at once quotes two Scripture passages which might be regarded as God’s corroborating testimony. Yet thus far in the narrative God has not been mentioned in any way while, on the other hand, Jesus has appeared as the supreme person. In addition, ἐκεῖνος is repeatedly used by John without an antecedent as an emphatic designation for Jesus: “HE” (1 John 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; 4:17), much as others used the word during the lifetime of Jesus (17:11; 9:28; 19:21). So it is Jesus to whom John appeals as corroborating his witness as being true. Even in 3 John 12 Demetrius has testimony from more than one source; and when John there says “we, too, testify,” he even adds to this, “thou knowest that our testimony is true.”

The purpose clause, “in order that you, too, may believe,” is best construed with the verb “says”; the verb “has borne testimony” is too far away. The aorist subjunctive πιστεύσητε (not the present, which some texts have) implies definite and final believing. The present πιστεύητε would speak of only continued believing which goes on without disturbance. John is writing to those who already believe; he addresses them personally, “you, too.” They are to believe just as John himself does. The verb, however, has no object but is used in a broad way regarding faith in general and is not restricted to the exceptional facts John has just stated. His genuine and truthful testimony regarding the death of Jesus and regarding what occurred with his body has as its purpose the enduring faith of the entire church. As John writes he thinks of himself as being present in the congregation of believers who hear these words read, and thus the personal note creeps in. He does the same in 20:31, where his purpose is more fully stated: “in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” etc.

36) For these things occurred in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be shattered. And again another Scripture says, They shall look on him whom they did pierce through. So many hinge the solemn assurance of v. 35 on the blood and the water as though this is the thing John wants us to believe above all else. Yet beyond the mere mention of blood and water John has nothing further to say about blood and water. “These things,” he tells us, refer to the literal fulfillment of two Scripture passages, one regarding the fact that not a bone of Jesus’ body should be shattered, the other regarding the piercing of his body. John employs the regular formula for introducing Scripture quotations: “in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” This remarkable fulfillment of Scripture is to lend abiding support to our faith.^{^[1]}

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

^{^[1]} Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The interpretation of St. John’s gospel (pp. 1317–1320). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

Milford Charles Murray

It's been a good day! Graham, glad you "nudged" me to do a bit of studying, and -- again! -- I'm glad you posted ...

Looked at a dozen or so of my commentary collections and will share my new favourite for that section -- Leon Morris - NICNT - ...

............. and then off to be for hopefully a blessed night's sleep ....

35 This incident evidently made a profound impression on the mind of the Evangelist. He brings out emphatically that he has good evidence for what he is saying. This evidence is surely the testimony of the Beloved Disciple. He is mentioned in verses 26–27, the last reference to the followers of Jesus before this verse. Moreover, the writer mentions no other disciple as having been present at the scene. The identification is not certain, but it is probable.⁹⁷ Be that as it may, there was someone there who saw it and who has borne his testimony,⁹⁸ a testimony that is reliable.⁹⁹ This may be understood in more ways than one. The writer may be referring to himself as a witness, which seems to be the meaning in Weymouth’s translation: “This statement is the testimony of an eye-witness, and it is true. He knows that he is telling the truth—in order that you may believe.”¹⁰⁰ Or the writer may be distinguishing between himself as the author and another man who is the witness. Rieu sees it that way: “This is vouched for by the man who saw it, and his evidence may be relied on. Also, to assure you, the writer knows that he is telling the truth.¹⁰¹ It is also possible that the writer is calling God to witness, as Moffatt renders: “He who saw it has borne witness (his witness is true; God knows he is telling the truth), that you may believe.”¹⁰² When experts differ so widely it is unwise to be dogmatic. I incline to the view that the first suggestion is the correct one, but one cannot be sure. What is plain is that John is placing some emphasis on the fact that this incident may be relied on.¹⁰³ He is maintaining that it is recorded “so that you also may believe.”¹⁰⁴ The production of faith in the readers is the main purpose for the writing of this Gospel (20:31).¹⁰⁵ John does not explain how faith will result from the narration of the issuing of water and blood from the side of the crucified Savior, but clearly he expected it to do so.¹⁰⁶

36 Characteristically John finds a fulfillment of Scripture in these happenings. The purpose of God had to be fulfilled.¹⁰⁷ He refers to two separate things, the fact that Jesus’ bones were not broken and the fact that his side was pierced. It is really extraordinary that both these things happened. Jesus escaped the breaking of the legs though this happened to both those crucified with him, and he experienced a hard spear thrust, which appears to have been most unusual but which yet did no bone damage. Most commentators think that the passage John has in mind for the first is Exodus 12:46 or Numbers 9:12, both referring to the Passover (or perhaps Exod. 12:10, LXX). When that sacrifice was instituted the command was given that not one bone of the victim was to be broken. If this is the allusion, John is referring to Jesus as the perfect Passover offering (cf. the death at the time of the killing of the Passover sacrifices, v. 14, and the use of hyssop, v. 29). This is a motif that we have seen elsewhere, and it is the most likely explanation of this passage. Those who do not see the Passover here prefer a reference to Psalm 34:20, which refers in a general way to God’s care for his own. It contains the specific assertion that God “protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.” This is possible, but it does not seem as probable as the Passover allusion.^{108^[1]}

⁹⁷ Cf. W. G. Kümmel, “Since only the Beloved Disciple was mentioned as present at the cross (in addition to the women), it is natural to find him mentioned in the ἑωρακώς and witness of 19:35, though, to be sure, that is not clearly said” (Introduction to the New Testament [London, 1966], p. 166).

⁹⁸ The perfect, μεμαρτύρηκεν, will signify “he has set it on permanent record.”

⁹⁹ Plummer brings out the force of it: “S. John first says that his evidence is adequate; then he adds that the contents of it are true. Testimony may be sufficient (e.g. of a competent eyewitness) but false: or it may be insufficient (e.g. of a half-witted child) but true. S. John declares that his testimony is both sufficient and true.” For the importance of witness in this Gospel see on 1:7, and for ἀληθινός on 1:9. This is one of the places where Kilpatrick reads ἀληθής (with א 124 Chrys).

Weymouth R. F. Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech (London, 1907)

¹⁰⁰ Lagrange notes an objection to understanding the writer to be referring to himself on the grounds that he has twice recorded the truth that a man’s witness to himself is not valid (5:31; 8:13; he himself, however, thinks that the writer is the witness). This would have more weight if he were in fact bearing witness to himself here. But he is not. It is witness to an observed fact that is meant. Barclay detects a reference to the writer: “he goes out of his way to say that this is an eye-witness account of what actually happened, and that he personally guarantees that it is true.” That ἐκεῖνος is not impossible with reference to the writer is shown by Josephus’s use of the pronoun in just this way (Bell. 3.202; cf. also John 9:37). Support for the view that the writer is referring to himself may perhaps be found in the strong emphasis on personal witness in 1 John 1:1–3.

Rieu E. V. Rieu, The Four Gospels (Penguin Books, 1952)

¹⁰¹ The principal advantage of this view (and it is a considerable one) is that it is a very natural way of understanding ἐκεῖνος. Torrey maintains that ἐκεῖνος here reflects the Aramaic hahu gabra, “a common Jewish substitute for the pronoun of the first person singular.” An objection is the difficulty of seeing how the writer, if not an eyewitness himself, could know that the witness was speaking the truth, as he solemnly assures us is the case. Those who understand the words to refer to a witness other than that of the author often think of that witness as the Beloved Disciple. This, however, is not said.

Moffatt James Moffatt, The New Testament: A New Translation (London, n.d.)

¹⁰² This is sometimes supported by the contention that in this Gospel, apart from dialogue, ἐκεῖνος is generally emphatic and is often used of God or of Christ. Lagrange finds a reference to Christ, as does Hoskyns, who regards it as “almost necessary” to refer the words to our Lord. This, however, is not borne out by the facts. Dodd has shown that the usage of ἐκεῖνος in this Gospel supports the view that the reference is to the witness (HTFG, p. 134, n. 1). Bernard reminds us that John uses ἐκεῖνος not only of the Deity but quite often also of people, such as John the Baptist, (5:35), Moses (5:46), and the blind man (9:10). It requires more than this pronoun to demonstrate a reference to God or to Christ. Strachan sees a threefold witness: the Evangelist in v. 34, the Beloved Disciple in v. 35, and Christ himself, also in v. 35. This is attractive but hard to discern in the text. Incidentally John rarely uses καὶ ἐκεῖνος as here, preferring κἀκεῖνος.

¹⁰³ I.e., assuming we have the text of what he wrote at this point. Blass was most uncertain of this, saying, “In this passage, however, everything is doubtful, so far as criticism is concerned. There is doubt about the whole verse, which is wanting in e and Cod. Fuldensis of the Vulgate, about this particular clause, about the text of this clause, as Nonnus read ἐκεῖνον οἴδαμεν, etc.… The fact that so many theologians have based their theories as to the origin of the 4th Gospel on this verse and the meaning ordinarily attached to it is only explicable on the ground of a complete neglect of textual criticism” (Grammar of New Testament Greek [London, 1905], p. 172, n. 2). It may, however, be doubted whether Blass is being fair to the evidence. While the textual variants he notes should be weighed we should not attach to them more than their due weight. After all, there is a limit to the value we attach to the combination e, Cod. Fuldensis, and Nonnus. These can scarcely outweigh the mass of the authorities, especially since they do not all say the same thing. Turner is also hesitant about this verse. He draws attention to variation in John’s use of ἐκεῖνος and concludes, “it is inadvisable to build any theories of authorship on the notorious ἐκεῖνος (= he, the eye-witness) in Jn 19:35” (M, III, p. 46).

¹⁰⁴ If, as seems likely, the present subjunctive should be read, ἵνα μιστεύητε may be meant to indicate a continuing faith rather than merely an entry into faith. But many MSS read the aorist, so the point should not be pressed.

¹⁰⁵ J. Ramsey Michaels connects this verse with the confession of faith of the centurion recorded in Mark 15:39. He suggests a tentative identification of the centurion with the “witness” of this verse (CBQ, XXIX [1967], pp. 102–9). There is much that is speculative here, but Michaels certainly draws attention to the fact that John understands what he records to be for the purpose of establishing faith.

¹⁰⁶ Westcott has a very useful Additional Note on the interpretation of this passage among the Fathers. He cites many of them, both Greek and Latin.

¹⁰⁷ Note the significance of ἵνα.

¹⁰⁸ The correspondence with the Greek is not as close as in the case of the other two passages. For example, the words ὀστοῦν and αὐτοῦ are absent from Ps. 34:20, though present in the other two passages. There is poetic parallelism in the Psalm, but not in John or in the Pentateuchal passages. Moreover, the Psalm is concerned with the preservation of the righteous from death; it is concerned with saving his life, not with the condition of the bones in his corpse. The other two passages do refer to the treatment of a dead body. In favor of the reference to the Psalm are the facts that the Pentateuchal passages both give a command and are in the active, whereas the Psalm and John both represent a prediction and are passive. But these considerations do not outweigh the others.

^{^[1]} Morris, L. (1995). The Gospel according to John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (pp. 725–727). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Lee

Sorry, I just noticed the OP is referring to ekeinos. It IS possible "ekeinos" refers to God. But I don't think the debate about John/God being the referent is such a lively or consequential one. Of course, for completeness' sake the referent data could state both. I don't know if it's necessary though.

George Somsel

Everyone seems to assume that "'the disciple whom he loved" was John. I think that is totally gratuitous. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall (not looking it up) that the only person Jesus is specifically said to love is Lazarus. In addition, the evidence would indicate that John the son of Zebedee was killed in Jerusalem which would make it prior to 70 ad and therefore indicate that John of Z was not the author of any book in the NT. I'm personally of the opinion that the gospel was written by John the Elder who is said to have died in Ephesus.

Graham Criddle

Everyone seems to assume that "'the disciple whom he loved" was John.

And I tried hard to not imply that assumption in what I wrote.

i must try harder!

Lee

Everyone seems to assume that "'the disciple whom he loved" was John. I think that is totally gratuitous. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall (not looking it up) that the only person Jesus is specifically said to love is Lazarus. In addition, the evidence would indicate that John the son of Zebedee was killed in Jerusalem which would make it prior to 70 ad and therefore indicate that John of Z was not the author of any book in the NT. I'm personally of the opinion that the gospel was written by John the Elder who is said to have died in Ephesus.

That may be your opinion, George, but to say that the identification of John the Apostle as the author is "totally gratuitous", is completely off the wall. Since this is off-topic and controversial, I will leave it at that.

Milford Charles Murray

Everyone seems to assume that "'the disciple whom he loved" was John. I think that is totally gratuitous. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall (not looking it up) that the only person Jesus is specifically said to love is Lazarus. In addition, the evidence would indicate that John the son of Zebedee was killed in Jerusalem which would make it prior to 70 ad and therefore indicate that John of Z was not the author of any book in the NT. I'm personally of the opinion that the gospel was written by John the Elder who is said to have died in Ephesus.

Peace, George! *smile* I truly wish you well!

However, I am puzzled why you would use such a "loaded" word such as "gratuitous" to describe the opinions of many devout readers of Holy Scripture who've drawn that conclusion..... Frankly, I don't think that's "helpful" in anyway.

When I read the following, how can I help but think of Young John? eh???

So the soldiers did these things, ²⁵^xbut standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. ²⁶When Jesus saw his mother and ^ythe disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ^z"Woman, behold, your son!" ²⁷Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to ^ahis own home. John 19:26

or this Scripture?

²³^zOne of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table ^aat Jesus’ side,^{^[1]}

^z ch. 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20

^a [Luke 16:22 (Gk.)]

^{^[1]} The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Jn 13:22–23). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.