John 3 and the lack of quotation marks in ancient texts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

John 3 and the lack of quotation marks in ancient texts

Post by Ken Olson »

I'm responding to Baley's question here in a new thread so as not to derail Paul the Uncertain's Testimonium thread.
Baley wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:38 am It never occurred to me view the Flavian Testimony and Eusebius' quotes in this light. Very interesting idea. I wonder how lack of punctuation could have influenced our understanding of other ancient texts.
Baley,

One well-known example illustrating how the lack of punctuation in ancient Greek texts will affect our understanding of those texts is in John 3, concerning the Pharisee Nicodemus' clandestine visit to Jesus.

9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?

11 “Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen, yet you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”

22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, and he spent some time there with them and baptized.

Jesus is introduced as the speaker in v. 10, and a a new pericope is introduced in v. 22 narrating what Jesus and his disciples did next in the third person. But are we meant to understand that Jesus was the speaker from v. 10 through verse 21? And if not, where does he stop talking? Different translators and commentators give different answers.

Verses 11-12 are in the first person, so Jesus is still speaking there. In verses 13-14, the speaker refers to Jesus as 'the Son of Man', and, as Jesus is known to refer to himself that way elsewhere, those verses are usually ascribed to Jesus as well.

That leaves John 3.16 - 3.21. Who is speaking in those verses? We do not really know. It could be Jesus or the narrator of John. It sounds a lot like the narrator of John sounds in the prologue to the gospel in John 1.1-18:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. 15 (John testified to him and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’ ”) 16 From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

This is a problem for the interpretation of John. What are the implications of the fact that the voice of the narrator and the voice of Jesus sound so much alike that we really can't tell them apart?

Best,

Ken
Secret Alias
Posts: 18922
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: John 3 and the lack of quotation marks in ancient texts

Post by Secret Alias »

A similar situation (with respect to a narrator) exists in early Karaite exegesis of the Pentateuch. The Karaites are obviously related to the Sadducees. The earliest Karaite exegete (I forget his name but I can get it) understood that Moses not God narrated the Pentateuch. They called him (in Arabic) 'the narrator.' Having Moses rather than God as the narrator of the Torah obviously changes the understanding of holiness for the text.

https://www.academia.edu/10100355/The_V ... e_Narrator

While most at this forum aren't aware of Jewish controversies from the turn of the Common Era but the recitation of the Ten Commandments (still practiced among the Samaritans but disappeared among Jewry) implies to early Christians (heresies) that it had a higher holiness than the Pentateuch which was from the authority of Moses (the Ten Commandments were from God) cf. Abraham Heschel the Heavenly Torah (an amazing book perhaps the greatest scholarly accomplishment of the last century).
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: John 3 and the lack of quotation marks in ancient texts

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:20 am I'm responding to Baley's question here in a new thread so as not to derail Paul the Uncertain's Testimonium thread.
Baley wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:38 am It never occurred to me view the Flavian Testimony and Eusebius' quotes in this light. Very interesting idea. I wonder how lack of punctuation could have influenced our understanding of other ancient texts.
...
That was especially courteous of you, Ken. I both appreciate that courtesy but also think that the on-topic difficulty in the other thread is fairly general - not just TF, not just Eusebius ... not even just ancient, since how many emails in our own time lead to misunderstandings? Or, >gasp< message board postings?

I think your example from John is great and illustrates something about the range of information that can be lost once a text passage is seen as ambiguous (or worse than ambi-).

A really simple one, and one that also involves Eusebius (but in a different way than TF) is Origen's witness to Antiquities 20.200 having the specific words that translate to "called Christ." You actually touched on that a bit in the other thread.

It is a worthy mystery in that Origen doesn't claim to be quoting anything verbatim, and those words would be more-or-less the only thing he'd have quoted verbatim from Josephus about defendant James. Nevertheless, Eusebius interprets the phrase as a direct quote, either because that's what it is (Eusebius found the phrase in the copy of Antiquities from which he quotes at length), or because Eusebius accepts what he interprets Origen to be saying, locates the most promising place in the text for the phrase to belong, and then recites how the text "should" read, in the sense of being the most likely original, in his opinion, given the assumption that Origen is accurately quoting verbatim what he read somewhere in Antiquities 20.

The latter possibility reminds us that it's not just punctuation but also standards of discourse that have evolved over secular time. If a modern writer purports to be quoting something verbatim, then they'd better not be presenting what is merely their personal best estimate of what the original said. If that's what they're doing, then they need to be clear about that. I doubt ancient writers (not only apologists) would be held to that much rigor.

Anyway, I think it is an interesting problem (an interesting parcel of problems), and was pleased to see that it earned some attention from you.
Post Reply