tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post6152786851772167238..comments2024-03-22T06:31:42.929-05:00Comments on Wry Thoughts About Religion: The Lowly Punctuation Mark in the New TestamentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-52896608448632278192023-01-04T09:29:08.141-06:002023-01-04T09:29:08.141-06:00Charlie,
Without seeking to create new myth, a poi...<br />Charlie,<br />Without seeking to create new myth, a point is made in John 20.19-31. The other disciples needed to see Jesus’s hands & side to rejoice & believe (similar to Thomas, who also needed to feel the wounds). They received the Spirit. Thomas missed the meeting, thus was demoted and didn’t receive the Spirit. Whether interrogative or declarative, Thomas is singled out for a downgrade, unlike the others. Or, Jesus ran out of Holy Breath. <br /><br />There is another narrative that might help to explain this. When writing a foundation myth for Christianity which sought to, among other things, reinterpret Paul, Acts 1.21-22 excluded Paul from eligibility to be one of the group of leaders. It seems that Gospel of John is doing the same thing with Thomas. Posing the first half of v.29 as a rhetorical question fits this scenario better than a statement (though the purpose of a rhetorical question is to effect a statement, to make a point ). Thomas wasn’t given the Holy Spirit, just as Paul was ineligible to be a leader. This seems to bring one into the political world of “schism myth,” of sects either accepted or rejected in second century Christianity. <br /><br />Dennis Dean Carpenter<br />Dahlonega, Ga.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-72642192585302787312023-01-02T14:51:39.032-06:002023-01-02T14:51:39.032-06:00Your post always cause me to pause when I am readi...Your post always cause me to pause when I am reading scripture, or anything really. I have had resent discussions on this type of observations. Thank you again for enhancing to my life. Kerrymiller74https://www.blogger.com/profile/05747066801690217486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-89501517011746909892023-01-02T12:07:18.876-06:002023-01-02T12:07:18.876-06:00Very interesting, Charlie. Your blog piece makes i...Very interesting, Charlie. Your blog piece makes it clear that, without added punctuation, John 20:29 can be taken as a sentence in either in the interrogative or declarative mood. <br /><br />This is a fascinating instance where, although the syntax is indeed ambiguous, the message of Jesus’ words to Thomas (and to the readers of John’s Gospel) is not. <br /><br />You maintain that, as a declarative sentence, these words of Jesus underscore Thomas’ direct encounter with physical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection is the basis for his faith. <br /><br />And that, as an interrogative sentence, these same words express Jesus’ uncertainty about the reason Thomas has faith. <br /><br />We can maintain the distinction you point out here only if we do not go on to consider the rhetorical effect of the words spoken as a question. <br /><br />In the light of the rest of the verse—“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe"—we are surely justified in understanding that even as a question, Jesus’s words affirm that the reason Thomas has faith lies in his direct visual experience of Jesus' resurrected body. This is the same reason Thomas has faith according to Jesus’ words taken as a declarative statement, per your note.<br /><br />In that case, whether as question or statement, the words of Jesus to Thomas rhetorically convey not two different things (certainty or uncertainty about the reason for Thomas’ faith) but the same thought: that direct eyewitness experience of the resurrected Jesus is not necessary for faith in him. <br /><br />This thought leads immediately to the next one, expressed in the very next two verses where John insists that pistis does not require a direct encounter with the resurrected Jesus but can be founded on the basis of John's biblion. This message is conveyed regardless of whether Jesus spoke a question or a statement to Thomas. <br /><br />It would seem that we have in John 20:29 a syntactical difference without a rhetorical difference. <br /><br />At least so it seems to me.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442862303678119776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2828101829504518203.post-77747104173840823952023-01-02T08:59:48.259-06:002023-01-02T08:59:48.259-06:00Could not the interrogatives of the Nestle-Aland 2...Could not the interrogatives of the Nestle-Aland 28th Ed be reflections of the Divine nature of interrogation, where there is not uncertainty, but the utilization of a question to make the heater search deeper within? Are not all questions of God rhetorical, at least to Him? Does Jesus ever ask to mine for things he does not already know? A theological question, for sure, but one that must be considered. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com