GEJ 1.7

For example, verse 35, in the exact wording of the original text, reads: ‘On the next day John was standing again, and two of his disciples.’ Here the question arises: Where was he standing? Were the two disciples with him, or were they merely standing somewhere else at the same time? Everyone must immediately notice that neither their location nor, still less, the activity of the two disciples is specified here.

Indeed, why did the Evangelist not mention this circumstance?

The reason has already been indicated above. It is self-evident, and must have been entirely self-evident especially at the time when this manner of writing was the rule, that John was standing under a willow by the River Jordan, waiting to see whether anyone would come to be baptized by him. Since he had several disciples who listened to his teaching and also recorded it, there were usually two at his side, sometimes more when there was much to do. They helped him with his baptisms and probably also baptized in his name and in his manner.

Since all these circumstances were only too familiar at that time to those around John, they were not recorded. This manner of writing was then the rule, and partly also a necessity because writing material was scarce. Only the main matter was therefore recorded, and the conjunction ‘and’ placed before a sentence indicated whether the seemingly isolated sentences were related to one another or not. For this reason, such conjunctions were also seldom written out in letters; instead, certain familiar signs were placed before main clauses that were related to one another.

This explanation is not in itself an explanation of the Gospel, yet it is very necessary. Without it, the Gospels today can scarcely be understood in their external historical meaning, still less in their inner spiritual meaning, and least of all can the prophetic books of the Old Testament be understood. In these, only corresponding images appear in place of fully developed sentences; naturally, details of circumstances of any kind cannot be expected there. Now that we know these ancient rules, it will not be difficult to connect all the following verses and texts more readily, read them more correctly, and at least cast their natural historical part in a clearer light. We will carry out such a brief analysis of verses 36 and 37, which will make the stated rule clear.

Verse 36 reads in the original text: ‘And when he saw Jesus walking, he said: Look, this is the Lamb of God.’ The ‘And’ indicates that this text bears some relationship to the preceding one. Historically, it indicates that after receiving baptism with water, Jesus had remained near John for some time and was therefore seen walking along the bank of the Jordan both by John’s two disciples and by John himself.

When John catches sight of Him, he immediately gathers all his thoughts into one and says, in a kind of exalted inspiration, as though to himself: ‘Look, this is the Lamb of God!’ Today he might have expressed himself somewhat like this: ‘Look over there! The most high God-man is still walking along the bank of the river today, as unassuming and humble as a lamb.’ But John leaves out all these closer descriptions and says only what is stated in the verse.

Verse 37, which actually presents the consequence of the two preceding verses, again begins with ‘And’ for the reason just shown. It simply states what happened and touches only very briefly on the reason.

The original text reads quite simply: ‘And two of his disciples heard him speak and followed Jesus.’ In the present day, without impairing its understanding or meaning, the verse could read as follows: But when the two disciples who were with him, John, heard their master speak in this way, they immediately left him and went over to Jesus. And when Jesus now began to move away from that place, they followed Him.

Everything mentioned in this expansion of the text must also have taken place during the event, since otherwise the event could not have happened. But as already stated, in the manner of writing of that time, only the two ideas of ‘hearing’ and the immediate ‘following’ are mentioned; all transitional and connecting clauses are omitted as self-evident. Whoever properly grasps this rule will at least be able to piece together the historical part of the original writing in a more intelligible sense, and will thereby also be able to conceive its inner meaning more easily.