If you are speaking of just the last three words of the passage you've
cited, I don't really think it is so stilted. It's a pretty-widely accepted
view that chapter 21 is an addendum to a gospel that has been brought to a
conclusion in 20:30-31. Chapter 20 describes four resurrection epiphanies
(the first one is not really an epiphany, although it is a sign of the
resurrection's reality), all of them in Jerusalem, which is consistent with
Luke's resurrection account. But while Luke mentions no resurrection
epiphanies other than in Jerusalem, Matthew and Mark (the 2x avowal that
Jesus will "precede the disciples into Galilee," 14:28, 16:7) point to a
tradition of one or more Galilean resurrection epiphanies. This appended
chapter, which is certainly in the same style as the twenty preceding
chapters, serves at least two purposes: (1) it acknowledges the Galilean
epiphany-tradition; (2) it brings a sort of closure to questions regarding
the relationship of Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple, acknowledging the
leadership role of Peter that is so clearly in evidence in the Synoptics
while at the same time underscoring the centrality of the figure of the
Beloved Disciple in the Johannine narrative.
What strikes ME as stilted and abrupt is the opening META TAUTA ("after
that ..." or "afterwards"). Just a tiny little DE to make it META DE TAUTA
would, I think, make the reader who has just come from the ending of
chapter 20 so much more comfortable! And Aristotle starts almost every new
section of his discussions of whatever topic with a META DE TAUTA, "and
next ..."
So what we have is a topic sentence for chapter 21 that must serve to link
21 with 20 (the function of META TAUTA) and create a continuity with the
account of resurrection epiphanies in chapter 20 (the function of
EFANERWSEN hEAUTON). So the sentence says WHEN and WHERE another epiphany
took place, and the coda, EFANERWSEN DE hOUTWS leads directly into the
narrative to follow: "And this is how he revealed himself" or "And he did
so as follows."
>A second and unrelated comment.
>
>EFANERWSEN appears to be kind of a loaded word here. Is John telling
>us something about the nature of Jesus' resurrected body by his use of
>this verb?
Not specifically, in my opinion. FANEROW does seem to be used much more
consistently in John's gospel than elsewhere in the NT in a context of
revelation or epiphany (in the Pauline letters it often simply means
"demonstrate" or "display"). The "Book of Signs" begins with the
water-into-wine miracle at Cana (Jn 2; this is a passage quite commonly
read in worship on Epiphany Sunday), the climactic summation of which
reads: TAUTHN EPOIHSEN ARCHN TWN SHMEIWN hO IHSOUS EN KANAi THS GALILAIAS
KAI *EFANERWSEN THN DOXAN AUTOU, KAI EPISTEUSANEIS AUTON hOI MAQHTAI AUTOU.
Then 2:12 starts a new paragraph with META TOUTO KATEBH EIS KAFARNAOUM.
It isn't META DE TOUTO ...; rather it's just like 21:1 META TAUTA. The
meaning is perfectly clear, but the Greek certainly would read better with
a DE tucked in between the preposition and its demonstrative object in both
instances.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/