From Jim West:

*******

Listers may find this project to be of interest:

http://www.bluecord.org/biblewiki/index.php?n=Main.HomePage

Kevin's idea that only scholars in biblical studies and related fields
is excellent and should ensure that this dictionary (in wiki style) not
be beset by the ignorance that plagues other online dictionaries.


**********

Jeffrey Gibson

With apologies for cross posting.

It's that time of year again when the Society of Biblical Literature's
Annual Meeting is just round the corner (Nov. 18th-Nov. 21st) and I
begin to arrange the now traditional (10th annual!) gathering of all
those NT and Biblical and Biblically related e-list members (i.e.
XTalkers, B-Greeks, and members of Corpus Paulinum, John-Lit, Kata
Markon, Biblical Studies, T-C List, Ioudaios, Synoptic-L, Aramaic,
ANE-2, etc. ) who will be going to Washington D.C .for the SBL
conference.

[For those of you who do not know what the Society of Biblical
Literature is and/or are unfamiliar with the SBL Annual Meeting, go
first to

http://www.sbl-site.org/

and then to

http://www.sbl-site.org/congresses/Congresses_AnnualMeeting.aspx].

The informal E-Lister's meeting is planned for Saturday, Nov. 18th at
11:30 a.m. in the Washington D.C. Convention Center Exhibit Hall D at a
place within the exhibit hall yet to be announced.

As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
opportunity to place a face to an one hitherto known only as an
electronic personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous
SBLs.

As I've done in the past 9 years in arranging this meeting, I'd like to
get an advance head count of those of you who are intending to attend
this year's SBL.

I'd also like to know who among the intended attendees is presenting a
paper during the conference (and at what time and place and within what
SBL group or section and under what title).

So this is the first call to write me OFF LIST at jgibson000@...
and let me know the following:

(a) if you will be attending;

(b) if and when and under what aegis (i.e., SBL/AAR  Section and Session
#) you are presenting a paper,

(c) your paper title, AND

(d) what you consider to be your "home" E-List.

I'll keep everyone updated as the info comes in to me.

Again, write to me OFF LIST (jgibson000@...) and please use a
header that says something like "SBL e-lister's meeting".

Looking forward to seeing you in Washington D.C.!

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

P.S. Keep in mind that this year there will be a formal, SBL sponsored.
E-Listers' Brown Bag Lunch Meeting on Sunday, Nov. 19th from 11:45 to
12:45 in Meeting Room 2-RW where we can talk -- and perhaps do some
e-list planning -- without the distractions of the exhibit.


S19-40E-Listers Brown Bag Luncheon
11/19/2006
11:45 AM to 12:45 PM
Room: Meeting Room 2 - RW
Bring your own lunch (concessions are available in the exhibit hall) and
join us for discussion.


--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

With apologies for cross posting.

This is the second announcement of the 10th annual gathering of  NT,
Biblical,  and Biblically related e-list members at the Annual Meeting
of the Society of Biblical Literature in  Washington D.C .

[For those of you who do not know what the Society of Biblical
Literature is and/or are unfamiliar with the SBL Annual Meeting, go
first to

http://www.sbl-site.org/

and then to

http://www.sbl-site.org/congresses/Congresses_AnnualMeeting.aspx].

The informal E-Lister's meeting is planned for Saturday, Nov. 18th at
11:30 a.m. in the Washington D.C. Convention Center Exhibit Hall D at
The Gorgias Press booths (booth 1017) in Exhibit Hall A of the
Washington D.C. Convention Center.

As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
opportunity to place a face to an one hitherto known only as an
electronic personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous
SBLs.

As I've done in the past 9 years in arranging this meeting, I'd like to
get an advance head count of those of you who are intending to attend
this year's SBL.

I'd also like to know who among the intended attendees is presenting a
paper during the conference (and at what time and place and within what
SBL group or section and under what title).

So this is the second call to write me OFF LIST at
jgibson000@... and let me know the following:

(a) if you will be attending;

(b) if and when and under what aegis (i.e., SBL/AAR  Section and Session
#) you are presenting a paper,

(c) your paper title, AND

(d) what you consider to be your "home" E-List.

I'll keep everyone updated as the info comes in to me.

Again, write to me OFF LIST (jgibson000@...) and **please** use
a header that says something like "SBL e-lister's meeting".

And N.B. -- This year there will be a formal, SBL sponsored. E-Listers'
Brown Bag Lunch Meeting on Sunday, Nov. 19th from 11:45 to 12:45 in
Meeting Room 2-RW where we can talk -- and perhaps do some e-list
planning -- without the distractions of the exhibit.

The Program Book listing of this event is:


      S19-40E-Listers Brown Bag Luncheon
      11/19/2006
      11:45 AM to 12:45 PM
      Room: Meeting Room 2 - RW
      Bring your own lunch (concessions are available in the exhibit
      hall) and join us for discussion.

I look forward to seeing you in Washington D.C.!

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson


--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Does anyone here has access to JSTOR?  I am in need of the following
articles that can be accessed there.

"Panem Nostrum": The Problem of Petition and the Lord's Prayer
Michael Joseph Brown
Journal of Religion, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 595-614

The Lucan Text of the Lord's Prayer (Lk XI 2-4)
Robert Leaney
Novum Testamentum, Vol. 1, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1956), pp. 103-111.

And if anyone has access to the Jewish Bible Quarterly,  I need the
article  "Kaddish and Lord's Prayer" by David Baumgardt that appeared in
vol 19 (1991).

With thanks in advance to anyone who can send me these.

Yours,

Jeffrey--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...

Thanks to Mark Goodacre, I now have the following articles:

"Panem Nostrum": The Problem of Petition and the Lord's Prayer
Michael Joseph Brown
Journal of Religion, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 595-614

The Lucan Text of the Lord's Prayer (Lk XI 2-4)
Robert Leaney
Novum Testamentum, Vol. 1, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1956), pp. 103-111.


However, I am still looking for David Baumgardt's Jewish Bible Quarterly
article  "Kaddish and Lord's Prayer" [vol 19 (1991)].

But I suspect that this is something that would first have to be scanned
since it appears that JBQ does not have volumes earlier than 1994 or so
online.


Yours,

Jeffrey--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...

With apologies for cross posting.

This is the Third and final announcement of the 10th annual gathering
of  NT,  Biblical,  and Biblically related e-list members at the Annual
Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in  Washington D.C  on
Saturday, Nov. 18th at 11:30 a.m. . The meeting will take place at the
Gorgias Press booth (booth 1017) in Exhibit Hall A of the Washington
D.C. Convention Center.

As attendees of previous meetings know, this gathering is a great
opportunity to place a face to an one hitherto known only as an
electronic personality and/or to renew acquaintances made at previous
SBLs.

And N.B. -- This year there will be a formal, SBL sponsored. E-Listers'
Brown Bag Lunch Meeting on Sunday, Nov. 19th from 11:45 to 12:45 in
Meeting Room 2-RW where we can talk -- and perhaps do some e-list
planning -- without the distractions of the exhibit.

The Program Book listing of this event is:


      S19-40E-Listers Brown Bag Luncheon
      11/19/2006
      11:45 AM to 12:45 PM
      Room: Meeting Room 2 - RW
      Bring your own lunch (concessions are available in the exhibit
      hall) and join us for discussion.

Those who have let me know of their intentions to join as at the
informal gathering are:


Rikk Watts (XTalk)
who will be a responden to Gathercole's new book in the Synoptic Gospels
section Sunday Noon;  presiding a Mark section on Resurrection; Mon
a/noon; and in the Theol Herm section: respondent to Meye Thompson.

Stephen Carlson (SynopticL; XTalk)
whose papers are: (1) "Luke's Panel Technique for his 'Orderly'
Narration"     S18-24 Sat. 9:00am Synoptics Gospels Section and (2) "The
Nineteenth-Century Exemplar of 'Archaic Mark' (MS 2427)"     S21-18
Tues. 9:00am NT Textual Criticism Section

Jacob Knee (XTalk)

George Kiraz (Hugoye)

Christine Altinis-Kiraz

Everett Oakley (ANE-2)

Joseph Cathey

Gordon Raynal (XTalk)

Ken Penner (g-Megilot)

Joseph T. Edmiston (XTalk, Synoptic-L, B-Greek)

Patricia Walters (Synoptic-L)
who will be giving a paper on Tuesday morning 9-11am, "Formation of
Luke-Acts" session -- Room: 204B - CC.   Paper title:  "The Gilded
Hypothesis Revisited: The Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts"

Steve Black (XTalk)
who will be presenting a paper in  the SBL Construction of Christian
Identities Consultation (S19-108)   on Sunday late afternoon. Paper
Title:  "The Construction of Christian Identity through the Stereotyping
of the Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew"

Frank Jacks (XTalk and Corpus Paulinum and Synoptic-L,)

Bill Skelton (Johannine Literature, XTalk)

Joseph Weaks (Synoptic-L, B-Greek)

Andrew Porter (B-Greek)

Mark Nanos (Corpus Paulinum)
who will be presenting a paper in Philippians Group Meeting entitled
"You say 'Judaizers,' I say, 'Why so?': Re-visiting the Context Implied
by
Paul's Name-Calling in Philippians 3"

Brian Tucker (Biblical Studies)

Gail Dawson (XTalk)

Donald R. Vance (ANE-2)
Presenting a paper in SBL S20-6 Biblical Hebrew Poetry section
Monday November 20, 2006 9:00 AM CC 204C. Paper Title: "Psalm 137
Reexamined with a View to Voice"

Lareta Finger (Corpus Paulinum)

Albert Maksel

Robert Raphael

Eli Elliot (Corpus Paulinum)
who will be delivering a paper in the SBL consultation on Jesus
Traditions, Gospels and Negotiating the Roman Imperial World, Session
S19-18, November 19, 2006 -- 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM -- Room: 156 - CC; The
paper is entitled:  "Empire as Metaphorical Family: God’s Family vs.
Caesar’s Family"

Randall Buth (B-Greek)
who will be presenting a paper in Biblical Greek Language and
Linguistics Section 11/19/2006 5:40 pm Room 204C-CC. Paper Title: "Greek
Body Parts"

Christopher Hutson (Corpus Paulinum)
who be participating in a panel discussion on “Teaching NT Introduction
or Christian Origins” in the Best Practices in Teaching Workshop,
S19-103, Saturday, 4:00-5:30.

Robert Raphael (B-Greek)

Stan Gundry

Mark Thalacker (Kata Markon)


and me (J. Gibson [Xtalk, Corpus Paulinum, Kata Markon,  and others)
I'll be presenting a paper entitled "The Bread Petition in the Lord's
Prayer: A Lack or "Alas""?" S21-25 Synoptic Gospels Tuesday November 21,
2006 9:00 AM CC 146C

I look forward to seeing you in Washington D.C.!

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson


--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just testing to see if I am bouncing.

JK

Jack,
   I trust that your test, at least with reference to
my e-mail address, proved that you are not bouncing.
   I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit list.  Are
we all so busy that discussion of the Gospel has been
placed on hold or has a different list been created
where the discussion continues?

Tom Butler

--- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:

>
> Just testing to see if I am bouncing.
>
> JK
>
>


<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>

-----Original Message-----
From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Butler
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:23 PM
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] bouncing?

Jack,
I trust that your test, at least with reference to my e-mail address,
proved that you are not bouncing.  I wonder about the silence on the
J-Lit list. Are we all so busy that discussion of the Gospel has been
placed on hold or has a different list been created where the discussion
continues?

  Dear Tom Butler:

Some time ago, I voluntarily withdrew from participating in discussions
since my knowledge of Greek is inadequate.  But, I so deeply share your
concern about the recent period of silence that I am going to break my
own silence by making this one contribution, in the hopes that it will
spark some discussion, and then go back to strictly "lurking".

THE SAYING ON THE SANCTUARY

Introduction


Let us look at John 2:19-22, "Answered Jesus, and said to them (i.e.,
the Jews), 'Destroy this sanctuary and in three days I will raise it.'
Said, then, the Jews, 'This sanctuary was built in 46 years-and you will
raise it in three days?' But that one was speaking about the sanctuary
of his body.  Therefore, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples
remembered this that he was saying and the believed the scripture and
the word which Jesus said."



  Note the  cryptic reference to "the scripture".  Raymond E. Brown
states, "It is not clear if this is a reference to the OT in general or
to a particular passage, e.g., Ps. xvi 10, or perhaps to Ps lxix 9 cited
in vs. 17." <outbind://7/#_ftn1> [1]



  Here, it will be argued, there is another possible candidate for "the
scripture ": and this is Amos 9:11 , but only as interpreted in the
fourth stage of its interpretation-with the first two stages having
taken place in the Qumran community.


The First Stage in Interpreting Amos 9:11


Let us look at this excerpt from the Damascus Document, "And all the
apostates were given up to the sword, but those who held fast escaped to
the land of the north, as God said, I will exile the tabernacle of your
king and the bases of your statues from my tent to Damascus (Amos v,
26-27).  The Books of the Law are the tabernacle of the king; as God
said, I will raise up the tabernacle of David which is fallen (Amos ix,
11). The king is the congregation; and the bases of the statues are the
books of the Prophets whose sayings Israel despised.  The star is the
Interpreter of the Law who shall come to Damascus; as it is written, A
star shall come forth out of Jacob and a scepter shall rise out of
Israel (Num. xxiv, 17.  The scepter is the Prince of the whole
congregation, and when he comes he shall smite all the children of Seth
(Num. xxiv, 17)." <outbind://7/#_ftn2> [2]



  Here, Amos 9:11 is strongly linked to Amos 5:26-27.



  Here, Amos 9:11 is also linked to Numbers 24:17-which is interpreted to
be a prophecy concerning the coming of two End-time figures:

1. The Interpreter of the Law
2. The Prince of the congregation

In interpreting Amos 9:11:

1. The tabernacle is taken to be the books of the Law, i.e., the
Torah
2. David is taken to be the king = the congregation.

As a result, in this interpretation of Amos 9:11, the tabernacle of
David is taken to be the Torah of the congregation.



This is the proposed first stage in the interpreting of Amos 9:11


The Second Stage in Interpreting Amos 9:11


The next proposed stage in interpreting Amos 9:11 is found in this
excerpt from 4Q174, "The lord declares to you that He will build you a
House (2 Sam. vii, 11C). I will raise up your seed after you (2 Sam.
vii, 12).  I will establish the throne of his kingdom [for ever] (2 Sam.
vii, 13).  [I will be] his father and he shall be my son (2 Sam. vii,
14).  He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of
the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of time.  As it is written, I
will raise up the tent of David that is fallen (Amos ix, 11).  That is
to say, the fallen tent of David is he who shall arise to save Israel."



Numbers 24:17, as interpreted in the excerpt from the Damascus Document
given above, underlies this excerpt from 4Q174.  As a result, in this
excerpt from 4Q174:

1. The Interpreter of the Law is the star of Numbers 24:17
2. The Branch of David is the Prince of the congregation mentioned
in the excerpt from the Damascus Document and he is the scepter of
Number 24:17.

  This excerpt from 4Q174 begins by citing 2 Samuel 7:11c-13, where God
speaks through the prophet Nathan to David.  It is taken to be a
prophecy regarding the Branch of David/the Prince of the congregation.
As a result, it is understood, this Branch of David/the Prince of the
congregation will be a descendent of David, he will rule forever, and he
will be, in some meaningful sense, a Son of God.



In this excerpt from 4Q174, Amos 9:11 is strongly linked to 2 Samuel
7:11c-13.  As a result:

1. The tent of David is radically re-interpreted to be the Branch
of David / the Prince of the congregation
2. The "I" who speaks it is God

  Further, it appears, it is interpreted that the tent of David  (i.e.,
the Branch of David/the Prince of the congregation) will be fallen in
the sense of having a lowly station in life, but then be raised up by
God in the sense of being elevated to the status of ruler over Israel by
God, thereby enabling him to save Israel from her enemies.



This is the proposed second stage in the interpretation of Amos 9:11.
<outbind://7/#_ftn3> [3]


The Third Stage in Interpreting Amos 9:11


Next, let us turn our attention to Romans 1:3b-4--where Paul states:

Having come from the seed of David according to flesh; having been
designated Son of God in power according to a Spirit of holiness out of
a rising (anastasews) from the dead: Jesus Christ, our Lord.



What Paul states here readily relates to three of the last four
scriptural passages cited in the above excerpt from 4Q 174:

1. The first part of Romans 1:3b-4, "Having come from the seed of
David according to flesh", relates to the first of these last four
scriptural passages cited in 4Q174, i.e., 2 Sam. 7:11c, "I will raise up
your (i.e., David's) seed after you"-for each speaks of an individual
who will be from the seed of David
2. The second part of Romans 1:3b-4, "Having been designated Son of
God in power according to a Spirit of holiness", relates to the second
of these last four scriptural passages cited in 4Q 174, i.e., 2 Sam.
7:13, "[I will be] his father and he shall be my son"-for each speaks of
this individual as being, in some meaningful sense, a Son of God.
3. The third part of Romans 1:3b-4, "Out of a rising (anastasews)
from the dead", relates to the fourth of these four scriptural passages
cited in 4Q174, i.e., Amos 9:11, "I will raise up the tent of David that
is fallen"-for each refers to the rising/raising up of an individual
<outbind://7/#_ftn4> [4]

  Note that Romans 1:3b-4 follows the sequential order of scriptural
passages cited in the excerpt from 4Q174, merely skipping the second of
these scriptural passages.



This is a clear indication that Romans 1:3b-4 reflects a familiarity
with the excerpt from 4Q174 and an approval of its strong linkage of 2
Sam. 7:11c-13 with Amos 9:11.



However, there are two quite evident differences in interpretation
between Romans 1:3b-4 and the excerpt from 4Q174:

1. In Romans 1:3b-4, the subject of 2 Sam. 7:11c-13 and Amos 9:11
is taken to be Jesus as Christ and our Lord, but, in the excerpt from
4Q174, this subject is taken to be the Branch of David / the Prince of
the congregation
2. In Romans 1:3b-4, the subject of these two passages is fallen in
the sense of being slain and rises up in the sense of rising up from the
dead, but, in the excerpt from 4Q174, this subject is fallen in the
sense of having a lowly station in life and rises up in the sense of
being elevated to the lofty status of ruler over Israel.

As a result, in Romans 1:3b-4, we appear to have a third stage in the
interpretation of Amos 9:11.  In the second stage, the tent/tabernacle
of David is the Branch of David/Prince of the congregation and this
figure will be fallen in the sense of having a low status in society
but, then, be raised by God in the sense of being elevated by God to
being the King of Israel.  However, in this third stage, the
tent/tabernacle of David is the Christ/Lord and this figure will be
fallen in the sense of having been killed but, then, be raised by God in
the sense of being raised from the dead.



This appears to a pre-Pauline stage in interpretation-for Romans 1:3b-4
is quite un-Pauline. <outbind://7/#_ftn5> [5]  So, it appears, Romans
1:3b-4 is a pre-Pauline credo that is cited by Paul-presumably because
the Roman church, to whom he was writing, was already familiar with it
and accepted its validity.


The Fourth Stage in Interpreting Amos 9:11


Next, let us turn our attention to John 2:19-22, which reads, "Answered
Jesus, and said to them (i.e., the Jews), 'Destroy this sanctuary (naon)
and in three days I will raise (egerw) it.'  Said, then, the Jews, 'This
sanctuary (naos) was built (oikodomethe) in 46 years-and you will raise
(egereis) it in three days?' But that one was speaking about the
sanctuary (naou) of his body.  Therefore, when he was raised (egerthe)
from the dead, his disciples remembered this that he was saying and the
believed the scripture and the word which Jesus said."



Here, "the word which Jesus said" is this, "Destroy this sanctuary
(naon) and in three days I will raise (egerw) it."



Here, "the scripture" means "the scriptural basis for the word which
Jesus said".



As already mentioned, the scriptural passage(s) in mind is/are not
clear.



However, there are two considerations that might help us to find a
primary scriptural passage behind the word of Jesus:

1. The sanctuary (naos) was the inner part of Herod's temple
(hieron), the Holy Place accessible only to priests, and it corresponded
to the wilderness skene (tent or tabernacle).
2. In the saying by the Jews (i.e., "This sanctuary (naos) was
built (oikodomethe) in 46 years-and you will raise (egereis) it in three
days?"), "will raise (egereis) the sanctuary (naos) in three days"
means, in effect, "will rebuild (anoikodomesw) it in three days."
<outbind://7/#_ftn6> [6]

What these two considerations suggest is that the primary scriptural
passage upon which the "word" of Jesus is based regards not the raising
of a naos (sanctuary) but, rather, the rebuilding of a skene
(tent/tabernacle).



Indeed, there is a scriptural passage which does regard the rebuilding
of a skene (tent/tabernacle)-and this is Amos 9:11-12 as rendered by
Luke in Acts 15:16-18  <outbind://7/#_ftn7> [7], "I will rebuild
(anoikodomesw) the skenen (tent/tabernacle) of David, the one having
fallen, and the things of it having been torn down I will rebuild
(anoikodomesw) and I will restore it, so that the ones remaining of men
might seek out the Lord-and all the Gentiles upon whom my name has been
invoked over them, says the Lord doing these things-known from the
ages."



So, I propose, Amos 9:11-12, as rendered in Acts 15:16-18, is the
scriptural passage which is the primary basis for the "word" of Jesus,
i.e., the saying, "Destroy this sanctuary (naon) and in three days I
will raise (egerw) it."



In this case, in John 2:19-22, the interpretation of Amos 9:11-12 is
this:

1. The Lord doing these things is Jesus and he is, as such, a
pre-existent divine being "known from the ages"
2. The skene (tent/tabernacle) of David is the naos (temple) and
this, in turn, is the body of Jesus
3. It is fallen in the sense that it has been "destroyed", i.e.,
slain, by the Jews.
4. It will be rebuilt in the sense that it will be raised up from
the dead by the Lord, i.e., Jesus.

The underlying thought appears to be that Jesus is a pre-existing divine
being who became incarnate in the skene (tent/tabernacle) of David,
i.e., in a fleshly body.  Further, when his fleshly body was slain, he
continued to exist and raised it from the dead in three days.



Compare John 1:14a, "And the Word became flesh and eskenwsen
(tented/tabernacled) among us."  That is to say, the Word, a
pre-existent divine being, became incarnate in the skene
(tent/tabernacle) of David, i.e., in a fleshly body.



So, in John 2:19-22, we appear to have a fourth stage in the
interpretation of Amos 9:11.  In this interpretation of Amos 9:11:

1. The "I" is Jesus as the Logos
2. The skene (tent/tabernacle) is the body of Jesus
3. It is fallen in the sense that it has been slain by the Jews
4. It will be rebuilt in the sense that it will be restored to
life-being, thereby, raised up from the dead-by Jesus as the Logos.



   _____


  <outbind://7/#_ftnref1> [1] The Gospel According to John, p.116

  <outbind://7/#_ftnref2> [2] VII

  <outbind://7/#_ftnref3> [3] That the interpretation of Amos 9:11 in the
excerpt from 4Q174 is later than the one in the excerpt from the
Damascus Document is indicated by what immediately precedes the excerpt
from 4Q174.  What immediately precedes it reads, "And concerning His
words to David, And I [will give] you [rest] from all your enemies (2
Sam. vii, 11), this means that He will give them rest from all the
children of Belial who cause them to stumble so that they may be
destroyed  [by their errors,] just as they came with a [devilish] plan
to cause the [sons] of light to stumble and to devise against them a
wicked plot, so [that they might become subject] to Belial in their
[wicked] straying."

Here, "David" is interpreted, as in the Damascus Document's
interpretation of "the tent of David", to be "the congregation"-the
members of whom, here, are called the sons of light.

So, the author of 4Q174 does seem to be familiar with the excerpt from
the Damascus Document and with how the phrase "the tent of David" is
interpreted in it.  As a result, that his own interpretation of this
phrase is radically different from the interpretation of it in the
excerpt from the Damascus Document is an indication that his own
interpretation of it is later than the interpretation of it to be found
in the Damascus Document.

  <outbind://7/#_ftnref4> [4]  In 4Q174 the "tent of David" that will
"fall" and then "arise" is identified as being an individual-for it
contains the statement, "That is to say, the fallen tent of David is he
who shall arise to save Israel."

  <outbind://7/#_ftnref5> [5] To the best of my knowledge, there is no
evidence that Paul ever utilized a DSS document in the manner that 4Q174
appears to have been utilized by the initial author of what we find in
Romans 1:3b-4.  Also, the emphasis of Romans 1:3b-4 on the Davidic
descent of Jesus is not characteristically Pauline.  Finally, it is
un-Pauline in that no salvific significance is given to the death and
resurrection of Jesus.  As a result, it appears, what we find in Romans
1:3b-4 is a pre-Pauline credo.

  <outbind://7/#_ftnref6> [6] So, in the Gospel of John (p. 125), Rudolph
Bultmann freely renders the last part of the "word" of Jesus as, "I will
(re-) build it in three days!"

  <outbind://7/#_ftnref7> [7] This version of Amos 9:11b significantly
differs from the Septuagint version of it.  Luke attributes its usage to
a person he calls James and who, in the context, is clearly James, the
brother of Jesus.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=1164713/grpspId=1705074057/m
sgId=5484/stime=1163892969>
  Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt. 15
Maplewood, MN USA 55109



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Frank McCoy

All the lists are silent except a few. I think the scholars have gone
blogging

I have an interest in what you refer to in the temple saying - the question
is simple: how did the first century writers read 'the scripture'?

Example: the dialogue between the Father and the Son in Hebrews is all taken
from the Psalter. This 'reading' of the psalms from the first century has
led me to study them more closely.

Why did they read them this way when faced with their experience of Jesus in
the life of Israel? While I am particularly interested in the psalms, John
has some intriguing readings of Scripture that we have discussed before -
the 'out of his belly' quote for instance.

Also some have claimed that the scriptures provided a hypotext against which
the writers constructed their stories; I don't think I am interested in
going to that conclusion, but the first century authors knew their
scriptures better than we do - no TV, no distractions - so why did they use
them to focus on Jesus and the Spirit as they did?

This response is tangential to your note - but you did suggest Psalm 16:10
(I haven't got there in my study yet). The 'Holy One' in this passage is
hesideka - 'your beloved' - interesting that it is not the tsadiq
(righteous) or a root related to qodesh (holy) but the root related to mercy
/ loving kindness.

I will be another 4 years studying the Psalter - my Hebrew is at a
3-year-old reading level - so it is too early for me to consider this
question related to a first century writer.

Bob

Bob MacDonald
Victoria BC
http://gx.ca
http://bmd.gx.ca

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@...>
To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] bouncing?


> Jack,
>  I trust that your test, at least with reference to
> my e-mail address, proved that you are not bouncing.
>  I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit list.  Are
> we all so busy that discussion of the Gospel has been
> placed on hold or has a different list been created
> where the discussion continues?
>
> Tom Butler


I think it may be everyone waiting for someone else to start a thread
combined with busy times.  I, for one, would like to hear..er..read...some
text critical opinions concerning the redactors of 4G and opjnions on the
addition of the prologue, chapter 21 and the Pericope de Adultera.  Perhaps
some of our members have studied these.

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, Texas

.

Jack, In reply to your interest in the Pericope de Adultera and John's Chapter
21: The wisdom statement of the Wisdom section of a Parable gives specific
meaning to the story statement of its Story section. The original parable, into
which the Pericope was placed, had as its wisdom statement of the Wisdom section
what we call verses 17 and 18, "In your law it is written that the testimony of
two witnesses is valid. I testify on my own behalf, and the Father who sent me
testifies on my behalf." With the inclusion of your pericope of interest, the
new story statement of the Story section of that new parable that was formed
ends with the last half of what we call verse 6, "Jesus bent down and wrote with
his finger on the ground." {The Father who wrote with his finger the ten
commandment that he gave to Moses, forgave the Jews when they broke the greate
st, the first of the commandments. The Pharisees have forgotten the Father of
Mercy when they test Jesus by telling him that Moses com
manded them to stone the woman. Jesus writing with his finger on the ground
shows that the Father is testifying with him, on his behalf. This is how the wW
gives specific meaning to the new sS.} I propose to you that The Church liked
the revision and incorporated the change. Remember in the synoptic gospels: It
is by the finger of God that Jesus' words cast out demons! The Father is always
testifying on Jesus' behalf. Since John's Chapter 21 was added later, after the
last Parable was already finished, it had to be a parable by itself--and it is!
It is the only chapter of John's gospel which is an entire parable. If you, or
anyone else, are interested in receiving the origin of the literary form of the
Parable which is used by the writers of the entire Christian Scriptures, I will
send you an attachment which includes one of John's thirty-one Parables.
mikeandrewcarrell@... {It will be hard for you to accept this next
statement without understanding the literary form, but e
ach of the four gospels has one Parable that has a double meaning. It states
their intention that we understand their gospel in this literary form.
Blessings, Mike Carrell

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mike tried to send this to the list but had difficulty...which I will look into.

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, Texas
Moderator



----- Original Message -----
From: mikeandrewcarrell@...
To: Jack Kilmon
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 9:12 AM
Subject: Pericope de Adultera


Jack, In reply to your interest in the Pericope de Adultera and John's Chapter
21:  The wisdom statement of the Wisdom section of a Parable gives specific
meaning to the story statement of its Story section. The original parable, into
which the Pericope was placed, had as its wisdom statement of the Wisdom section
what we call verses 17 and 18, "In your law it is written that the testimony of
two witnesses is valid. I testify on my own behalf, and the Father who sent me
testifies on my behalf."  With the inclusion of your pericope of interest, the
new story statement of the Story section of that new parable that was formed
ends with the last half of what we call verse 6, "Jesus bent down and wrote with
his finger on the ground."  {The Father who wrote with his finger the ten
commandment that he gave to Moses, forgave the Jews when they broke the greate
st, the first of the commandments.  The Pharisees have forgotten the Father of
Mercy when they test Jesus by telling him that Moses commanded them to stone the
woman. Jesus writing with his finger on the ground shows that the Father is
testifying with him, on his behalf. This is how the wW gives specific meaning to
the new sS.}  I propose to you that The Church liked the revision and
incorporated the change. Remember in the synoptic gospels: It is by the finger
of God that Jesus' words cast out demons! The Father is always testifying on
Jesus' behalf.   Since John's Chapter 21 was added later, after the last Parable
was already finished, it had to be a parable by itself--and it is! It is the
only chapter of John's gospel which is an entire parable.  If you, or anyone
else, are interested in receiving the origin of the literary form of the Parable
which is used by the writers of the entire Christian Scriptures, I will send you
an attachment which includes one of John's thirty-one Parables.
mikeandrewcarrell@... {It will be hard for you to accept this next
statement without understanding the literary form, but each of the four gospels
has one Parable that has a double meaning. It states their intention that we
understand their gospel in this literary form.

Blessings, Mike Carrell



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jack,

   Regarding John 21, I have discovered a few interesting points. First, there
are several similarities between John 21 and the book of Jonah. Jonah allows
himself to be cast into the sea, and Peter casts himself into the sea. Jonah is
swallowed by a fish, but Peter catches fish and then eats some fish. The people
of Ninevah don't know the difference between their right hand and their left
hand, so Jonah has to tell them. The disciples don't know to fish on the right
side of the boat, so Jesus has to tell them. The King of Ninevah takes his robe
off, but Peter puts his clothes on. There is a discussion of whether Jonah
should die, and whether the people of Ninevah should live, and there is a
discussion of how Peter will die, and whether John should live.

   Second, there is a link between John 21 and Ezekiel 47:9,10, which says an
abundance of fish is caused by an abundance of water flowing into the sea, and
the abundance of fish in John 21 occurs when Jesus, the giver of living water,
is standing on the shore.

   Third, Jesus' cooking and serving breakfast seems to be linked to the 23rd
Psalm. When Jesus fed the multitudes, the people ate and were satisfied, so they
didn't "want." Jesus had them recline where there was "much grass," like sheep
in a pasture. He went to the other side of the lake, and the people followed
him, so he led them beside the still water. Eventually, it's time to prepare the
table of Psalm 23. Peter is alienated from Jesus because he denied him. They are
"enemies," who need to be reconciled. Jesus prepares the breakfast and invites
Peter, who is very reluctant to say that he loves Jesus. These apparent
allusions to the 23rd Psalm seem to establish that Jesus is the good shepherd
who gives his life for the sheep.

   Fourth, the most interesting link, and the one that seems to tie everything
else together, is the link between John 21 and Acts 2. Of the six disciples who
remain in the boat after Peter jumps out, two of them were named explicitly, two
were named indirectly, as "ones of Zebedee," and two are anonymous. As Peter
wraps up his sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, he says "the promise" is
for three groups of people 1) you, 2) your children 3) all who are afar off.
Note the similarity between these three groups of people and the three types of
people on the boat in John 21 - people you address directly, children of people
you address directly, and people who are more distant, or unknown or anonymous.
The six disciples in the boat seem to be representative of the people Peter will
address his remarks to on the day of Pentecost.

   Lastly, there is a relationship between Jesus the good shepherd, who gives his
life for the sheep, and Jesus the giver of living water. This relationship is
found in 1 Chron 11:15-19. David's three men risk their own lives to get David a
drink of water from the well of bethlehem. David values the water as the blood
of the men who obtained it for him. Like the men who obtained the water for
David, Jesus sacrifices his own life to pay the cost of providing the living
water of the Holy Spirit to those who believe and receive.

   I wouldn't be too quick to say that John 21 was added on to the Gospel of
John, because the Gospel of John doesn't seem to be complete without it.

   Arlene Sheldon


Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@...>
To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] bouncing?

> Jack,
> I trust that your test, at least with reference to
> my e-mail address, proved that you are not bouncing.
> I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit list. Are
> we all so busy that discussion of the Gospel has been
> placed on hold or has a different list been created
> where the discussion continues?
>
> Tom Butler

I think it may be everyone waiting for someone else to start a thread
combined with busy times. I, for one, would like to hear..er..read...some
text critical opinions concerning the redactors of 4G and opjnions on the
addition of the prologue, chapter 21 and the Pericope de Adultera. Perhaps
some of our members have studied these.

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, Texas

.






---------------------------------
Sponsored Link

    Don't quit your job  - take classes online and earn your degree in 1 year.
Start Today

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jack,
   I understand that you are suggesting that the
Prologue, Chapter 21 and "The Pericope de Adultera"
are contributions to the text of the Fourth Gospel
made by a redactor or redactors.  If my understanding
of what I take as your suggestion (or theory commonly
supported by most Johannine scholars) is correct, it
seems to me that this would make a good thread for
discussion on this list.
   Why do you think these are indications of the work
of a redactor or redactors?  Why, for example, is it
more likely that these three units of scripture were
added to the text by a redactor or redactors than by
the "original author or authors"?
   As you may recall, my theory is that the Fourth
Gospel is a careful compilation of Midrashic
commentaries on the Jesus tradition.  These
commentaries use the language of the Septuagint
version of the Torah to expound upon the meaning of
various elements of the Jesus tradition.  The purpose
of the compilation (perhaps the very purpose of the
community from which these commentaries came) appears
to be the creation a new Torah for the new age.
   In other words I think these writers were
intentionally writing scripture as they expounded upon
the meaning of the Jesus tradition.  They were "doing
theology" or "reflecting Christologically" before
those terms had meaning in most Christian communities.
   Consistent with my theory is what I discern as
evidence that there is a second story line throughout
the gospel, discernable when the Greek terms borrowed
from the Septuagint are identified as "signs" (semeia)
and which tell how Jesus systematically replaced
("recycled?" "redefined?" "transformed?") every
element of the Mosaic tradition: the temple, the
festivals of sacrifice and the priesthood.
   Consideration of the Prologue and Chapter 21 is
important to this theory (or method of study), which I
have set forth in part in this space before.  For that
reason, I would be willing to argue against the idea
that they are evidence of a redactor or redactors
(that is, some one or some group other than those
responsible for creating and shaping the rest of the
text.)
   Would you or other listers be interested in a
dialogue or debate on this issue [Redactor(s) or No
Redactor(s)]?
   (I confess that I do not recognize the other term
you are using, "the Pericope de Adultura."  Do you
mean Jn. 7:53 - 8:11 entitled "The Woman Caught in
Adultery" by the editors of the NRSV?  If so, I would
be glad to include this pericope in our dialogue /
debate along with any other pericopes, should you or
others seeking to support or reject the idea that this
and/or other passages reflect or do not reflect the
work of one or more redactors.)

Yours in Christ's service,
Tom Butler


--- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@...>
> To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] bouncing?
>
>
> > Jack,
> >  I trust that your test, at least with reference
> > to my e-mail address, proved that you are not
> > bouncing.
> >  I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit list.
> > Are we all so busy that discussion of the Gospel >
> has been placed on hold or has a different list  > >
been created where the discussion continues?
> >
> > Tom Butler
> > Sparks, Nevada
>
> I think it may be everyone waiting for someone else
> to start a thread combined with busy times.  I, for
> one, would like to hear..er..read...some text
> critical opinions concerning the redactors of
> 4G and opinions on the addition of the prologue,
> chapter 21 and the Pericope de Adultera.  Perhaps
> some of our members have studied these.
>
> Jack Kilmon
> San Antonio, Texas



<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>

Tom,

I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is not written by the same
person that wrote John 1-20.

I find the following reasons:

1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a fully-fledged conclusion, that refers
back to the SHMEIA (signs), that can be found in John 2-12. Therefore,
unless the contrary is proved, I understand John 20,30-31 as the conclusion
of John 1-20 (whether you include the Prologue or not).

2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote TAUTA. It is reasonable to
think that TAUTA refers to what comes before, that is to the Gospel as a
whole down to the first conclusion in John 20,30-31.

3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is not written by the beloved
disciple who wrote John 1-20. I list them so:

3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his witness is true". The verb is in
first plural, so that whoever is speaking can be easily distinguished from
the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third person: "he".

3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the author of John 1-20, he
would be a person who testifies on his own behalf. As John 5,31 says: "If I
testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified".

3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that the beloved disciple
wouldn't die, contrary to the word spread among the brothers. These verses
make sense if they were written after the death of the beloved disciple: the
author seems worried that some brothers might think that Jesus was wrong.
Therefore the beloved disciple didn't wrote these verses.

3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John 20,30-31 make it plausible
the once the Gospel ended there, and chapter 21 was added subesequently. The
fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not modified when chapter 21 is
added leads to think that the author of John 21 didn't think he could change
what was already written. This doens't happen in John 1-20, whenever the
test is modified. For instance, in chapter 4,2 a correction is inserted
within the text. The author of John 21 doesn't take the same liberty.

3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are never named before: that is,
the sons of Zebedee. It is striking that they are never named in John 1-20.
Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John 21 was written.

3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of them are not existent in
John 1-20. For instance, in chapter 6 fish is OPSARION.  ICQUS is never
used.  Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that the auothr of John 21 is
the same as the author of John 1-20.

I thin that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that give me certainty. I
recognis that the following reasons are indiciary. If consiered separately,
they make it more likely that the author is different. All together, they
make a strong case against identity of author.

If would be very interested to read a refutation of any of the given
reasons.

Marco

On 11/22/06, Tom Butler <pastor_t@...> wrote:
>
>   Jack,
> I understand that you are suggesting that the
> Prologue, Chapter 21 and "The Pericope de Adultera"
> are contributions to the text of the Fourth Gospel
> made by a redactor or redactors. If my understanding
> of what I take as your suggestion (or theory commonly
> supported by most Johannine scholars) is correct, it
> seems to me that this would make a good thread for
> discussion on this list.
> Why do you think these are indications of the work
> of a redactor or redactors? Why, for example, is it
> more likely that these three units of scripture were
> added to the text by a redactor or redactors than by
> the "original author or authors"?
> As you may recall, my theory is that the Fourth
> Gospel is a careful compilation of Midrashic
> commentaries on the Jesus tradition. These
> commentaries use the language of the Septuagint
> version of the Torah to expound upon the meaning of
> various elements of the Jesus tradition. The purpose
> of the compilation (perhaps the very purpose of the
> community from which these commentaries came) appears
> to be the creation a new Torah for the new age.
> In other words I think these writers were
> intentionally writing scripture as they expounded upon
> the meaning of the Jesus tradition. They were "doing
> theology" or "reflecting Christologically" before
> those terms had meaning in most Christian communities.
> Consistent with my theory is what I discern as
> evidence that there is a second story line throughout
> the gospel, discernable when the Greek terms borrowed
> from the Septuagint are identified as "signs" (semeia)
> and which tell how Jesus systematically replaced
> ("recycled?" "redefined?" "transformed?") every
> element of the Mosaic tradition: the temple, the
> festivals of sacrifice and the priesthood.
> Consideration of the Prologue and Chapter 21 is
> important to this theory (or method of study), which I
> have set forth in part in this space before. For that
> reason, I would be willing to argue against the idea
> that they are evidence of a redactor or redactors
> (that is, some one or some group other than those
> responsible for creating and shaping the rest of the
> text.)
> Would you or other listers be interested in a
> dialogue or debate on this issue [Redactor(s) or No
> Redactor(s)]?
> (I confess that I do not recognize the other term
> you are using, "the Pericope de Adultura." Do you
> mean Jn. 7:53 - 8:11 entitled "The Woman Caught in
> Adultery" by the editors of the NRSV? If so, I would
> be glad to include this pericope in our dialogue /
> debate along with any other pericopes, should you or
> others seeking to support or reject the idea that this
> and/or other passages reflect or do not reflect the
> work of one or more redactors.)
>
> Yours in Christ's service,
> Tom Butler
>
> --- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@... <jkilmon%40historian.net>> wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@... <pastor_t%40pacbell.net>>
> > To:
<johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] bouncing?
> >
> >
> > > Jack,
> > > I trust that your test, at least with reference
> > > to my e-mail address, proved that you are not
> > > bouncing.
> > > I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit list.
> > > Are we all so busy that discussion of the Gospel >
> > has been placed on hold or has a different list > >
> been created where the discussion continues?
> > >
> > > Tom Butler
> > > Sparks, Nevada
> >
> > I think it may be everyone waiting for someone else
> > to start a thread combined with busy times. I, for
> > one, would like to hear..er..read...some text
> > critical opinions concerning the redactors of
> > 4G and opinions on the addition of the prologue,
> > chapter 21 and the Pericope de Adultera. Perhaps
> > some of our members have studied these.
> >
> > Jack Kilmon
> > San Antonio, Texas
>
>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
> service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
> Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
>
>



--
_______________________________________
Marco V. Fabbri
Roma
Italy

e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
fax: ++39-06-68164400


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am sorry for not checking carefully enough the spelling of my penultimate
paragraph.

Please read:



> I think that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that give me certainty. I
> recognise that the reasons given in 3.3-6 are indiciary. If considered
> separately, they make it more likely that the author is different. All
> together, they make a strong case against identity of author.
>
> Marco


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Marco and others

My belief is that John was written not by the beloved disciple alone,
but by around half a dozen disciples and other eyewitnesses under his
direction. The gospel was issued under his name – i.e. John (son of
Zebedee) as per (or at least something similar to the recollection of
) the Muratorian Canon. It is the group, the `we', then, who testifies
to the gospel to which they have contributed but are releasing under
`his' (John's) name. John gives the concluding comment, `…I suppose…'

With so many contributing there will be times when new/different words
are used. However, the different words for `fish' – and to OPSARION
and ICQUS you can add PROSFAGION and the verb ALIEUEIN are given
deliberately to distinguish between stichs in a sixfold chiastic
structure from 21:1-14. In the large second stich (vv.2-6) all four
terms are used; in its complementary stich (v.13) is only OPSARION. In
the fifth stich (v.8) is only ICQUS, which is the same for its
complementary stich (v.11) and in the sixth stich (v. 9) and its
complementary (v. 10) only OPSARION is used.

I have written in this list on a number of occasions that John is made
up of several different but interdependent structures. 1:1 – 20:29
uses Genesis 1 & 2 as a framework. Therefore the prologue was part of
the original gospel. The whole gospel is made up of 70 micro-chiasms
with the 41 structures from 2:2 – 11:44 forming two concentric
macro-chiasms (i.e. chiasms of chiasms). These micro-chiasms, with the
aid of the macro structures, the writers used like tiles in a mosaic
so that the autograph of the gospel – and only the autograph -  was
laid out in pictorial form. That form was a stylistic representation
of the risen Jesus standing and presenting his hands as he did to
Thomas. One of the concentric macro-chiasms provides the segments for
the fingers (three micro-chiasms for each finger and two for the
thumbs – all these micro-chiasms are sevenfold formations). The other
macro-chiasm provides separators to distinguish each finger from the
next (these micro-chiasms vary in size, only one being sevenfold). The
reason I am giving these details is because at the base of this
overall `image' are two `feet'. The feet are represented by two
micro-chiasms, the one mentioned already (21:1-14) and the other, a
fourfold formation, 21:18-23. The feet are separated by the unique
structure of the triple tristich parallelism of 21:15-17. So that
these two feet can be distinguished from all other structures and
shown as being together they are bracketed by the inclusios of
20:30&31 and 21:25&24 respectively. If this is the case, chapter 21 of
John is as original as 20:30-31 and, indeed, the rest of the gospel.

I may as well go for a pound as a penny and mention the woman caught
in adultery as well. It was part of the original gospel. It is one of
the micro-chiastic structures in the concentric macro-chiasms (the one
made up of sevenfold formations which I have called the Dialogue
Macro-chiasm). Like any good chiastic structure there are parallels
across the formation, parallels of words and themes. The parallel for
the woman caught in adultery (Judging Rightly – 8:2-20) is 5:9b-19
(The Lame Man is Questioned). In 8:20, Jesus is in the temple with the
woman and to her he says, "Do not sin again". In 5:9b-19 Jesus is in
the temple with the formerly lame man and to him he says, "Sin no
more." Interestingly, on both occasions he uses an expression found
nowhere else in the New Testament, MHKETI  HAMARTANE. Besides the
episode being integral to the micro-chiasm in which it stands, this
cross macro-chiastic parallel confirms the place of the woman caught
in adultery in the original text.

Kym Smith

What a lovely word chiasm is - and circular, or concentric or inclusio -
Such structures often give language meaning.

Kym

I think 6 years ago or so - but a long time anyway, it was reading your
ideas that prompted me to explore such literary structures more completely.

In the past year my information technology background and my interest in
ancient texts flowed together using a new product for illustrating
structure.  I took my first diagrams based on the work of Albert van Hoye to
the conference on the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews in St Andrews
this past summer. (The originals on the web are in pdf and too long for
comfort so I have put out one in jpg format http://bmd.gx.ca/hebrews.jpg)

What this illustrates is that you are not alone in examining chiastic
structures in the NT. Hebrews is a tour de force in this area. Van Hoye's
work "La structure littéraire de l'épitre aux Hébreux" is a good read.

Your own work could be put into such a diagram - if you are interested,
please contact me offlist at bobmacdonald at gx.ca - it would be best of
course if the work were done in Greek.  It is possible. I am currently doing
structural analysis of the Psalms in Hebrew as I think I mentioned (I hope
not too often :) ).

Bob

Bob MacDonald
Victoria BC
http://gx.ca
http://bmd.gx.ca

Hello listers:

No matter what your "persuasion" or lack thereof, I would like to wish
everyone a peaceful, restful, and fulfilling Thanksgiving.  It is a time for
family, friends, good food and reflection.  As we enjoy the company of good
friends, let us remember those who are lonely.  As we enjoy our Thanksgiving
dinners, let us remember those who are hungry and pledge to work even harder
in the coming year to do what we can, as individuals, to help.

Jack


Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, Texas

The name is (Albert Cardinal) Vanhoye, S.J. Is it not?


-----Original Message-----
From: bobmacdonald@...
To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:38 PM
Subject: [John_Lit] Chiasm


What a lovely word chiasm is - and circular, or concentric or inclusio -
Such structures often give language meaning.

Kym

I think 6 years ago or so - but a long time anyway, it was reading your
ideas that prompted me to explore such literary structures more completely.

In the past year my information technology background and my interest in
ancient texts flowed together using a new product for illustrating
structure. I took my first diagrams based on the work of Albert van Hoye to
the conference on the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews in St Andrews
this past summer. (The originals on the web are in pdf and too long for
comfort so I have put out one in jpg format http://bmd.gx.ca/hebrews.jpg)

What this illustrates is that you are not alone in examining chiastic
structures in the NT. Hebrews is a tour de force in this area. Van Hoye's
work "La structure littéraire de l'épitre aux Hébreux" is a good read.

Your own work could be put into such a diagram - if you are interested,
please contact me offlist at bobmacdonald at gx.ca - it would be best of
course if the work were done in Greek. It is possible. I am currently doing
structural analysis of the Psalms in Hebrew as I think I mentioned (I hope
not too often :) ).

Bob

Bob MacDonald
Victoria BC
http://gx.ca
http://bmd.gx.ca



________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free
AOL Mail and more.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes Leonard - Vanhoye is one word - Scribal error - sorry

Nice to hear from you

Bob

Bob MacDonald
Victoria BC
http://gx.ca
http://bmd.gx.ca

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlene Sheldon" <wellofbethlehem@...>
To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21


> Jack,
>
>  Regarding John 21, I have discovered a few interesting points. First,
> there are several similarities between John 21 and the book of Jonah.
> Jonah allows himself to be cast into the sea, and Peter casts himself into
> the sea. Jonah is swallowed by a fish, but Peter catches fish and then
> eats some fish. The people of Ninevah don't know the difference between
> their right hand and their left hand, so Jonah has to tell them. The
> disciples don't know to fish on the right side of the boat, so Jesus has
> to tell them. The King of Ninevah takes his robe off, but Peter puts his
> clothes on. There is a discussion of whether Jonah should die, and whether
> the people of Ninevah should live, and there is a discussion of how Peter
> will die, and whether John should live.
>
>  Second, there is a link between John 21 and Ezekiel 47:9,10, which says
> an abundance of fish is caused by an abundance of water flowing into the
> sea, and the abundance of fish in John 21 occurs when Jesus, the giver of
> living water, is standing on the shore.
>
>  Third, Jesus' cooking and serving breakfast seems to be linked to the
> 23rd Psalm. When Jesus fed the multitudes, the people ate and were
> satisfied, so they didn't "want." Jesus had them recline where there was
> "much grass," like sheep in a pasture. He went to the other side of the
> lake, and the people followed him, so he led them beside the still water.
> Eventually, it's time to prepare the table of Psalm 23. Peter is alienated
> from Jesus because he denied him. They are "enemies," who need to be
> reconciled. Jesus prepares the breakfast and invites Peter, who is very
> reluctant to say that he loves Jesus. These apparent allusions to the 23rd
> Psalm seem to establish that Jesus is the good shepherd who gives his life
> for the sheep.
>
>  Fourth, the most interesting link, and the one that seems to tie
> everything else together, is the link between John 21 and Acts 2. Of the
> six disciples who remain in the boat after Peter jumps out, two of them
> were named explicitly, two were named indirectly, as "ones of Zebedee,"
> and two are anonymous. As Peter wraps up his sermon on the day of
> Pentecost in Acts 2, he says "the promise" is for three groups of people
> 1) you, 2) your children 3) all who are afar off. Note the similarity
> between these three groups of people and the three types of people on the
> boat in John 21 - people you address directly, children of people you
> address directly, and people who are more distant, or unknown or
> anonymous. The six disciples in the boat seem to be representative of the
> people Peter will address his remarks to on the day of Pentecost.
>
>  Lastly, there is a relationship between Jesus the good shepherd, who
> gives his life for the sheep, and Jesus the giver of living water. This
> relationship is found in 1 Chron 11:15-19. David's three men risk their
> own lives to get David a drink of water from the well of bethlehem. David
> values the water as the blood of the men who obtained it for him. Like the
> men who obtained the water for David, Jesus sacrifices his own life to pay
> the cost of providing the living water of the Holy Spirit to those who
> believe and receive.
>
>  I wouldn't be too quick to say that John 21 was added on to the Gospel of
> John, because the Gospel of John doesn't seem to be complete without it.
>
>  Arlene Sheldon


Very good observations.  It is my opinion, however, that Ch 21 was
originally the ending of Mark and appended tyo John in an attempt to
reconcile Petrine-antiPetrine hostilities between the two.

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Marcos, Texas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@...>
To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G redactions


> Jack,
>  I understand that you are suggesting that the
> Prologue, Chapter 21 and "The Pericope de Adultera"
> are contributions to the text of the Fourth Gospel
> made by a redactor or redactors.  If my understanding
> of what I take as your suggestion (or theory commonly
> supported by most Johannine scholars) is correct, it
> seems to me that this would make a good thread for
> discussion on this list.
>  Why do you think these are indications of the work
> of a redactor or redactors?

There is a redaction at John 19:38 which begins in the same manner as John
21:1 suggesting, to me, that the same copyist/redactor did both.  I think
the original beginning of John was at 1:19.  Going with my theory that ch 21
was originally the ending of Mark and then redacted and appended to John, I
also look at the Prologue and see no certain Aramaic origin. I do see Mark's
use of PROS HMAS and this is, as Burney points out, confined to Mark and
John.  Mark is missing a conclusion.  John has an extra conclusion.  Mark
anticipates a first resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21 without
the "third appearance" editorial insert at 21:14 is that first appearance.
In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times.  In John (21:15-17) Peter affirms
his love three times.  That completed another Markan bracket.  In Mark, the
shepherd is struck down and the sheep scattered.  In John 21 Peter becomes
the new shepherd..another Markan bracket.  In Mark, the first words spoken
to a disciple are "follow me."  In John 21 the LAST words spoken are "follow
me" (Jm 21:22) another completed Markan bracket.

If John 21 was originally the first resurrection appearance account of the
ending of Mark, Mark would become unified literarily if the appendage is
restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases.  It does.  As an Aramaicist,
I am the "follow the Aramaic" guy and also find support in this supported by
Burney.  If John 21 was removed from Mark, edited with a few Johannine
signature phrases, we should see typically Markan Aramaisms noted in Mark
and John with none or little in Matthew and Luke.  I find this in Mark's
frequent use of the historic present resulting from Aramaic narrative
participle also frequent in John and John 21.  There is also a connection
between John and Mark's use of imperfects, the rare use of de and frequent
use of kai, the partitive APO in 21:10 used by Mark at 5:35, 6:43, 7:4 and
12:2.

My reconstruction of Aramaic "proto-John" is an ongoing project but I see
the pen..er..reed..of Mark in John 21 and believe this was appended to
soften or remove the anti-Petrine theme.




>  Why, for example, is it
> more likely that these three units of scripture were
> added to the text by a redactor or redactors than by
> the "original author or authors"?

Why were the following redactions, editorial inserts and glosses added?
Theology.

1:22-25 added by redactor



1:30 added by redactor



1:32 added by redactor



2:1-10 from "Signs Gospel" appended with 2:11 on later redaction



2:15 "..and the sheep, and the oxen" gloss



2:17 Early John was KATAFAGETAI (will consume me), changed by redactor to
aorist

         to conform to Ps 69:9



2:23-24 redaction from "signs"



3:3 from older baptismal tradition



3:5 "water" added by editor



3:13 added



3:16 added



Order of Ch 4 thru 7 in PJ was 4, 6, 5, 7.



4:1 "the Lord knew" gloss



4:2 redaction, contradicts PJ 3:22



4:46-54 from "signs"



Ch 5 should follow chapter 6



5:4 redactor (not in Bodmer)



5:25 redaction



5:27b "because he is the Son of Man" added



5:28-29 redaction



5:25 and 5:28-29 is editor's redaction of future realization over original
PJ's

      present realization



6:1-15 redaction from "signs"



6:23 gloss



6:27 editor's "future" addition



6:39-44 editor's



6:51-58 added by editor to correlate Bread of Life with Eucharist



7:1 editor's



7:8 OUPW was originally OUK in PJ



7:15-24 was originally at end of ch.5 in PJ



7:53-8:11 part of a late redaction (3rd C). First occurs in C.Bezae.
Interrupts flow from 7:52 to 8:12.



8:12-59 original PJ material but for:



8:13  added



8:14a added

8:14b is original, also GThom 24



8:15 added



8:17a added

8:17b original PJ from Deut. 19:15



8:18 added



8:19a added

8:19b original PJ also in Q and Lk 10:22



8:20a added

8:20b original PJ..also Egerton



8:21b "and shall dies in your sins" added

8:21c "where I am going" original PJ..also Apoc James 2:23-27



8:22 original PJ..also GThom 38



8:23-24 added



8:25 Original PJ..also GThom 43



8:26-28 added



8:31a added

8:31b orig PJ and GThom 19



8:32 orig PJ



8:33 added



8:34a added

8:34b orig PJ



8:35 Orig. PJ



8:36 added



9:22 would have to have been edited after

the Birkat ha-minim in 85CE



9:35 "signs" redaction



10:18d "this commandment have I received..." goes with 10:27-29



10:19 goes with Ch 9.



11:2 added



11:45-50 "signs" redaction



12:44-50 goes with Ch 9 except for editor's 12:48.



13:31 All of Ch 17 originally here



14:30 prefaced 18:1 in PJ



Chapters 15 and 16 preceded 13:36-14:31 in PJ



19:34 added



20:11-31 orig. PJ with no parallels in synoptics.  PJ ended here



Ch 21 editor's appendix





Glosses:



4:1 "the Lord Knew"

4:2

4:11b "Sir.....

5:4

5:27 "because he is the..

5:40

6:6*

6:23

6:27

6:51-58

6:71*



8:21 "and shall die in your sins

8:27*

8:31a

11:2 added by late redactor to conflate Mary Magd with a prostitute but at
odds with Luke 7:36

11:25-26

12:33*

12:47-48

13:10 "not save to wash his feet

13:11*

14:30 "much"

16:16 "because I go to the father

18:9

18:32*

19:34-35






>  As you may recall, my theory is that the Fourth
> Gospel is a careful compilation of Midrashic
> commentaries on the Jesus tradition.  These
> commentaries use the language of the Septuagint
> version of the Torah to expound upon the meaning of
> various elements of the Jesus tradition.  The purpose
> of the compilation (perhaps the very purpose of the
> community from which these commentaries came) appears
> to be the creation a new Torah for the new age.
>  In other words I think these writers were
> intentionally writing scripture as they expounded upon
> the meaning of the Jesus tradition.  They were "doing
> theology" or "reflecting Christologically" before
> those terms had meaning in most Christian communities.
>  Consistent with my theory is what I discern as
> evidence that there is a second story line throughout
> the gospel, discernable when the Greek terms borrowed
> from the Septuagint are identified as "signs" (semeia)
> and which tell how Jesus systematically replaced
> ("recycled?" "redefined?" "transformed?") every
> element of the Mosaic tradition: the temple, the
> festivals of sacrifice and the priesthood.
>  Consideration of the Prologue and Chapter 21 is
> important to this theory (or method of study), which I
> have set forth in part in this space before.  For that
> reason, I would be willing to argue against the idea
> that they are evidence of a redactor or redactors
> (that is, some one or some group other than those
> responsible for creating and shaping the rest of the
> text.)


John, as does Mark, has a very profound Aramaic background but the Prologue
does not.  I think it was appended as an antiphonal hyms chanted between a
lector and the communicants before reading the Gospel which began at
1:19....but here is the kicker. I think the anti-Petrine Aramaic
"proto-John" shortly after its translation to Greek...a much smaller text
than the present Greek canonical John actually stimulated the composition of
the PRO-Petrine Ur-Markus.  The Aramaic or translation Greek PJ was used,
perhaps, as a template around which the much larger Greek version was
composed around 90ish CE.  It is easy to see how the Prologue, as happened
elsewhere in the NT for liturgical elements, became attached.  The use of
the ending of Mark, removed and edited, as an ending of John had a purpose
of harmonizing John to Mark to remove anti-Petrine themes hence the "blend"
of Johannine and Markan style discernable from the rest of the Gospel and
observed by other scholars.





>  Would you or other listers be interested in a
> dialogue or debate on this issue [Redactor(s) or No
> Redactor(s)]?


That is what the list is for and we would be interested in good referencing
and citations.




>  (I confess that I do not recognize the other term
> you are using, "the Pericope de Adultura."  Do you
> mean Jn. 7:53 - 8:11 entitled "The Woman Caught in
> Adultery" by the editors of the NRSV?  If so, I would
> be glad to include this pericope in our dialogue /
> debate along with any other pericopes, should you or
> others seeking to support or reject the idea that this
> and/or other passages reflect or do not reflect the
> work of one or more redactors.)

Such a dialogue is in keeping with the purpose of the list as long as
standard canons of scholarship are involved.

Shlama

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, Texas



>
> Yours in Christ's service,
> Tom Butler
>
>
> --- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@...>
>> To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] bouncing?
>>
>>
>> > Jack,
>> >  I trust that your test, at least with reference
>> > to my e-mail address, proved that you are not
>> > bouncing.
>> >  I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit list.
>> > Are we all so busy that discussion of the Gospel >
>> has been placed on hold or has a different list  > >
> been created where the discussion continues?
>> >
>> > Tom Butler
>> > Sparks, Nevada
>>
>> I think it may be everyone waiting for someone else
>> to start a thread combined with busy times.  I, for
>> one, would like to hear..er..read...some text
>> critical opinions concerning the redactors of
>> 4G and opinions on the addition of the prologue,
>> chapter 21 and the Pericope de Adultera.  Perhaps
>> some of our members have studied these.
>>
>> Jack Kilmon
>> San Antonio, Texas
>
>
>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
> service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
> Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
>
>
> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
> MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Kym has sent me part of his structure. I can't send email to him from this
address so I am letting him and the list know that I will try to confirm his
detail in a short passage and will publish the result later next week.

Kym: Your pdf is readable - I will examine it when I have done some more
detailed work.

Bob

Bob MacDonald
Victoria BC
http://gx.ca
http://bmd.gx.ca

Jack and Other J-Lit Listers,
   I sent this message to the J-Lit group and it
bounced back to me.  I believe I have repaired the
cause of the bounce, but if this message was not
previously received, I hope this copy will get
through.  If it was previously received, please delete
this one.

Tom Butler

--- Tom Butler <pastor_t@...> wrote:

> Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:56:04 -0800 (PST)
> From: Tom Butler <pastor_t@...>
> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G redactions
> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
>
> Jack,
>   Thank you for your explanation of why you think
> that
> the Gospel According to John as we have it today is
> a
> heavily redacted version of an older ("proto-John")
> gospel, written to "soften or remove the
> anti-Petrine
> theme" of the proto-John Gospel.
>
>   I like your theory as to the purpose of the
> Prologue
> in what I (with Brown, Culpepper and others) would
> call the Johannine community.  It seems likely that
> this hymn would have been sung prior to the reading
> of
> the text of the Gospel.  It does not seem likely to
> me, however, that its placement at the beginning of
> the cannonical version of the gospel was necessarily
> arranged by a redactor.  That it does not appear to
> have been of Aramaic origin does not require that it
> be considered a redaction in my opinion.
>
>   I'm curious as to your considerations regarding
> the
> book of signs.  A few of your comments suggest to me
> that you consider the book of signs to be the result
> of a redactor or redactors rather than an intrinsic
> part of the "original" text.
>
>   The reason I raise this question is that my theory
> sees the Prolog as a guide to the cypher for the
> signs
> contained in Jn. 1:19 - 13:20.
>
> By "sign" (semeia) I mean language intended to
> convey
> a meaning greater than at first is apparent, as do
> methaphors, oracles and symbols.  The "cypher" for
> the
> sacred signs woven into the Fourth Gospel is the
> Greek
> version of the Torah, the Septuagint.
>
> In other words, I believe that in the Johannine
> community (probably a school - with Culpepper) of
> the
> late first and early second century the readers of
> the
> gospel were expected to expound upon the meaning of
> the signs that had been intentionally woven into the
> gospel text, but they were not free to use their own
> imagination to do this.  They were required to make
> reference to that very same Greek term found in the
> LXX (usually in the Torah), and use the meaning of
> the
> term derived from that LXX context to explain what
> it
> meant in the gospel context.  This is the Midrash
> method, commonly used in Rabbinical schools of that
> era.  I believe it was used to teach what we now
> call
> theology or at least an early branch of Christian
> theology, now called Christology.
>
> "In the beginning" clearly points the reader(s) to
> the
> opening of the Torah.  For Greek readers, it points
> especially clearly to the Septuagint version of the
> Torah.
>
> There is a clearly theological rationale for linking
> this phrase (a sign) with the logos (O LOGOS), a
> Greek
> term used to describe the world in Stoic and
> Neo-platonic philosophy and thus a UIOS TOU THEO
> (son
> of god - but not as a name)(see Kleinknecht TDNT
> vol.
> IV, p. 91), which was used in the LXX to translate a
> Hebrew term used describe the "background" of a
> matter, the meaning of a word or thing (and all
> things
> have meaning). (See Proktsch TDNT vol.IV, p.92)
>
> The LXX bridges an important linguistic gap between
> the Hebrew language and the Greek language, a gap
> that
> appears to have been important to the author(s) of
> the
> Fourth Gospel as is evidenced by the use of the
> Greek,
> rather than the Hebrew or Aramaic language (though
> clearly some of the thoughts included in the Gospel
> originated in Hebrew and/or Aramaic minds.)
>
> My point is that the use of the Logos Hymn as the
> Prolog of the Fourth Gospel is not an afterthought
> or
> a gloss.  It is essential to the mind set of the
> reader who is tasked with the challenge of finding
> and
> interpreting the signs woven into what follows.
> Finding and interpreting signs is the first step
> toward "doing theology," that is, explaining what
> the
> Jesus tradition means.
>
> This leads me to a second point.  You have done an
> excellent job of pointing out a likely use of the
> Gospel of Mark as a source for the Fourth Gospel.  A
> similar case can be made for the use of the Gospel
> of
> Luke as a source (the use of the name Lazarus found
> only in Luke 16:20f for example, or references to
> two
> women named Mary and Martha found only in Luke 10:
> 38-42) for Johannine material.
>
> The fact that material from these sources was used
> to
> describe the Jesus tradition does not necessarily
> mean
> that a redactor inserted that material into a
> proto-John text.  Indeed, how else would we expect a
> school to identify the Jesus tradition other than by
> reference to existing accounts, especially written
> accounts, of that tradition?
>
> Before this message gets too long, let me just
> respond
> to the specific points that you made.
>
> --- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
> >
> > There is a redaction at John 19:38 which begins in
> > the same manner as John 21:1 suggesting, to me,
> >
> that the same copyist/redactor did both.  I think
> > the original beginning of John was at 1:19.  Going
> > with my theory that ch 21 was originally the
> ending
> > of Mark and then redacted and appended to John, I
> > also look at the Prologue and see no certain
> Aramaic
> > origin. I do see Mark's use of PROS HMAS and this
> >
> is, as Burney points out, confined to Mark and
> > John.  Mark is missing a conclusion.  John has an
> > extra conclusion.  Mark anticipates a first
> >
> resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21     >
> without the "third appearance" editorial insert at >
> 21:14 is that first appearance.
>
> Is the redaction to which you are referring (Jn.
> 19:38; 21:1) the phrase translated "After these
> things..." META OUTOS?  If so, do you consider that
> wherever that phrase is used, it is an indication of
> the work of a redactor?
>
> For example it is also used in Matt 6: 32, Mark
> 16:12,
> Luke 12:30 and in the Torah at Gn. 15:1; 21:1; 22:20
> and in Ezra 9:1.  Are all of these passages
> redactions
> because the phrase "After these things..." was used?
>
> > In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times.  In John
> > (21:15-17) Peter affirms his love three times.
> >
> That completed another Markan bracket.
> >
> > In Mark, the shepherd is struck down and the sheep
> >
> scattered.  In John 21 Peter becomes the new       >
> shepherd..another Markan bracket.
> >
> > In Mark, the first words spoken to a disciple are
> >
> "follow me."  In John 21 the LAST words spoken     >
> are "follow me" (Jm 21:22) another completed Markan
> >
> bracket.
>
> Don't these three passages suggest that the
> writer(s)
> of the Fourth Gospel is (are) (1) aware of Mark's
> gospel and (2) is (are) expounding upon it?  Yes, I
> see a connection too, but the consequence of seeing
> the connection is not that we should delete the
> verse
> because it appears to have been drawn from a source.
>
> Why not consider why it was drawn from that source
> and
> recognize the meaning that is being drawn from that
> source or expanded within the Johannine text?
>
> > If John 21 was originally the first resurrection
> > appearance account of the ending of Mark, Mark
>
> > would become unified literarily if the appendage
> is
> > restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases.
> It
> > does.
>
> Are you arguing that the author(s)/ redactor(s) of
> the
> Fourth Gospel was (were) somehow in communication
> with
> the author(s) of the Gospel of Mark?  (It sounds
> like
> you are suggesting that the author or authors of
> John
> literally took Mark's ending out of Mark's text and
> added it to the Gospel of John.)  How does that
> square
> with the theory that the Gospel of Mark was
> published
> about 50 years before the Gospel of John?  Do you
> subscribe to the idea that parts of the Gospel of
> John
> were written at a time as early or even earlier than
> the Synoptic Gospels?
>
> > As an Aramaicist, I am the "follow the Aramaic"
> guy
> > and also find support in this supported by Burney.
>
> > If John 21 was removed from Mark, edited with a
> few
> > Johannine signature phrases, we should see
> >
> typically Markan Aramaisms noted in Mark and John  >
> with none or little in Matthew and Luke.  I find   >
> this in Mark's frequent use of the historic present
> >
> resulting from Aramaic narrative participle also   >
> frequent in John and John 21.
> >
> > There is also a connection between John and Mark's
> >
> use of imperfects, the rare use of de and frequent
> > use of kai, the partitive APO in 21:10 used by
> Mark
> > at 5:35, 6:43, 7:4 and 12:2.
> >
> > My reconstruction of Aramaic "proto-John" is an
> > ongoing project but I see the pen..er..reed..of
> >
> Mark in John 21 and believe this was appended to
> > soften or remove the anti-Petrine theme.
>
> There is clearly an anti-Petrine theme in the Gospel
> According to John.  Jn. 21 does soften that theme,
> but
> it does not remove it.
>
> Note that most of the anti-Petrine theme occurs in
> situations where Peter is compared with the Beloved
> Disciple (AKA "the other disciple," "the disciple
> whom
> Jesus loved.")  The last word to Peter from Jesus
> regarding the BD in Jn. 21:21 and again in 21:23 is
> "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what
> is
> that to you?  Follow me!"  This is hardly a removal
> of
> an anti-Petrine theme, but a repetition of a rebuke
> to
> Peter already found in the Synoptics (Mark 8:33,
> Matt
> 16:23), and it is the last word in the extant
> Gospel.
> Why, if a redactor was trying to soften or remove
> this
> theme, would the last word included in the redaction
> be a rebuke of Peter by Jesus?
>
>   I fear that this response to your comments is
> already too long.  I will reserve my comments for
> the
> remainder of your well written article for another
> submission to the list.
>
> Yours in Christ's service,
> Tom Butler
>

<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>

The structure is far more complex than can be managed in a chiasm alone.
There are parallel structures as well and both wide and tight circles - but
many complex themes in this short section. My thesis is that it is held
together by the issue of belief - but the larger words and concepts
[Father-Son, life from the dead, judgment, the four witnesses: John, the
works of the Son, the word of the Father, Moses] seem to me must be used to
justify any conclusion as to its poetic or rhetorical form.

I have posted a very colourful rendition at http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-2.jpg
(357k). I have marked each word with different colours to highlight the
usage patterns. It is not hard to mark with even more precision - if anyone
is interested in helping, I can arrange for access to the tool I am using.

I hope you can read it. The jpeg is a bit small, but if you bring it up with
a picture manager, it expands reasonably well to a larger type.  I have also
put out a pdf - but it will be a larger download (2.5m).

Bob MacDonald
Victoria BC
http://gx.ca
http://bmd.gx.ca

Dear Bob,

One of the `problems' with John, as a number of commentators note, is
its relatively short vocabulary. I suspect this is in part because of
all the paralleling of terms and themes within micro-chiasms as well
as across macro-chiasms. It is this shortage of terms that makes the
finding – or forcing – chiastic structures on the text relatively
easy. I have had to review and refine many of the formations I have
found. There would be ample scholars on this list who see the finding
of chiastic structures as much too subjective to be reliable. Their
caution is well placed. To deny them altogether, however, is to deny
that typically Hebrew form of writing which has given beauty to much
of the Scriptures – e.g. the parallelism of the Psalms – and to miss
out on some of the most profound insights they offer.

What I am saying is that where the highlighting of similar words may
help pick up some structures. However, John's frequent repetition of
words (e.g. `world' in ch. 17) and his pairing of words from different
roots but with similar meanings (`fish' in ch. 21) – not to mention
his paralleling of themes without necessarily matching words will make
it hard for a computer program which is not likely to be looking much
past similar words to pick up the more complex connections.

I am not surprised that your program indicates that 'The structure is
far more complex than can be managed in a chiasm alone'. But we must
remeber that John did not use a computer to put the gospel together.

As the file I sent to you shows, John 5 is not looked at as a whole
but it contains four individual structures, a fourfold `sign' (1-9a)
and three sevenfold formations (9b-18; 19-30; 31-47). But these only
become clear in the context of the whole book and especially the 41
structures of the two concentric macro-chiasms.

Perhaps I should offer a copy of my book on the structure of John's
gospel to someone on the list who is not anti-chiastic structures but
who is also healthily skeptical of them. The proviso is that that
person will, within a reasonable time – a few months, say – do a
review for the list. If someone is willing to do so let me know
off-list and we'll go from there. Perhaps then we might also avoid the
deafening silence on the list each time I make a contribution to it.
It would be reasonable for me also to advise the list of who it is to
whom I've sent my book.

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs@...




--- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, Bob MacDonald
<bobmacdonald@...> wrote:
>
> The structure is far more complex than can be managed in a chiasm alone.
> There are parallel structures as well and both wide and tight
circles - but
> many complex themes in this short section. My thesis is that it is held
> together by the issue of belief - but the larger words and concepts
> [Father-Son, life from the dead, judgment, the four witnesses: John, the
> works of the Son, the word of the Father, Moses] seem to me must be
used to
> justify any conclusion as to its poetic or rhetorical form.
>
> I have posted a very colourful rendition at http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-2.jpg
> (357k). I have marked each word with different colours to highlight the
> usage patterns. It is not hard to mark with even more precision - if
anyone
> is interested in helping, I can arrange for access to the tool I am
using.
>
> I hope you can read it. The jpeg is a bit small, but if you bring it
up with
> a picture manager, it expands reasonably well to a larger type.  I
have also
> put out a pdf - but it will be a larger download (2.5m).
>
> Bob MacDonald
> Victoria BC
> http://gx.ca
> http://bmd.gx.ca
>

Kym

Here is a review of my thoughts on just one section of your work

I began with my own bias in 19-45 -http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-1.jpg shows my
first rough cut at what I think are two related structures: 19-30
highlighting belief and 31-47 highlighting unbelief.  I was not satisfied
with the detail - there were 100s of unpaired and obviously important
concepts.

http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-2.jpg expanded this to show how possibly the original
contrast is there but that the structures surrounding it are much more
complex.

I traced your 7 deep chiasm in http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-3.jpg.  I realize you
are dealing only in black and white so it is harder to confirm structure or
to see it. There is certainly a whole thought in this section, confirmed
with a much more detailed view in http://bmd.gx.ca/john5-4.jpg .

The next step is to review the content and see if it matches your sevenfold
subdivision.

The whole section is about witness. This is your structure as in image 3:
a. witness to himself - which you balance with the last verse - how will you
believe my declarations.
b. you then have the 'other witness' which you balance against Moses.
c. you have John balanced against Moses
d. then you have not accepting witness from a man (semantically part of the
John section) balanced against receiving glory from one another
e. the section on John and rejoicing in his light balanced against the
acceptance of one who comes in his own name - I don't see how this can
balance against John
f. the section on the works - the next witness balanced against not
receiving glory from men
g. two inner sections

There are some matches in your scheme, but they are coincidental - e.g. the
phrase peri emon occurs several times - there is insufficient structural
reason to link a (v31) to a'(v47) using these words. It is more likely that
peri emon is just part of the main issue - that the current audience does
not believe in Jesus and he is summoning his witnesses - they all testify
concerning him.

If you look at my last image, you can see that I have matched almost all the
major word pairings and repetitions and the resulting structure reveals
matching semantic and rhetorical form.

In particular note two embedded paragraphs that are of the nature of a brief
excursus - one on John - the human witness; the other on the Father, the
unseen witness. These surround the key witness which is the works that Jesus
is to complete - using the keyword complete - which is picked up in the
final word of Jesus from the cross. Also the framing of the structure is
circular in many ways but it does not correspond well with what you have
proposed.

The final section is all about the Scriptures and Moses - and what the
people think of it and how they get glory from one another - no need to link
part of the excursus on John to this section. Though they are somewhat
related, I cannot see it as part of a significant structure.

It's late here so that's all I can do for now - I have taken 3 days away
from my psalm translations and I am having Hebrew withdrawal symptoms.

Bob

Bob MacDonald
Victoria BC
http://gx.ca
http://bmd.gx.ca

Jack,

your suggestion that John 21 was the lost ending of Mark is intriguing.

However, I would need to understand better what happened before and what
happened after. What is your general picture?

Is it something like:

1) Mark 1-16,8 + John 21 written as one Gospel
2) John 1-20 written as another indipendent Gospel
3) John 21 moved from the end of Mark to the end of John, after John 20,31
4) Mark 16,9-20 added after Mark 16,8 to replace the missing ending.

Is this you idea? Or should anything be corrected?

Marco V Fabbri


On 11/24/06, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arlene Sheldon" <wellofbethlehem@...<wellofbethlehem%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To:
<johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21
>
> > Jack,
> >
> > Regarding John 21, I have discovered a few interesting points. First,
> > there are several similarities between John 21 and the book of Jonah.
> > Jonah allows himself to be cast into the sea, and Peter casts himself
> into
> > the sea. Jonah is swallowed by a fish, but Peter catches fish and then
> > eats some fish. The people of Ninevah don't know the difference between
> > their right hand and their left hand, so Jonah has to tell them. The
> > disciples don't know to fish on the right side of the boat, so Jesus has
>
> > to tell them. The King of Ninevah takes his robe off, but Peter puts his
>
> > clothes on. There is a discussion of whether Jonah should die, and
> whether
> > the people of Ninevah should live, and there is a discussion of how
> Peter
> > will die, and whether John should live.
> >
> > Second, there is a link between John 21 and Ezekiel 47:9,10, which says
> > an abundance of fish is caused by an abundance of water flowing into the
>
> > sea, and the abundance of fish in John 21 occurs when Jesus, the giver
> of
> > living water, is standing on the shore.
> >
> > Third, Jesus' cooking and serving breakfast seems to be linked to the
> > 23rd Psalm. When Jesus fed the multitudes, the people ate and were
> > satisfied, so they didn't "want." Jesus had them recline where there was
>
> > "much grass," like sheep in a pasture. He went to the other side of the
> > lake, and the people followed him, so he led them beside the still
> water.
> > Eventually, it's time to prepare the table of Psalm 23. Peter is
> alienated
> > from Jesus because he denied him. They are "enemies," who need to be
> > reconciled. Jesus prepares the breakfast and invites Peter, who is very
> > reluctant to say that he loves Jesus. These apparent allusions to the
> 23rd
> > Psalm seem to establish that Jesus is the good shepherd who gives his
> life
> > for the sheep.
> >
> > Fourth, the most interesting link, and the one that seems to tie
> > everything else together, is the link between John 21 and Acts 2. Of the
>
> > six disciples who remain in the boat after Peter jumps out, two of them
> > were named explicitly, two were named indirectly, as "ones of Zebedee,"
> > and two are anonymous. As Peter wraps up his sermon on the day of
> > Pentecost in Acts 2, he says "the promise" is for three groups of people
>
> > 1) you, 2) your children 3) all who are afar off. Note the similarity
> > between these three groups of people and the three types of people on
> the
> > boat in John 21 - people you address directly, children of people you
> > address directly, and people who are more distant, or unknown or
> > anonymous. The six disciples in the boat seem to be representative of
> the
> > people Peter will address his remarks to on the day of Pentecost.
> >
> > Lastly, there is a relationship between Jesus the good shepherd, who
> > gives his life for the sheep, and Jesus the giver of living water. This
> > relationship is found in 1 Chron 11:15-19. David's three men risk their
> > own lives to get David a drink of water from the well of bethlehem.
> David
> > values the water as the blood of the men who obtained it for him. Like
> the
> > men who obtained the water for David, Jesus sacrifices his own life to
> pay
> > the cost of providing the living water of the Holy Spirit to those who
> > believe and receive.
> >
> > I wouldn't be too quick to say that John 21 was added on to the Gospel
> of
> > John, because the Gospel of John doesn't seem to be complete without it.
> >
> > Arlene Sheldon
>
> Very good observations. It is my opinion, however, that Ch 21 was
> originally the ending of Mark and appended tyo John in an attempt to
> reconcile Petrine-antiPetrine hostilities between the two.
>
> Jack
>
> Jack Kilmon
> San Marcos, Texas
>
>
>



--
_______________________________________
Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
Pontificia Universitŕ della Santa Croce
Piazza S. Apollinare 49
I-00186 Roma
Italy

e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
fax: ++39-06-68164400


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]