Thanks for the greetings Ramsey.  They are reciprocated warmly.
In response to Ramsey my question is, did Paul shape either 1 or 2
Corinthians with the universal church in mind.  The references in 1 and
2 Corinthians(1.2 and 1.1 respectively) have their problems for
interpreters but, assuming they indicate a wider audience, we might have
additions from the time of the collection of the Pauline corpus.  If
they come from Paul's hand and carry that meaning, as Ramsey says, 1
Corinthians is one of the most occasional books in the NT.  Perhaps that
observation works against the notion of a writng specifically produced
for the whole church.  What evidence is there that Paul expected his
letters to be collected?
As far as I know the idea of General or Catholic epistles cannot be
traced to the first century.  It seems to be a way of gathering together
the fragments so that nothing may be lost.  If they are first century
documents, when did they reach something like general circulation?  The
bigger the gap perhaps the more difficult it is to think that they were
written with universal intention-or so it seems to me.  Perhaps this is
an indication that our answers to so many detailed questions reveal
factors that shape our responses to the bigger questions.
Thanks for the ongoing discussion.
JohnP
  Professor John Painter
St Mark's National Theological Centre
Charles Sturt University Canberra Campus
15 Blackall Street
Barton ACT 2600     Phone 61 (0)2 6273 1572
Australia 	 Fax  61 (0)2 6273 4067

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

I sent a reply to Paul Anderson, thinking it went to the List but I don't
think it reached the list so here's another try.



>To: Paul Anderson <paul.anderson@...>
>
>I've just finished a thesis on the Symbolic function of the Temple in J.
so feel somewhat compelled to buy into the current discussion. In the
thesis I sidestepped historicity questions - John or Synoptics - and
concentrated on the Christology of this scene. Here, in the narrative, we
have a restatement of the prologue's key Christology - Jesus as the
dwelling-place of God (1:14) and so he can properly be called 'the Temple'
(2:21). I argued that this scene was early in the Gospel precisely because
it provides the hermeneutical key for understanding the rest of the
narrative. We, the readers, are given this information (again) even if
'the Jews' and disciples hear Jesus' words only as a riddle.
>For me, the christological significance of this scene demands it is placed
early in the narrative - indeed the first really public action of Jesus. So
it raises a chicken and egg question - was the action placed early becuase
it was historically so and then developed through the Johannine lens into
what it now is;  or did it come sometime later in one of Jesus' stays in
Jerusalem but for its theological importance placed here!
>
>
Dr. Mary Coloe pbvm
School of Theology
Australian Catholic University
PO. Box 213, Oakleigh. VIC  3166
ph (61 + 3) 9563 3697  Fax. (61 + 3) 9563 3653.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Dear Mary,

Thank you so much for the report on your thesis and your approach.  Your
work sounds both interesting and profitable, and it sounds like you've
worked out a very valuable approach to the theological implications of the
Temple cleansing and its placement in John.  You seem to be proceeding in a
valid way:  begin first by looking at the event, where it is and how it is
developed in the text of John, and adduce its theological function within
the rest of John's narrative.  I might even ask whether some of the
material in the Prologue (if indeed it was crafted and added later) might
have been organized around the new Temple-dwelling place of God (cf. 1:14)
as a reflection on the Johannine rendering of the Temple event.  You have
later references to it also in John.

In these ways, historicity issues become rightly upstaged by the important
issues, the interpretive ones, which your work seems to illumine helpfully.
On the other hand, there are theological/compositional reasons for Mark's
ordering his material the way he did, other than historical ones, and
Matthew's and Luke's building on Mark does not imply a three-against-one
"majority" in terms of tradition.  In fact, I wonder if there is any
traditional reason for placing the Temple-cleansing late other than Mark's
conjecture.  Mark places all the Jerusalem material late, and would pose a
Jesus who ministers less than a year, and who goes to Jerusalem but once,
and is killed.  In that sense, John's rendering seems more realistic --
going to and from Jerusalem over a more extended period of time.  The
notion which deserves to be challenged is one which defaults uncritically
to "ahistoricity" when a narrated event is reflected upon theologically in
John.  To reflect theologically upon an event is not the same as concocting
events out of a theological agenda.  Another fact about the
Temple-cleansing in John is that there is also a fair amount of material
which appears to be unmotivated theologically, and this should be accounted
for as well.

Again, thank you, Mary for your helpful work!

Sincerely,

Paul Anderson

>>To: Paul Anderson <paul.anderson@...>
>>
>>I've just finished a thesis on the Symbolic function of the Temple in J.
>so feel somewhat compelled to buy into the current discussion. In the
>thesis I sidestepped historicity questions - John or Synoptics - and
>concentrated on the Christology of this scene. Here, in the narrative, we
>have a restatement of the prologue's key Christology - Jesus as the
>dwelling-place of God (1:14) and so he can properly be called 'the Temple'
>(2:21). I argued that this scene was early in the Gospel precisely because
>it provides the hermeneutical key for understanding the rest of the
>narrative. We, the readers, are given this information (again) even if
>'the Jews' and disciples hear Jesus' words only as a riddle.
>>For me, the christological significance of this scene demands it is placed
>early in the narrative - indeed the first really public action of Jesus. So
>it raises a chicken and egg question - was the action placed early becuase
>it was historically so and then developed through the Johannine lens into
>what it now is;  or did it come sometime later in one of Jesus' stays in
>Jerusalem but for its theological importance placed here!
>>
>>
>Dr. Mary Coloe pbvm
>School of Theology
>Australian Catholic University
>PO. Box 213, Oakleigh. VIC  3166
>ph (61 + 3) 9563 3697  Fax. (61 + 3) 9563 3653.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background &
>research interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
>Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Hello everyone!

As an interested observer of the discussions in this list I would like to
introduce myself with a short bibliographical note on the current Temple issue:
already Robinson, The Priority of John, 127-131, lists a few arguments in favour
of the Johannine placement of the incident, emphasizing especially the
connection between the Baptist's announcement of judgement and the cleansing as
symbolic judgement. Presumably Robinson was not the first to see this?

Rainer Behrens, Cheltenham, GB
(currently doing research on OT roots of John's eschatology)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

May I ask the seminar to consider a hermeneutical question.  What is the
relevance of the Johannine epistles for the reading ot the Gospel and
what is the relevance of the Gospel for the reading of the epistles?
There is a growing tendency to insist that each work should be read
independently (even 2 and 3 John).  This is different from first reading
the particular document to determine its probable relationship to the
others and then reading it in the ligh of these conclusions (not
presuppositions).  Given that these conclusions are at best only
probable, should the interpreter refrain from them and read each
document independently?  Or is the assumtion of independence only a less
likely conclusion than that of some relationship?  It is of course more
complex because"some relationship" itself offers many options.  Is this
now a question that calls for more concentrated attention in the light
of new perspectives and approaches and the insights that they bring?  In
recent discussions some cotributors have referred the the Johannine
epistles as a factor distinguishing the Gospel of John from the
Synoptics for which there are no associated epistles.  What difference
do the epistles make for our reading of John and John for our reading of
the epistles?
JohnP
--
Professor John Painter
St Mark's National Theological Centre
Charles Sturt University Canberra Campus
15 Blackall Street
Barton ACT 2600     Phone 61 (0)2 6273 1572
Australia 	 Fax  61 (0)2 6273 4067

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

At 08:31 AM 6/9/99 +0000, you wrote:
>May I ask the seminar to consider a hermeneutical question.  What is the
>relevance of the Johannine epistles for the reading ot the Gospel and
>what is the relevance of the Gospel for the reading of the epistles?

I have always read the epistles (specifically 1 John) as commentary on
GJohn.  Here we have in the canon itself both book (GJohn) and a commentary
on it by a member of the same school (1 Jn).  When reading 1 Jn as
commentary it fleshes out (no pun intended) the Gospel in a really
interesting way.

2-3 John are not really relevant for a reading of the Gospel- they are
interested in something else.

best,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
email- jwest@...
web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Friends
Thanks to all those who have rejuvenated the John discussion and list - the
posts of the last couple of weeks have been very valuable for research
students such as myself in that they make quality discussion highly
accessible.

With regard to Richard Bauckham's book, I found Francis Watson's article
“Towards a Literal Reading of the Gospels.” (In *The Gospels for All
Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences*., Ed. Richard Bauckham.
Grand Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1998. pp. 195-217.)
very interesting and relevant. I wondered if others have responded to it also?

Briefly, my understanding of his point is as follows. Watson is arguing
for a 'literal reading' against a 'theology of the Word' which he finds
in Bultmann's writings on form criticism and Marxsen's redaction
analysis of the Gospel of Mark. Specifically, he rejects a reading where
the "the Gospels are primary sources for the early Christian community
and only secondarily  - in a manner that flies in the face of their own
true concerns - sources for the historical Jesus" (pp. 206-207). Rather,
Watson wants to argue for the Gospels as 'realistic narratives' (Frei),
that is narratives that mean what they say and are not substitutionable
depending on the reader's circumstance or community needs. The challenge
is strong: "The substitution of the Word for the person, the spirit for
the body, is a simple denial that the Word became flesh and has no place
within theology or scholarship" (215).

I wonder if the discussion touched on recently in the list. re. the
place and historicity of the cleansing of the temple in 4G, and
conversely the role of the raising of Lazarus (11:1-54) could focus this
challenge of Watson's? I know also that others on the list have worked
extensively with the *Sitz-im-Leben* concept of which Watson is
critical.

Watson certainly acknowledges that the Gospels are the "early Christian
*reception* of the life and person of Jesus" and describes the "fourfold
Gospel canon" as the "complex rendering of the received reality" (216).

But my question would be, firstly - assuming that the event
precipitating the passion in 4G is 'the raising of Lazarus' but is the
'cleansing of the temple' in the Synoptic Gospels - if the placement of
the raising of Lazarus account is an expression of the particular
theology of the Fourth Gospel -  how does this differ from the
particular expression of the faith of the Johannine community?

(Watson's main example of Marxsen's 'excess' is the assessment of the
Galilee focus of Mark 3:7-8 as the physical location of the
post-resurrection community and I can see that he may allow the
theological geography of Mark but as a Christological statement ie
distinguish between Markan theology and the theology of the community of
Mark. Would this still be a 'literal reading'?)

Secondly, - I'm not familiar with Watson's previous writings on the
'literal meaning', but the 'raising of Lazarus' is most often
interpreted in a referential rather than a 'literal' manner. Frank
Moloney speaks of it as 'A Resurrection That Will Lead to Death' (*Signs
and Shadows* Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1996 p. 154ff.). John Painter
says that "a symbolic interpretation of the story is intended" because
of the central 'egw eimi' saying in 11:25-26. (*Quest for the Messiah*
Nashville: Abingdon 1993 p. 368).

While one could say that these comments are Christological rather than
about the Johannine community, again the text and its role on 4G is
Johannine and different to the Synoptic Gospels. The term 'complex
rendering' that Watson uses to the describe the fourfold Gospel
tradition would seem to be more readily articulated with a 'theology of
the Word'. The differences in the Gospel traditions as well as the
'distance' between the Gospels and the "historical reality to which they
refer" (Watson p.216)  are somehow (and I acknowledge that this is not
as straightforward as sometimes thought) expressions of the localised
impact of the encounter with the 'Living Lord'.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on this.

David Hunter
PhD Candidate
St Mark's National Theological Centre
Charles Sturt University,
  Canberra, Australia.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

A truly interesting discussion list!

David Hunter wrote (in part):

> With regard to Richard Bauckham's book, I found Francis Watson's article
> ³Towards a Literal Reading of the Gospels.² (In *The Gospels for All
> Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences*., Ed. Richard Bauckham.
> Grand Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1998. pp. 195-217.)
> very interesting and relevant. I wondered if others have responded to it also?
>
> Briefly, my understanding of his point is as follows. Watson is arguing
> for a 'literal reading' against a 'theology of the Word' which he finds
> in Bultmann's writings on form criticism and Marxsen's redaction
> analysis of the Gospel of Mark. Specifically, he rejects a reading where
> the "the Gospels are primary sources for the early Christian community
> and only secondarily  - in a manner that flies in the face of their own
> true concerns - sources for the historical Jesus" (pp. 206-207).

It is truism (isnt'it) in modern history writing that every past
document may be understood on two levels, it may tell a story about
the author(s) as well as presenting information on the subject that
the author presents. Directly translated from Norwegian, we call these
two levels the source- and the rest-level (perhaps someone could tell
me what the proper English terms are). The main point is not to
confuse them, and to say that the one excludes the other does not seem
very sensible. Now, I haven't read the article yet, but from your
reference, I take that this argument may be used against Watson.

The two-level redactional way of reading the gospel of John is even
more evident from the anachronistic mention of the "aposynagogos" in
9:22 et alia, as Martyn (History and Theology) once introduced. I have
not seen any good historical arguments against this view yet. Maybe
others have?

Last year I had the opportunity to attend the JOhannine seminar at the
SNTS meeting in Copenhague. Apart from the German scholar Udo Schnelle
I could not register any objections to the principle of two-level
reading from scholars working historically.


Kaare Fuglseth
Dr.student at the University of Trondheim, Norway
(Writing a thesis on the gospel of John working with Peder Borgen and
his successor Jarl Ulrichsen. With Peder Borgen and Roald Skarsten I
have also been preparing a Philo Index, forthcoming on Eerdmans.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Dear all

It's generally thought that IXQUS and OYARION are used interchangeably in
the NT, but I am fascinated by the use of the words in the FG.  Are they
simply synonyms in ch 21, used 3 times each?  It is, of course, OYARION in
chapter 6.  Is there a link to Numbers 11 (ICQUS at verse 5 and OYOS at
verse 22, LXX)?
And then in Jn 21, why are there fish already cooking before the miraculous
haul is brought in?  Are there two miracles in the chapter?

Best wishes
Julian

Julian Waterfield
julian.waterfield@...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exeter College, Turl Street, Oxford, OX1 3DP, UK
Internal 29660   External 01865-280016 x29660
----------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Wieland,

I apologize for being so slow in responding.  It's summer and I'm away
from my office a lot....

> So, can we say that we see here John the composer? That he wanted to add
> maybe a little tract from his group to the text and failed to fit it in
> correctly? Or did he made it intensionally? In 3:12 it is "I" again. Maybe
> 3:11 was a typical "slogan"?
>

In my view, we see John the composer essentially throughout this gospel,
which is, on the whole, entirely a "tract from his group".  It's just
sometimes a little more blatant than others!  However, I would add that
it was probably meant for reading within the group rather than as a
"tract" in the strict sense, meant for outsiders.  It is the members of
the group itself who can find encouragement in hearing Jesus speak of
"we" as the givers of a rejected testimony, thus identifying himself
with them.

David
--
David Rensberger, Professor of New Testament
Interdenominational Theological Center
700 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30314-4143 USA
Phone: 404-527-7749; fax: 404-527-0901; e-mail: drensberger@...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Many thanks to David for his interesting reflections on Watson's
contribution to  The Gospels for All Christians. I too found Watson's
argument somewhat confused and confusing. The first part of it makes strong
criticisms on theological grounds of form-critical, redaction- critical and
community-oriented approaches to the gospels, but then Watson's own
formulations in the last part of the essay
appear to allow room for such concerns anyway. It is one thing to assert as
Watson does that theological views have a bearing on literary and
historical matters, but it is another to confuse these and I ended up
wondering whether Watson was guilty of doing this in the bulk of the essay.
So one might well want to argue that the Christian truth claim entails the
unsubstitutional element of the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth
in whom God acted uniquely forthe benefit of humankind, but there is a
distinction between such a claim and the form in which the gospels  make it.
David said:

>>Briefly, my understanding of his point is as follows. Watson is arguing
>for a 'literal reading' against a 'theology of the Word' which he finds
>in Bultmann's writings on form criticism and Marxsen's redaction
>analysis of the Gospel of Mark. Specifically, he rejects a reading where
>the "the Gospels are primary sources for the early Christian community
>and only secondarily  - in a manner that flies in the face of their own
>true concerns - sources for the historical Jesus" (pp. 206-207). Rather,
>Watson wants to argue for the Gospels as 'realistic narratives' (Frei),
>that is narratives that mean what they say and are not substitutionable
>depending on the reader's circumstance or community needs. The challenge
>is strong: "The substitution of the Word for the person, the spirit for
>the body, is a simple denial that the Word became flesh and has no place
>within theology or scholarship" (215).

The language of the first citation from Watson is to say the least not very
clear. To say that the true concern of the gospels is to be sources for
"the historical Jesus" appears to introduce a distinctly modern concern by
focusing on such an entity in distinction from the Jesus Christ of the
early church's faith. If he means to say the gospels are concerned with
telling the story of Jesus of Nazareth, his life, death and resurrection,
then this is somewhat different and would come closer to what Hans Frei
meant by "realistic narrative." The gospels make their truth claims by
means of this realistic narrative and so can be said to mean what they say.

But for Frei this is quite different from the gospels being intended to be
sources for the historical Jesus. He conceives of such narratives as both
history-like and fiction-like and can say in his The Identity of Jesus
Christ, p. 15, that they are "at once intensely serious and historical in
intent and fictional in form." They are both history-like and fiction-like
in that at various points and in varying degrees they depict the earthly
Jesus in a way that conflates him with the risen Christ. But that is
precisely what these narratives wish to convey - the identity of a figure
who is at one and the same time the earthly Jesus and the risen Christ. So
these Scriptural narratives are themselves sufficient - sufficient for the
matter of referentiality, because they refer to this Jesus Christ. Faith in
this Jesus Christ does not therefore need some systematic validation from
an external source, such as historical criticism. That would be to make our
notions of history a higher authority. But that does not mean that there is
no relationship between faith and historical investigation at all. What
Frei appears to argue is that faith in the Jesus Christ to whom the
narratives witness remains determinative for Christian living but that
faith can then make ad hoc use of modern historical criticism. Faith in
fact needs only two assurances from such criticism - (i) that Christ's
resurrection has not been historically disconfirmed (Identity, 151) and
(ii) that a man, Jesus of Nazareth, who proclaimed the Kingdom of God's
nearness, did exist and was finally executed (Identity, 51).

For Frei the literal meaning of the gospels is the story they tell -
fictive elements and all. It seems to me that the theological corollary of
this is that it is these stories that are to be acknowledged as true. Their
relationship to "the historical Jesus" and how far they have been shaped by
particular communities and their interests and needs remains to be explored
as part of the investigation of the mixture of history-like and
fiction-like elements that constitute the stories.
Frei would certainly not see in this emphasis on realistic narrative "the
substitution of the Word for the person, the spirit for the body", and
since his stance leaves room for other types of investigation of the
gospels, I cannot see why Watson must insist that that is what they entail.
He himself concedes that the gospels have an ideological stance and contain
legendary material. It has to be a legitimate question what drives the
particular ideological stance of any gospel story and what interests beyond
the historical have shaped legendary elements.

David relates his reflections to the place and historicity of the cleansing
of the temple in 4G, and the role of the raising of Lazarus and asks:
>
>But my question would be, firstly - assuming that the event
>precipitating the passion in 4G is 'the raising of Lazarus' but is the
>'cleansing of the temple' in the Synoptic Gospels - if the placement of
>the raising of Lazarus account is an expression of the particular
>theology of the Fourth Gospel -  how does this differ from the
>particular expression of the faith of the Johannine community?
>
FWIW, I think someone like Frei would say that the literal meaning of these
stories is that they identify the one who is the earthly Jesus and the
risen Christ as the fulfilment/replacement of all that the Temple stood for
and as the  one who embodies and conveys eschatological life in the
present. I agree these are the truth claims of the Evangelist (shaped by
the faith experiences of his community?). Watson wants to stress that such
claims are also universal claims - fine - but why exclude on principle
investigation of the local setting from which they emerged and by which
they are likely to have been shaped?

Andrew Lincoln


------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew T. Lincoln
alincoln@...
Wycliffe College
University of Toronto
5 Hoskin Avenue
Toronto M5S 1H7
Canada



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Julian Waterfield wrote:

> Dear all
                                   <...>
> And then in Jn 21, why are there fish already cooking before the miraculous
> haul is brought in?  Are there two miracles in the chapter?

Not two miracles, but two lots of fish.  The fish which are cooking are
not the same as those which the disciples catch.

                               Elizabeth Danna




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

>Not two miracles, but two lots of fish.  The fish which are cooking are
>not the same as those which the disciples catch.

So how did Jesus get the fish?  Is it me reading too much into all this? or
is there not a miracle implied in how Jesus obtained them.

Best
Julian

Julian Waterfield
julian.waterfield@...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exeter College, Turl Street, Oxford, OX1 3DP, UK
Internal 29660   External 01865-280016 x29660
                           Mobile 0403-957016
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ejdanna@... <ejdanna@...>
To: John List <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
Date: 10 June 1999 15:01
Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Johannine fish


>
>
>On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Julian Waterfield wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>                                  <...>
>> And then in Jn 21, why are there fish already cooking before the
miraculous
>> haul is brought in?  Are there two miracles in the chapter?
>
>
>                              Elizabeth Danna
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background &
research interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
>Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Perhaps another issue is why there is so much emphasis in chap. 21 on "fish"
and "fishing" when John does not describe the disciples as fishermen in his
call story.  Where does the "fish" symbolism come from?

Respectfully,
--tom

"The Truth Will Set You Free"
tom thatcher
cbs&s
(513) 244-8172



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

OK and while we're on the fish theme, I'm interested in the
different interpretations given to the number of fish (153).
Can someone point me to a commentary or article where
this is discussed? I remember hearing a symbolic interpretation
along the lines of "they believed there were 153 nationalities,
so it means 'the whole world will hear the good news' " --
but can't recall where that is now. I'd be interested in both
the ridiculous and the sublime...

Thanks,
Fred Guyette
Erskine Seminary


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

The standard commentaries will all have decent sections on this.  Try
Raymond Brown's or Barnabas Lindars' for starters, perhaps.

Best
Julian

Julian Waterfield
julian.waterfield@...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exeter College, Turl Street, Oxford, OX1 3DP, UK
Internal 29660   External 01865-280016 x29660
                           Mobile 0403-957016
----------------------------------------------------------------------




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

As with a lot of these details, there is a good coverage of the 153 fish
also in Carson, "The Gospel According to John," 672-73.  He also refers to
other relevant discussions - more recent than Brown and Lindars.  All are
good, however.

Frank Moloney
Catholic University of America

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Waterfield <julian.waterfield@...>
To: johannine_literature@egroups.com <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
Date: Thursday, June 10, 1999 12:27 PM
Subject: [John_Lit] Re: 153 Johannine fish


>The standard commentaries will all have decent sections on this.  Try
>Raymond Brown's or Barnabas Lindars' for starters, perhaps.
>
>Best
>Julian
>
>Julian Waterfield
>julian.waterfield@...
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Exeter College, Turl Street, Oxford, OX1 3DP, UK
>Internal 29660   External 01865-280016 x29660
>                          Mobile 0403-957016
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background &
research interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
>Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

A. N. Wilson's book JESUS: A LIFE includes a chapter on 'Cooked Fish, or How to
Read a Gospel.'

Regards,

Jon


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

> >Not two miracles, but two lots of fish.  The fish which are cooking are
> >not the same as those which the disciples catch.
>
> So how did Jesus get the fish?  Is it me reading too much into all this? or
> is there not a miracle implied in how Jesus obtained them.

Let me answer Julian's question briefly as one of my old teachers would have:
Jesus got the fish of 21:9 from chapter 6!  I.e., John is not really implying
a "miracle" here, but rather making a literary allusion/connection, inviting
us to think back to the last time fish had appeared in this Gospel.

But more importantly:
John 21 is fairly consistent in dividing these two lots of fish, but with one
very curious twist. The living wriggling fish that are caught in 21:6, 8, 11
are called IXQUS (as all fish, living or dead, are in the other Gospels),
while the cooked/dried fish that Jesus gives people in John 6:9, 11 and 21:9,
13 are consistently called OYARION (used only in John).  However, in 21:10,
Jesus tells the disciples, "Bring some of the fish (OYARIWN !!) you just
caught" -- even though they are again called IXQUS when Peter hauls in the net
in 21:11.

Did the fish get cooked/dried so quickly?  Or is Jesus simply anticipating
that the wriggling IXQUS will soon become an edible OYARION?  Or are the words
really interchangeable (I doubt John is so loose or sloppy in his word
choices).  Or is there something much more subtle going on here: Jesus
providing and asking for an OYARION, while the disciples can only provide an
IXQUS?

I wonder if this is the same sort of verbal game as occurs a few verses later,
with Jesus twice asking whether Peter loves him (w/ AGAPH), but Peter
responding slightly differently, saying that he loves him (w/ FILEW), until
Jesus then changes the question the third time to match Peter's use of FILEW.

(Sorry I don't have access to any good commentaries this month while I'm out
of the country, so if someone could enlighten us briefly about what Brown,
Lindars, etc., say -- or better yet, would Loader, Rensberger, Michaels, or
another recent commentator care to speak up? Thanks!)

Felix Just, S.J.
Loyola Marymount University


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Since it did not include a "Subject" heading, John Painter's recent e-mail may
have gotten neglected. But I think the issue is very important, so that I'm
resending his message (below) and seconding his invitation that we discuss
this issue seriously.

So far, only Jim West responded that he considers 1John to be a commentary on
the FG (I mostly agree), but added, "2-3 John are not really relevant for a
reading of the Gospel- they are interested in something else."  I disagree.
Not only do the numerous terminological overlaps obviously indicate strong
connections (children, love, truth, peace, love, dwelling, walking in the
truth, commandments, etc.).  More importantly, the claim that the elder's
opponents "do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh" (2John 7)
must be related somehow to the Prologue's claim that "the Word became
flesh..." (John 1:14).  So either the elder's opponents are those who rejected
the Gospel's Christology (if the Gospel was written first), or else the Gospel
was written (or at least the Prologue added) in response to the opponents'
inadequate Christology.

Yet John Painter's question really goes beyond discussion of such details,
asking instead about the broader hermeneutical issue. Should we read all four
works independently just because we cannot be absolutely sure whether the
Gospel or the Epistles were written first?  I think not. We may need to remain
somewhat tentative in our proposals, or even give two possible interpretations
(as I did above), based on which writing might be older.  But acting as if
there is no connection between these writing is clearly the less desirable
option, since it ignores the obvious fact that they are "somehow' connected.

What think the rest of you?
Felix Just, S.J.
Loyola Marymount University

---------------------------------------
John Painter wrote:
> May I ask the seminar to consider a hermeneutical question.  What is the
> relevance of the Johannine epistles for the reading of the Gospel and
> what is the relevance of the Gospel for the reading of the epistles?
> There is a growing tendency to insist that each work should be read
> independently (even 2 and 3 John).  This is different from first reading
> the particular document to determine its probable relationship to the
> others and then reading it in the light of these conclusions (not
> presuppositions).  Given that these conclusions are at best only
> probable, should the interpreter refrain from them and read each
> document independently?  Or is the assumtion of independence only a less
> likely conclusion than that of some relationship?  It is of course more
> complex because "some relationship" itself offers many options.  Is this
> now a question that calls for more concentrated attention in the light
> of new perspectives and approaches and the insights that they bring?  In
> recent discussions some contributors have referred to the Johannine
> epistles as a factor distinguishing the Gospel of John from the
> Synoptics for which there are no associated epistles.  What difference
> do the epistles make for our reading of John and John for our reading of
> the epistles?
> JohnP
> --
> Professor John Painter
> St Mark's National Theological Centre
> Charles Sturt University Canberra Campus
> 15 Blackall Street
> Barton ACT 2600     Phone 61 (0)2 6273 1572
> Australia 	 Fax  61 (0)2 6273 4067


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

I haven't yet done Chapter 21, but for your reference, the Paraphrase of 6:9
reads as follows:

6:25 - 28

esti tis enthade kouros echo^n kritho^deas artous
pente kai agchiporou didoumaonas ichthuas halme^s,
ichthuas optaleous didumaonas; alla ti rhexei
tauta poluglo^sso^ memerismena suzugi lao^?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

> But more importantly:
> John 21 is fairly consistent in dividing these two lots of fish, but with one
> very curious twist. The living wriggling fish that are caught in 21:6, 8, 11
> are called IXQUS (as all fish, living or dead, are in the other Gospels),
> while the cooked/dried fish that Jesus gives people in John 6:9, 11 and 21:9,
> 13 are consistently called OYARION (used only in John).  However, in 21:10,
> Jesus tells the disciples, "Bring some of the fish (OYARIWN !!) you just
> caught" -- even though they are again called IXQUS when Peter hauls in the net
> in 21:11.
>
> Did the fish get cooked/dried so quickly?  Or is Jesus simply anticipating
> that the wriggling IXQUS will soon become an edible OYARION?  Or are the words
> really interchangeable (I doubt John is so loose or sloppy in his word
> choices).  Or is there something much more subtle going on here: Jesus
> providing and asking for an OYARION, while the disciples can only provide an
> IXQUS?

I find this interesting on several levels regarding the use of IXQUS as
in Mt 7:10
or OYARION as in John 21:9.  Since the latter is from OPTOS, obsolete
from (EYW
(cooked, roasted), I wonder about the interchangeability when I see Luke
(24:42)
use IXQUOS OPTOU "broiled fish."  It seems to me that if the IXQUS was
OPTOU,
it would have been OYARION.  The difference may be that an OYARION was
something
you ate with bread.

On another level, however, is the working language of the original
tradition
(Aramaic) where the word is nwn) NOOna regardless.

Jack


--
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
jkilmon@...

http://www.historian.net

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Johannine Friends,
                Normally I just lurk, but I very much like the two
threads of discussion
on "fish" and the relation between the Gospel and the letters. I would
like to add a
question about the many sermons that have been preached on I,II,III John
throughout
Christian history -- I have read some of Augustine's famous sermons on
the letters,
what other good sermons on the letters am I missing? I am a seminary
librarian,
always looking for literary connections that will help our students in
preaching,
but on a deeper level, I am also longing to HEAR a series of thoughtful
sermons on the
themes that Felix Just listed (love,peace,dwelling, etc.).

Thank You,
Fred Guyette
Erskine Seminary
Due West, SC



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Fred Guyette wrote:

> OK and while we're on the fish theme, I'm interested in the
> different interpretations given to the number of fish (153).
> Can someone point me to a commentary or article where
> this is discussed?

IIRC there are discussions in the commentaries of Beasley-Murray, Carson,
and Brown.
                              Elizabeth Danna




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

A bit of oral tradition: I once heard the late Raymond Brown say, prefacing a
paper at SBL, that he imagined that some day he would have a dream in which
he would hear a great Voice thundering at him from heaven, saying, "You fool!
The reason I said there were 153 fish in John 21 is that there WERE 153
fish!"

I always remembered Brown's little satire on himself - and on the rest of us
too, for that matter.

Ramsey Michaels

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

I am curious about the derivation of this name.  I know, of course, that
it is a short form of Ananias, which is a Hellenised version of Hananiah.
But what does the name Hananiah mean?
                                 Elizabeth Danna




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Elizabeth Danna wrote ...

> I am curious about the derivation of this name.  I know, of course, that
> it is a short form of Ananias, which is a Hellenised version of Hananiah.
> But what does the name Hananiah mean?

Hi Elizabeth,

Is it not "Jah has favoured" from XFNAN = to favour and YFHH = Jah, the
Lord?

Neil Booth
Bradford, England

For Booth's Bible Brief visit http://www.bbb.ndo.co.uk

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
There is nothing we can do to make God love us more
There is nothing we can do to make God love us less
--------------------<((>< Philip Yancey ><))>--------------------



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

I am pleased to announce that XTalk: The Historical Jesus and Early
Christian Origins, a moderated, academic e-List  dedicated to the
scholarly investigation and discussion of critical questions and issues
surrounding the study of the Jesus of History and the rise of
Christianity, now has an official web page.

Please visit it at http://www.xtalk.org

or at its mirror site at http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/xtalk

where you will find a detailed description of the aims and focus of the
List, its protocols, and procedures for subscribing.

XTalk is the successor to Crosstalk, a now defunct, unmoderated
discussion group which sprang up in response to, and continued the
discussion begun in, a series of web based exchanges on the Historical
Jesus between John Dominic Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Marcus
Borg. The new List continues the legacy of those original exchanges.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Thank you, John, for a really important set of questions, and thank you,
Jim and Felix, for your responses.  Here are some of my thoughts on the
relation between the Johannine gospel and epistles:

1) The relation is not a certain one, but there is clearly a connection --
part of the same community or set of communities.  In that sense, while
necessary connections are less than certain, one cannot say there is no
connection.  While she does not claim the latter directly, I feel Judith
Lieu's approach individuating II John and III John is overdone.  True, III
John was not accepted canonically until later, but alien authorship is not
the best explanation.  More likely are two other factors: its being
addressed to an individual rather than a community (likewise the retarded
reception of the Pastorals), and the fact that it is critical of structural
leadership.  Especially the latter issue would have been more than enough
to dampen its broader reception and use -- especially by church leaders.
Nonetheless, Lieu is correct that the inclusion of III John comes in on the
heels of II John, which comes in on the heels of I John.  II John is most
like I John stylistically and thematically, but there is no piece of NT
writing more like III John than II John (both claiming to have been written
by "the Elder").  I believe the epistles have a common author.

2) Their relation to the gospel, however, is a multivalent one.  Much of
the style and content is similar, but there are also particular
differences.  Most significant is the difference between the evangelist's
more dialectical presentation of Jesus as the truth, in contrast to the
epistle writer's more monological presentation of "the truth which we have
received" suggesting a second-order process of thought (see chapter 7 of
_The Christology of the Fourth Gospel_, TPI 1997).  This is what leads me
to believe the gospel and epistles represent the same sector of
Christianity (and in that sense are illuminative of each other) but are
written by different leaders.  If indeed supplementary material (1:1-18,
chs. 6, 15-17, 21, etc.) has been added by the gospel's editor to a first
edition of the gospel, several other connections follow.  Many of the
themes in this supplementary material are also in I John, and are echoed in
II and III John.  Add to that the redactor's tendency to appeal to
apostolic authority, and I believe there is good reason for assuming the
gospel's redactor is the Elder who has also written the epistles.  The
evangelist, however, is responsible for most of the traditional material in
the gospel itself, as well as the bulk of the supplementary material.

3) The sequence of the compositions, thus, may have been something like this:
      a) The first edition of John finalized around 80 CE by the Fourth
Evangelist (notice that most of the contentions with the Jewish leaders
appear in this body of material),
      b) the Elder's writing of the first epistle (ca. 85 CE) as a circular
to bolster church unity and fellowship in the aftermath of a first
antichristic threat (a Jewish-Christian defection) and warning about a
second antichristic threat (a docetizing visitation, ca. 90 CE),
      c) the Elder's writing to a specific community (the chosen lady and
her children) regarding the dangers of the docetizing teachers and their
false gospel of assimilation,
      d) the Elder's letter to Gaius (an individual leader) encouraging him
after abrupt treatment by Diotrephes (a local, proto-Ignatian hierarchical
leader who has rejected Johannine visitations, ca. 95 CE),
      e) and finally, after the death of the evangelist, the Elder finalizes
the gospel and sends it off as the testimony of the Beloved Disciple (ca.
100 CE) as a preservation of the Johannine tradition and also (at least
partially) as a corrective response to docetism and rising institutionalism
in the late first-century church (thus, the incarnationalist motifs and the
ecclesial emphases in the supplementary material).

So,  hermeneutically, these four writings cast a fair bit of light on a
common set of issues faced by this sector of the early church, and yet we
also see more than one approach to particular issues.  I would say the
writings indeed inform each other, and that knowledge about each also
inform our hermeneutical approaches to the others.

Thanks, John, for an excellent question!

Paul Anderson



At 8:31 AM +0000 6/9/99, John Painter wrote:
>May I ask the seminar to consider a hermeneutical question.  What is the
>relevance of the Johannine epistles for the reading ot the Gospel and
>what is the relevance of the Gospel for the reading of the epistles?
>There is a growing tendency to insist that each work should be read
>independently (even 2 and 3 John).  This is different from first reading
>the particular document to determine its probable relationship to the
>others and then reading it in the ligh of these conclusions (not
>presuppositions).  Given that these conclusions are at best only
>probable, should the interpreter refrain from them and read each
>document independently?  Or is the assumtion of independence only a less
>likely conclusion than that of some relationship?  It is of course more
>complex because"some relationship" itself offers many options.  Is this
>now a question that calls for more concentrated attention in the light
>of new perspectives and approaches and the insights that they bring?  In
>recent discussions some cotributors have referred the the Johannine
>epistles as a factor distinguishing the Gospel of John from the
>Synoptics for which there are no associated epistles.  What difference
>do the epistles make for our reading of John and John for our reading of
>the epistles?
>JohnP
>--
>Professor John Painter
>St Mark's National Theological Centre
>Charles Sturt University Canberra Campus
>15 Blackall Street
>Barton ACT 2600     Phone 61 (0)2 6273 1572
>Australia 	 Fax  61 (0)2 6273 4067
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background &
>research interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
>Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

When I visited the Lateran Basilica in Rome recently, I was struck by the many
iconographic connections and parallels made between John the Baptist and John
the Apostle/Evangelist, not just in the name of the Cathedral (dedicated in
honor of both Johns!), but especially in the artwork.  Almost every single
depiction of J.B. was symetrically paired up with a depiction of the younger
John (with the traditional assumption that the apostle and evangelist were the
same person, of course).

This traditional connection with the Baptist is most likely based on the further
assumption that the anonymous second disciple who accompanies Andrew in John
1:35-42 was also John the apostle/evangelist/beloved disciple/son of Zebedee. 
While I don't think these were all the same person, of course, it led me to
think again about the influence of the Baptist and his followers on the early
followers of Jesus in general, and the Johannine community and/or the Fourth
Evangelist in particular.

Does someone know of a good recent book or article that discusses in detail the
possible connections and influences of the Baptist on the Johannine community
and/or evangelist?

Felix Just, S.J.
Loyola Marymount University


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com