Jack, I find your various reconstructions quite interesting, to say the least. I don t have time to engage them all so I will just respond to the John 21Message 1 of 56 , May 3, 2010View SourceJack,I find your various reconstructions quite interesting, to say the least. I don't have time to engage them all so I will just respond to the John 21 argument. If you take the time to engage the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, the purpose for chapter 21 seems to emerge quite clearly, as does its provenance from within the Johannine community. A three-fold questioning of Peter reverses the three-fold denial and (in a sense) reinstates and exonerates Peter. This would have been important to an early readership who knew of Peter's primacy in the early church. Nevertheless, the Beloved Disciple still retains a superior position. Both Peter and the BD are characterized in a positive way, but the BD is still the Johannine hero. In addition, the phrase "follow me" recalls language from earlier in the Fourth Gospel and this seems like the most obvious place to look for a narrative bracket. For these reasons it seems to me highly unlikely that John 21 came from anywhere else but from within the Johannine tradition.Regards,Christopher Skinnerhttp://pejeiesous.comOn Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
From: "kurt31416" <kurt31416@...>
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 6:50 PM
Subject: [GTh] Re: Probability of No Mark Parallels for 29 Sayings in Thomas
> Hi Jack,
> Stupid question. How come there's virtually no Mark/John sayings
> parallels, never more than 2 in a row, then all of a sudden, there's 10 in
> a row, from the Last Supper to the end of Mark? All of a sudden, it's the
> same Jesus talking. (J.S. Five Gospels data)
> And, of course, all the Thomas parallels clustered in the first part.
> Why would Mark's Thomas saying list only be at the beginning of Mark, and
> why are all the sayings in Mark from the Last Supper to the end, (none of
> which is in Thomas) also in John?
> Rick Van Vliet
John 21 may have been the original ending of Mark.
Mark anticipates a first resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21
without the "third appearance" editorial insert at 21:14 is that first
In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times (14:67-72). In John (21:15-17),
Peter affirms his love three times....the pro-Petrine redemption anticipated
in Mark. This completes what form critics have come to recognize as Markan
brackets (like the bracketed blind men at 8:22 and 10:46). In Mark, the
shepherd is struck down and the sheep scattered. In John 21 Peter becomes
the new shepherd..completing another incomplete Markan bracket. In Mark,
the first words spoken to a disciple are "follow me." In John 21 the LAST
words spoken are "follow me" (Jn 21:22) completing another 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, to the point of annoyance to some, the "follow the Aramaic" guy and
also find support in this from 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 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.
San Antonio, TX
Hi Jack, Sorry you are feeling poorly. Hope you feel better soon. Whatever the outcome of these discussions, I just wanted to say that I much admire the factMessage 56 of 56 , May 7, 2010View SourceHi Jack,Sorry you are feeling poorly. Hope you feel better soon.Whatever the outcome of these discussions, I just wanted to say that I much admire the fact that, as a historian, you picked up two historical references to two very, very early Chritian documents in Papias (The Matthean Logia and Mark's Notes) and have proposed that one was our Book of Q and the other the Gospel of Thomas.Quite an original idea, and well worth exploring.It's been been both interesting and stimulating trying to test out your intriguing proposal.Thanks.When you get back to this, I have a question.- Since the Matthean Logia is said to have been written down in Aramaic (actually, Papais calls it "Hebrew".) wouldn't back translating the Q parallel sayings in Thomas not also yield the sort of results you've found in the Markan sayings?Best Regards,Ron McCannSasakatoon, Canada PS Couldn't find a listing for a Kilmon in the phone book. Does yourr son go by a different name or like many of the younger set, does he use only a cellphone?