Re: [Synoptic-L] The Twelve
- Karel Hanhart wrote:
> > Karel Hanhart wrote:
> > > In fact, I have never read of someone opposing the possibility that
> > >'Nathanael' (God has given) is the Hebrew rendition of Matthew (! - In
> > >Aramaic "gift of JHWH"). In other words the author acknowledges the
> > >existence of the Gospel of Matthew and described some of its typical
> > >Matthean emphases in 1,45f. I defended this interpretation long ago in
> > >the Festschrift for Sevenster, Brill, 1970. It was first suggested by
> > >W. Bauer, Das Johannes Evangelium, Handbuch zum N.T. VI, 1933 (Exkurs
> > >after 1,51).
> Ron Price wrote:
> > Karel,
> > This is an intriguing idea.
> > But I wonder if it should be taken even further. Have you (or anyone
> > else) considered the possibility that Jn 2:43-51 might have coded
> > references to all four gospels?
> > Peter (1:44) is well established and needs no introduction. This could
> > be Mark, the oldest gospel, which was traditionally associated with
> > Peter.
> > Nathanael, as you have pointed out, is Matthew.
> > Philip is a Greek name which could indicate Luke, a gospel probably
> > originating in a Greek-speaking area.
> > "You shall see greater things than these ....." (1:50b-51) could be
> > referring to John's gospel itself.
> > Thus we would have a reference to all four canonical gospels.
> In the above mentioned article, "The Structure of John 1,35 - 4,45" in the
> Festschrift for J.N. Sevenster, I proposed indeed that John referred to the
> three older Gospels in the order of Mark, Matthew, and Luke Acts. As is so
> often the case, no one picked up on this proposal, but no one denied it
> either. The suggestion remained in limbo, because it seemed perhaps too
> simple a solution to the enigmatic statements about the first disciples
> (John 1) and to some aspects of the Synoptic problem. In the only reaction
> to the article, I know of, W.G. Kuemmel dismissed it in a note as a product
> of phantasm (in his revised Introduction to the New Testament; does anyone
> on this list know of a further reaction to my article?).
> The truth is often found in simple answers to difficult problems, such
> as the priority of Mark. In this article I propose, that John 1,41 does
> refer to Mark first. The adverb 'proton' in "(Andrew) 'first' found Simon"
> is a cryptic hint to the beginning of the Jesus' movement: Simon Peter was
> the 'first' human who confessed Jesus as Messiah and Mark reported it first.
> True, in John 1,41 "we have found..." (note the plural we!!) these are
> Andrew's words. However, the flow of thought in John 1 is precisely from
> the 'kosmos' to the 'particular'; from the 'panta' made through the 'Logos'
> (1,3) to the particularity of John the Baptist (1,6) on to the focal point
> in the Gospel story 'and the logos became flesh (1,14). Now Andrew is a
> Greek name par excellence and in Mark 1,16, Andrew, representing the
> non-Judean believers, is presented as the spiritual 'brother of Simon'.
> Both have been baptized and thus are followers of John and as so often in
> John, the salvation of the 'kosmos' is of foremost importance (e.g. John
> Agreed -, this is a complicated, allegorical exegesis. On the other, the
> Nathanael episode clearly points to the Gospel of Matthew. And what
> fascinated me most was that John 2 - 4 seems to refer to Luke-Acts (Eileen
> Guilding). In Acts 1,8 the Galilean apostles must witness in Jerusalem, in
> all of Judea. in Samaria. In John's Gospel the same order is followed.
> Jesus taught in Jerusalem (2,14-3.21 - cleansing of the temple,
> Nicodemus); in Judea (3,22 - 36; in Samaria (4,1-45); and in 4,46 -
> 54, the Gentile son of the centurion is healed. The 'first sign - semeion'
> in Cana - the wedding; and this second sign in 'second sign' in Cana appear
> to symbolize the forming of the ecclesia of Judeans and Gentiles.