Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4165Re: [John_Lit] Re: Oral Tradition

Expand Messages
  • Bill Bullin
    Feb 6 6:29 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill Bullin wrote:

      > > If Mark 4: 13-20 could be shown to be a likely pericope from Johannine
      > > circles,
      > > it would demonstrate that the(se) Johannine circles(s) knew at least
      > > one of the
      > > parables of Jesus
      > > but the Evangelist / B. D. chose not to incorporate it for some reason.
      Peter replied:
      > In my view you have to differenciate between the parable and its
      > interpretation. The parable is one thing. It belonged to the traditions
      > available to Mark. The interpretation is another thing and was given by
      > Mark himself and layed into the mouth of Jesus. One of the purposes or
      > probably the main purpose of the interpretation was to explicitely
      > de-christologize the term and concept of the Logos like the
      > "Hellenistenbuch" already did before. The sawyer is Jesus and the Logos
      > is the seed he spreads or his spoken word. Matthew and Luke appearantly
      > were no longer aware of this primary intention and changed the absolute
      > "Logos" simply to the "logos qeou". After all, I do not hink that the
      > pericope of the sawyer has something to do with johannine circles, but
      > only with Mark rejceting all Logos-speculations along with he "Gospel
      > of John" he had before his eyes. Both, "John" and after him Mark, by
      > this same procedure exalted Jesus from the Logos (Philo and Prologue)
      > to God himself. This is the line not only of "John" and Mark, but also
      > of the following Gospel writers Matthw and Luke. According to all
      > Gospels in Jesus has appeared God (= Yaweh) himself, and what he speaks
      > is the Logos or the word of God.
      >
      Bill Bullin replies concerning Mark 4:10-20 and parallels:

      First we can argue either that:

      (1) Mark follows Matthew and Luke (Griesbach);
      John is latest.

      (2) Matthew and Luke follow Mark and possibly other sources (Streeter).
      John is latest.

      (3) Luke follows Matthew and Matthew follows Mark (Farrar / Goulder);
      John is latest.

      (4) An elaborate theory of synoptic development and inter-reaction.
      John is last (and *first), (Boismard, *Robinsion).

      (5) Johannine material was in circulation before Mark (as it is now known),
      was competed.
      This may have taken the form of both a Hellenistenbuch and or other free
      floating oral material
      or indeed a 'sealed' piece of oral material.

      We can view this material in a number of ways:

      (A) We can read it as a straightforward continuation of Jesus' teaching to
      the disciples, when the crowds were no longer present.

      (B) We can see it as one piece of Marcan redactional material.

      (C) We can see it as two separate pieces of material: 11-12 & 13-20, in
      which case they could be:

      (a) Teaching of Jesus to his disciples (11-12) and then Marcan redactional
      material (13-20).

      (b) Marcan redactional material (11-12) and then a further preserved
      pericope of Jesus' teaching (13-20).

      (c) One piece of Marcan redactional material (11-12) followed by a second
      piece of Marcan redactional material (13-20).

      (d) One piece of Marcan redactional material (11-12) followed by
      an insertion of further redactional material (13-20) from elsewhere.

      (e) Two pieces of redactional material from elsewhere.

      (f) One piece of continuous redactional material inserted from elsewhere.

      I (BB), am arguing for (5) (C) (d, with perhaps as underlying wisdom
      logion).
      I understand you, (PH) to be arguing for (5) (B) or (C) (c).
      I understand Leonard, (LM) to be arguing for (1) (B) (f).

      I understand Frank (F MC) to be introducing a broader christological
      suggestion,
      offering an intermediate concept somewhere between logos and LOGOS; a kind
      of 'anggelogos' rather than an 'ANGGELOGOS'.

      I wonder what those who support an early John and follow (2) or (4) make of
      Mark 4?
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic