5898Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
- Jan 18, 2011--------------------------------------------------
From: "winetattler" <SemioticSymphony@...>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
> Hello to all:There are many layer to 4G. In my opinion and open to discussion, once they
> This forum has been fairly quiet lately, no doubt for the trials and
> tribulations of the academic year, etc.
> However, Tom Thatcher has recently and generously facilitated an
> interesting colloquium on the biblical-studies group, and that colloquium
> is about to end.
> Is there any interest here, given that other members are active in the
> Jesus, John and History project, in continuing to move the business of
> John into new horizons?
> If so, then let me pose some new business with a general question to this
> How do the constructs of "story" and "discourse" work in FG, and do their
> interplay move the matters of 'history,' 'historicity,' etc., forward?
> Cordially, and with warmest regards,
> Joseph Calandrino
are peeled away, 4G was the first (that's right....first, prior to Mark) and
most historical gospel of them all.
The term "primacy" is very convoluted regarding New Testament writings.
These are writings that begin around 50 to 64 0r 67 CE for the Pauline
Corpus, 70 to 95 CE for the Gospels and as late as 150 to 170 CE for
2Peter..the latest of NT works. (I am not interested in going into a thread
on Gospel dating. I am fully aware there are those that would have them
composed in the Chicago Tribune) Every CANONICAL NT work was indeed authored
in Greek but there were pre-cursors and sources that were in Aramaic. My
own field of study and interest is recognizing translational Greek,
particularly Aramaic interference in Greek syntax. Since Paul of Tarsus
wrote his epistolary works in Greek (be kind of silly to write to
Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, etc in Aramaic) the next canonical work
we deal with is Mark. I am persuaded that John Mark wrote notes in Aramaic
taken down from the speeches of Kefa/Simon/Peter over a number of years
while acting as Peter's interpreter from his native Aramaic to Mark's
passable Greek. Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda, Pontus,
Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman
yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am confident this indeed goes to the lips of the
HISTORICAL Jesus because you will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage
Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I am sure, paused while Mark translated the
Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ ἐὰν ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
carcass, there also will gather the vultures." Now to Yeshua the "carcass"
(pagra) was the temple treasury and the "vultures" (nishrea) were the
Romans. Today that would be the insurance companies ...but I digress. Mark
wrote down the Aramaic "memoirs" of "Jesus dids"....and "Jesus saids"...from
Peter. Eventually, either just before or just after Peter's death, he took
the notes, IMO, to Alexandria and used them to write the first edition of
the Gospel in Greek. He wrote it in Greek but he used his own Aramaic notes
and source material. The underlying Aramaic influence on Mark's Greek is
easily recognizable. A significant work on this is Maurice Casey's "Aramaic
Sources of Mark's Gospel."
Now, before your eyes glaze over, I am going to jump to the Gospel of John
because consensus scholarship sees it as the LAST Gospel to be written as it
also sees Mark as the FIRST but that gets sticky as well. The Gospel of
John is attributed only by tradition to Yohanan bar Zebedee whom many
believe was the BD, but Yohanan (Jesus' cousin according to the sources)
appears to have been killed about the same time as his older cousin Yaqub
(James, the Just), Jesus' brother in the Ananus affair in 62CE. The Gospel
was written IN GREEK around 95 CE by John of Patmos (the "elder") probably
in Ephesus. HOWEVER, like Mark, there was a pre-cursor Aramaic document
that was a smaller Gospel that IMO actually PRE-DATED MARK. It may be
prophetic that, in this case, the LAST becomes FIRST. John of Patmos using
either a Greek translation of the original smallerAramaic gospel or
translating it himself, uses it as a skeleton around which he constructs the
much larger, semi-Gnostic and theological GREEK Gospel of John...but wait,
...it gets even more complex because this Gospel of John has been the most
screwed around with, glossed, edited, redacted, chapter shuffled patchwork
in the New Testament by later Greek scribes, churchmen and copyists. The
Gospel of Mark, as well, is published in later editions and the one we have
now is NOT the one used as a source by the authors of Matthew and
Luke....that's another story for another time.
We are left with TWO Aramaic documents written very early, probably within
10 to 30 years of the crucifixion; Mark's notes from Peter and an Aramaic
gospel I call "proto-John." Who wrote "Proto-John?" We will never know. I
guess it could have been Yohanon bar Zebedy but wouldn't it be a kick in the
pants if it was the disciple Matthew's? This is the "gospel" and "Word"
mentioned many times by Luke/Acts such as Acts 15:7 And when there had been
much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye
know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles
by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. and the "Gospel
of God mentioned by Paul, such as Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus
Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God. This
Aramaic Gospel was Luke's source and Josephus' source. Gary J. Goldberg,
"The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995), 57-77.
This first Aramaic "Proto-John," IMO, was written BEFORE Mark and was very
hostile to Peter for having denied Yeshua, an act considered a betrayal (I
habitually use "Yeshua" because I am steeped in Aramaic). Mark, on the
other hand, was Peter's companion and interpreter and his Gospel was written
to defend Peter. You had two factions of early Christianity. the Petrines
and the Johannines that were inimical to each other. We have seen the
various polemical works between Christians and non-Christians but rarely the
polemic between Christian sects except for hints of the Pauline-Jakobian
strife. I think that when John of Patmos took the Aramaic proto-John and
fleshed out his Greek Gospel, he mellowed out the anti-Petrine stuff. Later
churchmen, in one of the many editing rounds with the Gospel of John, took
the last chapter of MARK and appended it as Chapter 21 to JOHN...thereby
harmonizing the two Gospels.
I am already over-burdening you with all this but going with my theory that
John 21 was originally the ending of Mark and then redacted and appended to
John, it is interesting that the references to the BD bridge John and "Mark"
(John 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:70). On the John-Mark connection, I 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"
(Jn 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
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.
OK, breathe a sigh of relief now as we get to the "behold thy son'/Disciple
whom Jesus loved thing.
Even as the eldest son, his father being deceased, Jesus would not have the
right to place his mother's care in the hands and house of someone else when
there were four living brothers. The cultural anthropology behind this is
all wrong. The motivation behind this story lies in the tradition of the
Ephesian Church that John, the disciple, moved to Ephesus and became the
"Bishop" (presbyteros), bringing Mary with him who then lived and died in
Ephesus where there is today a "tomb" where she is buried lending great
authority in antiquity to the Ephesus Christian community. They not only
had the disciple Jesus loved most but the Virgin Mary as well. That she
traveled to and lived in Ephesus is related by Irenaeus, a disciple of
Polycarp who was a disciple of John of Ephesus. Mary became "Theotokos"
(Mother of God) at the first council of Ephesus in 431 CE.
The Beloved Disciple story glues the original final chapter of John to the
Markan appendix by placing the BD at the crucifixion (19:26), the
resurrection (20:2), the first appearance 21:7) and the end of the Gospel
that claims the BD wrote it.
Perhaps the original Aramaic Proto-John reported Jesus said "atta ha barek!"
("Behold your son"), referring to himself, but I have no allusion that the
story of the "Beloved Disciple" (meant to elevate the Ephesus Community) is
authentic. John of Ephesus may have had a hint of truth in that the
disciple John (Yohanan Bar Zebedy) might have written Proto-John but since
he was painting this disciple as their foundation of authority, it could
have been written by anyone in the early Jesus community. He makes it sound
as if this early disciple wrote his larger Greek Gospel of John rather than
the smaller Aramaic source document that is still very visibly imbedded in
4G. For this reason, John of Ephesus has been confused with John the
disciple ever since, thanks to that fictional character, the "Beloved
Well now, if the multiple extensions, redactions, glosses, interpolations
and chapter shuffling is undone and the remainder back translated to Aramaic
(something I am doing) you will have your discourse that moves matters of
Went on a bit, didn't I?
San Antonio, TX
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>