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

5902Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    Jan 19, 2011
      From: "Matson, Mark (Academic)" <MAMatson@...>
      Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:02 AM
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

      > Jack Kilman wrote:
      >> There are many layer to 4G. In my opinion and open to discussion, once
      >> they are peeled away, 4G was the first (that's right....first, prior to
      >> Mark) and most historical gospel of them all.
      > Jack, I agree with you on the priority of John. At least I suspect John
      > is very early, as early as Mark, and independent. I think "priority" is a
      > difficult term if there is independence, and I have a hard time seeing
      > John as dependent on Mark, or Mark dependent on John. Paul Anderson may
      > have something with his interfluentiality, though I still have a hard time
      > seeing clear evidence of that.
      > What I question, though, is the "layers" and the "peeling away." How can
      > we really tell? I used to be a fan of Fortna's, but have become less
      > certain. The more I read John (and E. Schweizer's analysis of John was
      > influential on this), the more I see a unified text. And, as my own
      > response to Joseph Calandrino indicated, I think narrative analysis tends
      > to find the story as very cohesive. So I guess my question is how do you
      > determine the layers? How confident can you be? Perhaps a sample would
      > be helpful.
      > 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.
      > And we would agree that much of the gospel of John is clearly very
      > semitic. And I would bow to your expertise about particular phrases that
      > are clear indications of an Aramaic origin. But does this mean a source,
      > or has John either directly written in Greek having a Semitic background?
      > Or Perhaps is he reporting eyewitness account (cf. Bauckham, but also
      > simply the emphasis on "testimony" in the 4G)? How do we know?
      > And I am very comfortable asserting the historicity of certain aspects (as
      > I did recently arguing for John's version of Passion dating). But again,
      > I tend to see the whole gospel as unified, and thus don't move easily to
      > argue for sources or historicity simply on pieces.
      >> 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 history.
      > So, the story we have is not partaking in "historiography?" (rightly
      > understood as the interpretation of an individual). Granted, John is now
      > what we would call a history... it is exhortation in narrative form to
      > make a point (That you might believe....). But I'm still not comfortable
      > with the need to "extract" the history... and am nervous about the series
      > of decisions that are made to get at "historical bits". The methodology
      > seems iffy to me.
      > Mark A. Matson
      > Academic Dean
      > Milligan College
      > 423-461-8720
      > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm

      Hi Mark,

      I don't think we can apply any methodology until we can see what
      "proto-John" looked like. I do not see 4G as unified in its present form.
      For example:

      John, as does Mark, has a very profound Aramaic background but the Prologue
      does not. I think it was appended as an antiphonal hymn chanted between a
      lector and the communicants before reading the Gospel which began at
      1:19....but here is the kicker. I think the anti-Petrine Aramaic
      "proto-John" shortly after its translation to Greek...a much smaller text
      than the present Greek canonical John.... actually stimulated the
      composition of the PRO-Petrine Ur-Markus. The Aramaic or translational
      Greek PJ was used, perhaps, as a template around which the much larger Greek
      version was composed around 90ish CE. It is easy to see how the Prologue,
      as happened elsewhere in the NT for liturgical elements, became attached.
      The use of the ending of Mark, removed and edited, as an ending of John had
      a purpose of harmonizing John to Mark to remove anti-Petrine themes hence
      the "blend" of Johannine and Markan style discernable from the rest of the
      Gospel and observed by other scholars.

      1:22-25 added by redactor

      1:30 added by redactor

      1:32 added by redactor

      2:1-10 from "Signs Gospel" appended with 2:11 on later redaction

      2:15 "..and the sheep, and the oxen" gloss

      2:17 Early John was KATAFAGETAI (will consume me), changed by redactor to
      aorist to conform to Ps 69:9

      2:23-24 redaction from "signs"

      3:3 from older baptismal tradition

      3:5 "water" added by editor

      3:13 added

      3:16 added

      Order of Ch 4 thru 7 in Proto-John was 4, 6, 5, 7.

      4:1 "the Lord knew" gloss

      4:2 redaction, contradicts Proto-John 3:22

      4:46-54 from "signs"

      Ch 5 should follow chapter 6

      5:4 redactor (not in Bodmer)

      5:25 redaction

      5:27b "because he is the Son of Man" added

      5:28-29 redaction

      5:25 and 5:28-29 is editor's redaction of future realization over original
      Proto-John's present realization

      6:1-15 redaction from "signs"

      6:23 gloss

      6:27 editor's "future" addition

      6:39-44 editor's

      6:51-58 added by editor to correlate Bread of Life with Eucharist

      7:1 editor's

      7:8 OUPW was originally OUK in Proto-John

      7:15-24 was originally at end of ch.5 in Proto-John

      7:53-8:11 part of a late redaction (3rd C). First occurs in C.Bezae.
      Interrupts flow from 7:52 to 8:12.

      8:12-59 original Proto-John material but for 8:13 added

      8:14a added

      8:14b is original, also GThom 24

      8:15 added

      8:17a added

      8:17b original Proto-John from Deut. 19:15

      8:18 added

      8:19a added

      8:19b original Proto-John also in Q and Lk 10:22

      8:20a added

      8:20b original Proto-John..also Egerton

      8:21b "and shall die in your sins" added

      8:21c "where I am going" original Proto-John..also Apoc James 2:23-27

      8:22 original PJ..also GThom 38

      8:23-24 added

      8:25 Original PJ..also GThom 43

      8:26-28 added

      8:31a added

      8:31b orig PJ and GThom 19

      8:32 orig PJ

      8:33 added

      8:34a added

      8:34b orig PJ

      8:35 Orig. PJ

      8:36 added

      9:22 would have to have been edited after the Birkhat ha-minim in 85CE

      9:35 "signs" redaction

      10:18d "this commandment have I received..." goes with 10:27-29

      10:19 goes with Ch 9.

      11:2 added

      11:45-50 "signs" redaction

      12:44-50 goes with Ch 9 except for editor's 12:48.

      13:31 All of Ch 17 originally here

      14:30 prefaced 18:1 in PJ

      Chapters 15 and 16 preceded 13:36-14:31 in PJ

      19:34 added

      20:11-31 orig. PJ with no parallels in synoptics. PJ ended here

      Ch 21 editor's appendix ending of Mark

      An editor took the last chapter of MARK and appended it as Chapter 21 to
      JOHN...thereby harmonizing the two Gospels.

      The reasoning?

      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. I am, to the
      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
      participle also frequent in John 21. There is also a connection between
      and Mark's use of imperfects, the rare use of de and frequent use of kai,
      partitive APO in 21:10 used by Mark at 5:35, 6:43, 7:4 and 12:2.


      4:1 "the Lord Knew"


      4:11b "Sir.....


      5:27 "because he is the..







      8:21 "and shall die in your sins



      11:2 added by late redactor to conflate Mary Magdalene with a prostitute but
      odds with Luke 7:36




      13:10 "not save to wash his feet


      14:30 "much"

      16:16 "because I go to the father




      Aramaic proto-John would have started something like:

      והדא הי סהדותה דיוחנן כד שׁדרו לותה יהודיא
      מן אורשׁלם כהנא ולויא דנשׁאלוניהי אנת מן אנת׃
      19 And this is the record of John, when the priests
      and Levites from Jerusalem asked him, Who art thou?
      ואודי ולא כפר ואודי דלו אנא אנא משׁיחא׃
      20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed,
      I am not the Messiah.
      ושׁאלוהי תוב מנא הכיל אליא
      אנת ואמר לא איתי נביא אנת ואמר לא׃
      21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias?
      And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
      ענא יוחנן ואמר להון אנא מעמד אנא במיא
      בינתכון דין קאם הו דאנתון לא ידעין אנתון לה׃
      26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water:
      but there standeth one among you, whom ye know

      shlama amek


      Jack Kilmon
      San Antonio, TX
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic