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

Re: RE: [John_Lit] Digest Number 138

Expand Messages
  • Paul Anderson
    ... I recommend Kevin Quast s book highly (see my review of it in JBL nearly a decade ago). The ideological corrective here implied is significant. Not only
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 31, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      johannine_literature@egroups.com writes:
      >Ken Durkin wrote:
      >
      >"Chapter 21 does not support this interpretation of a "contest" between
      >Peter
      >and the BD with Peter losing out."
      >
      >Nor does the rest of the Gospel. See my book _Peter and the Beloved
      >Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis_ (Sheffield: 1989) for a
      >treatment of this question that makes the case that the two serve as
      >complementary figures presented to address a crisis of authority in the
      >Johannine community. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time right now to get
      >into the discussion ... it looks interesting!
      >
      >Kevin Quast
      >
      >
      I recommend Kevin Quast's book highly (see my review of it in JBL nearly a
      decade ago). The ideological corrective here implied is significant. Not
      only do we have appeals to authority figures emerging within the Johannine
      tradition, but it also did so in the Matthean (see the dialogue between
      Graham Stanton and myself in the 1999 issue of the Review of Biblical
      Literature).

      What I don't think is that because the Johannine perspective poses a
      challenge to Petrine views of authority, this means the Johannine
      tradition is non-apostolic. Perhaps it represents the sentiment that the
      apostolate itself has been hi-jacked by proto-Ignatian structuralists, and
      it seeks to restore an authentic memory of the authentic character of
      discipleship. Some of this familial corrective is present in Matthew as
      well as John.

      I believe the most important contribution of Charlesworth's book is that
      he challenges effectively the notion that the Beloved Disciple tradition
      in John was disconnected from a personal source of traditional authority.
      While the apparent unbelief of Thomas chafes against the belief of the BD
      at the end and beginning of ch. 20 makes the particulars of his hypothesis
      problematic, he is definitely on the right track, I believe.

      Paul Anderson
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.