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

Re: [John_Lit] What did the BD believe (20:8)?

Expand Messages
  • John N. Lupia
    Dear Leonard: I am glad to see you on the list. You may recall my position on Gospel order which puts John second. This is why I see John as an authentic
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Leonard:

      I am glad to see you on the list. You may recall my position on
      Gospel order which puts John second. This is why I see John
      as an authentic eyewitness as he claims. Great to see you
      again.

      Cordially in Christ,
      john
      <><
    • Ken Durkin
      From: John N. Lupia ... What has coming second got to do with eyewitness ?
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        From: "John N. Lupia"

        > You may recall my position on
        > Gospel order which puts John second. This is why I see John
        > as an authentic eyewitness as he claims.

        What has coming "second" got to do with "eyewitness"?
      • khs@picknowl.com.au
        Dear John Lupia, I am interested in your reasoning for putting John second. That is what I think also, but the chance of our having the same reasons is, I
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear John Lupia,

          I am interested in your reasoning for putting John second. That
          is what I think also, but the chance of our having the same
          reasons is, I expect, very slim. Did you ever get to read my
          belated response to you on the Synoptic-L list (#6631) which
          explains my position?

          Sincerely,

          Kym Smith
          Adelaide
          South Australia
          khs@...
        • John Lupia
          Dear Kym: Yes. No comment. john
          Message 4 of 21 , Sep 5, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Kym:

            Yes. No comment.

            john
            <><

            On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 00:28:47 -0000, johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
            wrote:

            > Dear John Lupia,
            >
            > I am interested in your reasoning for putting John second. That
            > is what I think also, but the chance of our having the same
            > reasons is, I expect, very slim. Did you ever get to read my
            > belated response to you on the Synoptic-L list (#6631) which
            > explains my position?
            >
            > Sincerely,
            >
            > Kym Smith
            > Adelaide
            > South Australia
            > khs@...
            >
            >
            >
            > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

            >
            >



            John N. Lupia
            501 North Avenue B-1
            Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
            JLupia2@...
            <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>
            "during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium approaches . .
            . unity among all Christians of the various confessions will increase until
            they reach full communion." John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16





            _______________________________________________________
            http://inbox.excite.com
          • khs@picknowl.com.au
            Dear Leonard, Thank you for your quite comprehensive answer. A couple of responses are appropriate. You said:
            Message 5 of 21 , Sep 5, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Leonard,

              Thank you for your quite comprehensive answer. A couple of
              responses are appropriate. You said:

              <<<We have "the whole story of Jesus" in three different, but
              related Synoptic
              accounts, and if we use their composite testimony as a first
              basis of
              comparison (and assume, as I do, that John had access to this
              testimony) then
              we can measure, as it were, the extent to which John's
              composition is
              "invention" in terms of the details of the stories he tells.
              Nevertheless,
              even on this basis it would not be justified to view John's work as
              "just" a
              brilliant fabrication, because a basic and important line of
              agreement exists
              between his story about Jesus and the testimony of the
              Synoptics. >>>

              Firstly let me say that I do not think that John's work is a
              fabrication, brilliant or otherwise. My suggesting the same was
              simply to express what I see as the logical end of the argument
              that John used anything other than historical persons and events
              for his account. It is clear that I do think he has been very
              selective about the material that he did include, but I cannot see
              that we could claim that the author was simply inventive. Yes, a
              certain event may have been reported from a different angle to
              express a particularly theological view, and if that is what is
              meant by being inventive I have no qualms about it and I think
              that is what you are saying (not that it would bother you whether I
              have qualms about it or not!). I am not sure that I would go far
              enough for you, however, considering your comments:

              <<< This is fine, except that I think the idea of "selecting material"
              gives minimalist expression to the proactive literary-rhetorical
              work of the evangelists, especially John.

              <<To do this, however, he was still selecting from actual
              `historical persons' and `historical events',..>>

              Yes, but the evidence suggests that this is so only if one thinks
              of "historical events" in a broad sense. I think it is fair to say that
              in the judgment of most scholars, the details of John's stories
              are less often selected than they are produced.>>>

              If inventiveness is fabrication from the start it would not be
              possible for us to distinguish from actual historical events
              anyway. We are left, it seems to me, with gospels whose writers
              were men of the highest integrity and whose accounts – even if
              recorded with a particular theological thrust – are trustworthy
              accounts of actual people and events that we are called .

              Perhaps I'd better move away from this one. I am not
              comfortable with these terms but, as I said, I might quickly get
              out of my depth with it an I may already have done so.

              I am not sure that John had the witness of the Synoptics, though
              he would have had Mark. I think it more likely that Matthew and
              Luke had Mark and John. I can only invite you look at my post
              #6631 in the Synoptic-L list for a brief explanation of why I think
              what I do on that. One point that I might make because it has
              some relevance here is that I think Q was actually the leftovers
              after John had selected what he wanted from what he and others
              compiled for what is now the Fourth Gospel.

              <<<It was Luke who first introduced invented dialogue into the
              resurrection stories. …Dialogue between disciples and the
              glorified Christ, gradually leading to faith, seems to be a later
              development in Gospel composition >>>

              Not if John preceded Luke, and even less so if a major part of
              Luke's resources were John's leftovers.

              <<< Certainly this is part of what we are discussing. >>>

              I questioned this only in the sense that 1:1-5 is a theological
              statement rather than an historical. John inserts theological
              statements in a number of places which, I agree are not
              separate from the rest of the text. I was just trying to clarify for
              myself whether the inventiveness we were discussing about only
              referred to people/events.

              <<< But do you think the influence of OT texts on John's writing
              stops after he has completed his prologue?>>>

              No.

              <<< I think in many cases OT texts, among other things, have
              influenced the way John tells stories in the life of Jesus, and that
              one does not fully understand these stories until one becomes
              aware of this pervasive intertextuality. >>>

              I agree. If I may return to my point about John's use of Genesis
              1&2 as a structure, this does not relate just to the prologue but to
              most of the gospel, from 1:1 – 20:29. Much of John directly uses
              the OT, the structure is more subtle, but it is there and gives
              meaning to much of the plain text as much of the plain text
              supports the structure. There are many – probably independent
              – allusions to the OT in John, but the Genesis structure gives a
              cohesion to the whole.

              <<< I think one's reading of John's account, as well as of the
              Synoptic gospels, is greatly impoverished if one sees the
              theology of the evangelist as impinging merely on the selection
              and ordering of raw and strictly historical material. Wouldn't you
              agree? >>>

              I would, given a more cautious approach to terms such as
              `inventiveness' and statements like, <<< John's stories are less
              often selected than they are produced.>>> But we may be as
              close as we're going to get on these and they are probably less
              significant than the other things w ehave considered.

              Sincerely,

              Kym Smith
              Adelaide
              South Australia
              khs@...
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 9/6/2001 2:53:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, khs@picknowl.com.au writes:
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 6, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 9/6/2001 2:53:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                khs@... writes:

                << If inventiveness is fabrication from the start it would not be
                possible for us to distinguish from actual historical events
                anyway. We are left, it seems to me, with gospels whose writers
                were men of the highest integrity and whose accounts – even if
                recorded with a particular theological thrust – are trustworthy
                accounts of actual people and events .. ..>>

                I can't take time to comment on your entire response to my previous note, nor
                to argue in detail against your source theory, with which I obviously
                disagree. It is my view that a clear line of development can be traced from
                Matthew, through Luke, to John in terms of the way stories are told in their
                respective gospels. I agree with the common opinion that John probably knew
                the Gospel of Mark as well, but out of line with the common opinion I also
                think that John probably shared the general lack of interest in Mark that is
                evident in all known ecclesiatical authors of the second and third Christian
                centuries, who were much more interested in the Gospels (Matthew and Luke)
                which were written for literate elites, rather than in Mark, which was a
                dramatic popularization of an originally literary Gospel genre (the film
                version of the novel, to put it in roughly analogous contemporary terms).
                Rather than trying to refute your view of what John was doing when writing
                his gospel, let me just try again to express my own. In my view, John is
                writing his Gospel at a time when the story of Jesus' life is already well
                known. John does not write, e.g., about the baptism of Jesus in order to
                inform an audience about an historical event of which they have no knowledge.
                Rather, the well-known story has become a vehicle, and was understood from
                the beginning to have been a vehicle for John to express an ideological
                message: a developed theological understanding (among other things, a "high"
                Christology) which expressed and reinforced the faith of his community. It
                would be theoretically possible to conceive of a late John whose purpose
                would have been to supplement and correct, where necessary, at the level of
                historical detail, existing stories about the life of Jesus -- on the basis.
                e.g., of his own eye-witness remembrance of these incidents in the life of
                Jesus. There are scholars, I guess, who still view John's Gospel in this way.
                I simply think that the evidence points to the alternative view expressed
                above as by far the more likely scenario.
                This is all I have time to say at the moment, and I don't know if it moves
                the discussion forward in any way.

                Leonard Maluf
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.