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

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

Expand Messages
  • Ken Durkin
    From: John N. Lupia ... What has coming second got to do with eyewitness ?
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.