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

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

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    Dear Kym: Yes. No comment. john
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 5, 2001
      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 2 of 21 , Sep 5, 2001
        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 3 of 21 , Sep 6, 2001
          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.