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

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

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 9/6/2001 2:53:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, khs@picknowl.com.au writes:
    Message 1 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.