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

John 19:25-27 - reply to Tom

Expand Messages
  • M.Coloe@patrick.acu.edu.au
    Tom, here are some further comments - do realise that as is the nature of our work you can be asking questions i did not consider at the time - your comments
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 17, 2001
      Tom, here are some further comments - do realise that as is the nature of
      our work you can be asking questions i did not consider at the time - your
      comments i put in italics.

      Now it appears that you are focusing, instead of upon 19: 27b, on 19: 27a,
      when Jesus says to the BD, "Here is your mother." In this case, the BD
      would be taken into the household of the mother ofJesus, wouldn't it?
      Jesus has officiated at the adoption of the BD by his (Jesus') own mother.

      Is this statement one of adoption or a revelation (in fact it can be both).
      I focus more on the revelatory nature of this scene - Jesus reveals a new
      relationship between his mother and the BD and so necessarily a new
      relationship between BD and himself and between BD and the Father of Jesus.
      The woman, the mother has a highly symbolic function that goes beyond her
      personal individuality (hence never named) but she stands in the narrative
      as the parent of Jesus making such a scene possible in the text. But there
      is another 'parent' figure present throughout the text who cannot be
      physically represented i.e. 'the Father' so when the BD is drawn into
      Jesus' own parental relationship the BD becomes not just son of 'the mother
      of Jesus' but son of 'the Father'.

      Yet you are concluding that this constitutes the adoption of the BD by
      Jesus into the divine family of Jesus - the filiation with the Father. Do
      you mean that the BD now enjoys the same relationship with the Father as
      Jesus does? Is the BD now also the Son of God?

      Yes - this is what I believe to be the profound teaching of the 4th Gospel
      - that believers become children of God, reborn into God's household.

      How do you conclude that "hence disciples are drawn into the House-hold of
      God"? Are you saying that the BD represents all disciples? (I wonder here
      if you are drawing any support fromthe epistles of John.)

      The BD is a representative figure, standing for all disciples.

      Or are you suggesting that the BD has some sort of leadership authority
      over other disciples, so that wherever the BD goes, the other disciples
      follow? For example, are you suggesting that the BD is now authorized by
      Jesus to take the place of Jesus in relation to other disciples?

      No I'm not considering the BD in such a leadership role - nor as the one to
      take the place of Jesus - that's the role of the paraclete.

      > In this context I discuss the title Nazarene that Pilate places
      > on the cross. I link this title, only used in the hour, with the
      > NZR branch from Isaiah and the synonym found in Zechariah
      > 6:12 ZMH branch. In Zechariah the oracle names the ZMH
      > as the Branch who will build the temple - the only place where
      > the temple builder is named. I show in my book that the DSS
      > are already using NRZ and ZMH interchangeably in the
      > commentary on Isaiah 11.

      Mary, as I read your book I found myself at once excited by the
      observations and conclusions you were making and frustrated by the fact
      that you were apparently summarizing a considerable amount of scholarship,
      but providing the reader (in this case, me) with very few footnotes to
      identify whose ideas you were

      Tom there is no other scholarship on this to my knowledge. It's a
      connection i am making because the Zechariah text is the only passage in
      the OT to actually name the builder of the new Temple. The similarity in
      meaning between ZMH and NRZ led me to hypothesise a link being made by the
      evangelist to capitalise on the Nazareth traditions found in the synoptics
      but to use this in a radically different way so that in the FG the place
      Nazareth does not feature as Jesus' place of origins. Instead the word
      Nazarene is used only in the Passion as a title, and even called a title.
      given the Temple emphasis I found running through the Gospel text I drew
      the conclusion that the title NZR used on the cross is an allusion to the
      Temple builder of Zechariah by association with the Branch of Jesse in
      isaiah. This was a hypothetical link that I believed was operating.
      Later, I found a textual link in the DSS proving that the NZR and ZMH terms
      were being used interchangeably in the first century. Which offers strong
      support to my hypothesis.

      There has not been other work on this I can refer you to. This must now be
      someone else's doctoral thesis to explore this even further.

      Moreover, I found myself wanting to see more clearly how you have tied
      these two extraordinary ideas together. Here, for example, the question
      arises: Why does the adoption of the BD into Mary's family (or the adoption
      of Mary into the BD's family, or the adoption of the BD into the family of
      Jesus - and therefore into the household
      of God) require an understanding of the nature of the NZR sign?

      The NZR sign identifies Jesus as the one who will build the Temple. In
      John 2 this Temple is called my Father's House. Within my book I show that
      the usual meaning of the term 'my father's house' in the OT is never a
      reference to a building but to people, it is the Father's household. in
      John 2 the evangelist is already symbolising the term House by using it of
      Temple which is then applied to the body of Jesus. Gradually I argue that
      the text expands this to the sense of Temple as household of believers. So
      there is a progression - Temple/house of God/ building -> Temple/dwelling
      place of God/Jesus -> Temple/household of god/believers.

      Tom some of the other questions and issues you raise go far beyond the
      parameters of my own enquiry and as you note could be another book. It
      does make me think that this community saw themselves as the new Temple or
      household of God - that this is the underlying spirituality of the
      community that is expressed in the theology of the text. Such a
      self-perception can be so taken for granted that it does not need to be
      stated explicitly - all we get are brief glimpses and hints of it.
      Ultimately I think it is important to ask - does this insight into the
      Temple allow the Gospel to be read coherently - does it run through the
      text - is it consistent, does it make sense of the narrative.
      I find myself answering 'yes' but it will be others like yourself who will
      need to anser this.

      Thanks Tom, I appreciate the comments and the questions you raise. I have
      just read the first review of this book by Brendan Byrne in the latest
      Austrlian biblical Review - you might like to check out his comments.

      Mary Coloe
      Australian Catholic University
      Locked Bag 4115 Fitzroy.
      Vic. 3065 Australia.
      Phone: 61+3 + 9953 3137
      Fax: 61+3+ 9953 3245

      Thomas W
      Butler To: johannine_literature@...
      <butlerfam5@j cc:
      uno.com> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: John 19:25-27

      03:17 AM
      respond to

      This idea (the NZR sign) alone is a topic for a whole book, or at
      least a chapter in your book, IMO. How does your theory fit in
      the context of other theories about this sign? Why should it be
      considered as a better theory than the others? Does it mean that
      the followers of Jesus are also seen as Nazarenes? Does the
      adoption scene at the cross mean that the BD is now the leader
      of the "other Nazarenes?" How does this passage relate, if at all,
      to Jn. 18: 17-18, 25-27? Is there a reason that women play such
      important roles in these passages? Is "household" to be understood
      as "house church?" Is the new temple being built by the Nazarenes
      who comprise the family of those who convene "in the house" or
      "in the house (or household) of Mary?" Are they "NAZARIOS ?"

      > The title Nazarene is title and function of Jesus as he builds a
      > new Temple/House of God in the Hour - thus fulfilling the words
      > spoken in Jn 2:21 about the destruction and raising of the Temple.

      Again, I found myself wanting to know more about what you have
      found as the meaning of "the hour." Have you reflected, for example,
      upon the fact that the word "hour" (WRA) occurs 24 times in the FG?
      What meaning does the obvious importance of this word in the FG
      suggest for the way in which time is being considered in this narrative
      world? How does that perspective of time relate to the importance
      and duration of the House of God?

      Your work (book) appears to me to be a sample platter, hinting
      that an extraordinary feast is available. I would like to partake of
      each course in that feast slowly, so that it can be fully digested
      before moving along to the next course. I hope you will invite me
      to your table.

      Yours in Christ's service,
      Tom Butler

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