Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus and JB in Jn
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, kymhsm wrote:
> >So I would not necessarily agree that the mythological > events
> from the OT would have overwhelmed the historical base of the >
> gospels to a very great degree.>
> The 'historical base' is not 'overwhelmed', but John has used the
> Genesis structure to in clude ideas additional to those in the
> plain text. He has shown two main things with this stucture.
> >From Genesis 1 (Jn 1:1-11:44), that the Word who became flesh
> and dwelt among us, Jesus, was the one created all things (c.f.
> Jn 1:3) and, from Genesis 2 (Jn 11:45-20:29), to express a
> sublime First Adam / Second Adam theology - all the more
> sublime because it is the pre-Fall Adam with whom he is
> drawing the parallels.
Still, I'm wondering if the dependence on Genesis, that you're advocating,
would have constituted a sufficient warrant to remove the mention of the
baptism of Jesus by John.
In other words, the baptism of Jesus by John seems to have been a real
historical event. So do you think that the Genesis motifs, alone, could
have been enough reason for masking this event in Jn?
So there seem to have been some other reasons for masking this event in
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
- Dear Yuri,
> Still, I'm wondering if the dependence on Genesis, that you'readvocating,> would have constituted a sufficient warrant to remove
the mention of the > baptism of Jesus by John.
>real > historical event. So do you think that the Genesis motifs,
> In other words, the baptism of Jesus by John seems to have been a
alone, could > have been enough reason for masking this event in Jn?>
I do not think that John has masked JB's baptism of Jesus at all. It
is just that he has not detailed the event. Rather, he has spoken of
the *significance* of the event in identifying the Christ.
The Genesis structure may have been sufficient reason not to detail
it because that structure is built mostly upon the *events* of the
gospel. For instance, the six days in which something new was created
in Gen 1 are reflected by the six miracles or signs of Jn 2:1 -
11:45. We are accostomed to thinking of seven signs but it seems that
Jesus' walking on the water (while undoubtedly a sign for the
apostles) does not bear the same significnce as the healings etc.
On the other hand, John does include the event of Jesus' clearing of
the temple without that affecting the structure, though he excludes
it from the signs (and so from the Genesis structure) by placing it
between the first two signs, both of which he nominates as such
- Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> Well, Jeffery, I suppose this would depend on justFor John the Baptist's disciples, I would expect more
> how meaningful you
> think JB's baptism was. If one thinks of it as a
> mere formality, something
> that required little in the way of preparation and
> commitment, then being
> baptised by JB would be no big deal at all. But I
> think such a view of
> JB's baptism may be a little oversimplified.
preparation and commitment associated with a baptism,
but I doubt that the multitudes coming for baptism fit
this. Simply referring to a baptism by John the
Baptist is thus too little to base a strong view on. I
still vote for time spent with John the Baptist beyond
the Jordan as suggesting more.
> I think it's quite reasonable to suppose that a veryIt's a reasonable position.
> high Christology for
> Jesus was something that was late in developing. So
> then don't you think
> that this particular feature of Jn, i.e. absence of
> the scene where Jesus
> is being baptised by JB, was also a late
> Well, I'm now proposing that there had indeed beenMaybe, but so far, I haven't been convinced by your
> an earlier version of
> Jn that did feature Jesus being baptised by JB. So,
> in such a case, now we
> may have identified some traces of that earlier
posts because I have always seen other possible
interpretations. Also, the MG really looks like a
medieval harmonization based upon the four gospels and
later Christian traditions.
But, I admit that I haven't studied it closely. I
doubt that I will due to lack of time and to my
willingness to accept the standard scholarly position
-- especially in cases where I lack time to develop
the expertise needed for making an independent
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
- On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, michael Hardin wrote:
> These would be my questions Yuri:Dear Michael,
> 1) In that the MG text reflects
> synchronization/harmonization of the canonical
> gospels, in what textual tradition would a greek
> 'retranslation' stand (what is presupposed)? Or are
> there affinities with several textual traditions?
The Magdalene Gospel is clearly not all of one piece, and there are
substantial differences between different parts of MG. So, it really seems
like a compilation, or a sort of a synopsis, of various gospel texts.
Many segments of MG look a lot like harmonisations of various single
gospel texts. Yet other segments represent straight narrative from single
In general, I would say that MG reflects Western text of the gospels. Of
course Western text is a lot better attested in Old Latin and in Semitic
languages than in Greek. Myself, I'm quite sceptical that the Greek text
should always be seen as the most reliable.
> 2) The prologue as an early christians hymn (sans theThe Passion Narrative in MG is a very complex patchwork of various texts.
> references to JTB) needs no defending. But also a
> hymn grounded in a midrash of Gen 1 (Borgen)? I think
> so. Kym Smith's Genesis observations are intruiging
> If one wishes to see an earlier than canonical Jesus
> tradition ( as do many Thomas/Q questers), I am not
> persuded that MG would fit until I had examined the
> passion narrative. As a meta-narrative where does it
> place the death of Jesus, before or after Passover?
> This would be a strong indication of it's provinence
> at least East/West.
There's actually not much harmonisation that goes on there. Passages from
the Synoptics and from Jn are usually cited sequentially, and there seems
to be quite a lot of redundancy and repetition. Which would confirm, at
least in my view, that this is not a well developed gospel harmony, but
rather a synopsis of the gospels. Essentially, I see MG as the earliest
version of the Diatessaron.
> The Johannine tradition is of far more historicalYes, you may well be right about this.
> value than given by the present state of NT research
> who seem to reflect Clement of Alexandria. Dodd &Well, I've always avoided dealing with the first chapter of MG, because
> Robinson have laid an excelent foundation in this
> regard. This is not to say that the gospel was not
> produced in stages, only to say that perhaps Kym Smith
> is correct to observe that it was the events which
> upon reflection were associated with the
> 'mythical/prophetic' archtypes, not the other way
> around. (It is hish to time to stop paying homage to
> Some quick thoughts:
> MG 1.3 sound definitely post-Nicean so if it is early
> it is already coming under the corrector's hand.
it's so different from our standard opening of Jn, although being similar
to it in some respects. There are also problems with exact translation of
this passage. You may observe that my translation of this first chapter is
not exactly literal, so what you think may be post-Nicean elements may
also be just my translation.
> Can you identify that hand?It's very difficult to say. As I say, the first chapter presents its own
very special problems of translation and interpretation. It may well have
been expanded at a later stage.
> MG 1.4 'law & prophets', a Matthean phrase if thereAgain, this may just be my translation... Whenever one really wants to
> ever was one [can we call this the Matthean
> thunderbolt in the Johannine gospel? ;)]
deal with such stylistic aspects, one really needs to go directly to the
Middle English text. But other chapters of MG don't usually present so
many problems as this first chapter.
> Strange that Zechariah could become high-priest, asBoismard has already studied these passages in considerable detail, and he
> though he was from one of the four families, more
> importantly, of Annas or Boethus (MG 2.3).
seems to find a lot of primitive material there (L'EVANGILE DE L'ENFANCE
(LUC 1 - 2) SELON LE PROTO-LUC (Etudes bibliques 35), Paris, J. Gabalda,
1997). Myself, I haven't dealt with these passages too much, and went on
to other stuff.
> 3.29 The worship of Mary. Another indicator of theWell, I don't see more "worship of Mary" in MG, necessarily, than in the
> author's hand? (as is the use of St. as in St. John)
> The rise of a cult of Mary is not possible to
> demonstrate prior to the fourth century (at the
standard texts. But perhaps we should stick more with the Johannine
passages in this discussion.
All the best,
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain