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

Re: Re(2): Re(2): [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word

Expand Messages
  • Peter Hofrichter
    ... Frides Laméris, Netherlands. Dear Frides, I don t know whether your proposal is acceptabel to others. But never mind, I try it. I am thankful for every
    Message 1 of 73 , Apr 1, 2002
      Frides Laméris wrote to me (shortened):

      >Dear Peter,
      >You wrote to Leonard (fri 29-03 22.10) a.o.:
      >>Much later I questioned the relation between John and Mark. Surprisingly I
      >>found 52 pericopes with significant
      >>verbal parallels between Mark and John, so that one cannot deny a
      >>litterary relation. And if you compare these texts, in more than half
      > >of them the dependence is very clearly from "John" to Mark.
      >I suggest: Lets have a test pericope. You make your choice and all the list
      >members can have their voice. I have one request. That all contributors will
      >make explicit
      >their assumptions, presuppossitions and or/other bagage with which they
      >approach the texts under discussion.
      >Looking forward for a fair discussion,
      Frides Laméris, Netherlands.

      Dear Frides,
      I don't know whether your proposal is acceptabel to others. But never
      mind, I try it. I am thankful for every reaction. Take as a first
      small example Jn 13,20 and Mk 9,37. A secdond and similar example is
      Jn 12,25 and Mk 8,35. Excuse that I present my argument in German:

      Joh 13,20: ... ho lambanon an tina pempso eme lambanei, ho de eme lambanon
      lambanei ton pempsanta me.
      Mk 9,37: Hos an hen ton toiouton paidion dechetai epi to onomati mou,
      eme dechetai: kai hos an eme dechetai, ouk eme dechetai alla ton
      aposteilanta me.

      "Johannes" schreibt: Wer den aufnimmt, den Jesus sendet, nimmt Jesus
      selbst auf, und wer Jesus aufnimmt, nimmt den auf, der Jesus gesandt
      hat, naemlich Gott! Markus verbindet dieses Jesuswort mit dem
      abweisenden Verhalten der Juenger zu Kindern, das er über das Motiv
      des "Aufnehmens" assoziiert. Damit verfehlt er allerdings das
      eigentliche Thema des Jesuswortes: naemlich die Gegenwart des
      Sendenden und letztlich Gottes in dem von Jesus Gesandten. Die Kinder
      sollen zwar wie Jesus aufgenommen werden, aber sie sind nicht von ihm
      gesandt. Somit hängt die Analogie mit Jesus als dem Gesandten Gottes
      in der Luft, auch wenn Markus diese entscheidende Aussage fast
      woertlich uebernimmt und nur lambano durch dechomai ersetzt.
      Tatsaechlich setzt Markus den Text des "Johannes" voraus und
      interpretiert das Sendungsmotiv neu für die Zeit der Kirche. Von
      Jesus gesandt sein heisst in der Praxis des kirchlichen Alltags, dass
      jemand im Namen Jesu um Aufnahme bittet.

      Joh 12,25 und Mk 8,35
      Markus macht aus einer johanneischen Aussage zur Unvereinbarkeit
      zwischen dem Leben in dieser Welt und dem ewigen Leben einen Trost
      für die Zeit der Verfolgung. Statt "Wer sein Leben in dieser
      (gottfernen) Welt hasst" schreibt er "wer sein Leben wegen mir und
      dem Evangelium verliert". Er spiegelt damit schon die Zeit der
      Kirche. Das "ewige" Leben widerspricht der markinischen Eschatologie
      und wird daher getilgt. Die übrigen Variationen des Ausdrucks
      entsprechen den Erfordernissen der Paraphrase. Markus hat dieses Wort
      mit Joh 8,51 kombiniert und vorgezogen.

      Mit herzlichen Ostergruessen

      Univ.-Prof. DDr Peter Hofrichter
      Vorstand des Instituts für Kirchengeschichte und Patrologie
      Theologische Fakultät der Universität Salzburg
      Tel +43 662 8044 2700, home +43 6245 85010, mobil +43 664 2027098
      homepage: www.sbg.ac.at/kig
    • Kenneth Litwak
      Thomas W Butler wrote: If this story were made up out of whole cloth, it would be ... Disciplined or not, either John recounted the raising of Lazarus as an
      Message 73 of 73 , Apr 27, 2002
        Thomas W Butler wrote:> If this story were made up out of whole cloth, it
        would be

        > When I say that a passage of scripture in the 4G is a midrash
        > commentary, I am NOT suggesting that it was "made up out of
        > whole cloth." As I indicated in a previous post, the midrash
        > process is very disciplined.

        Disciplined or not, either John recounted the raising of Lazarus as an event,
        or John was inspired by Luke 16, performed some sort of literary magic on it
        (quite unparalleled that I can see from testable examples), then John
        invented the story out of whole cloth. When someone writes a fairy tale,
        they follow an established form. The discipline of doing so does not make
        Cinderella an historical account.

        > It requires a deep knowledge and
        > understanding of the language used in the source material (in
        > this case the language of the parable in Luke) as well as the
        > issues being presented to generate faith in Jesus. This is no
        > small challenge.
        > Even within tradition, you are overlooking the genre of midrash.

        No, I am not overlooking the genre of midrash. Let's try this one more time
        and then I'm done with this discussion. "Midrash" as used in ancient
        literature referred to a rabbinic method of interpretation. This method was
        delineated and used in rabbinic literature, from after 200 A.D. Its roots
        might have come from an earlier period, but we have no documentation of
        that. Some of its principles may have been used at an earlier stage, but we
        have no explicit record or demonstration or assertion of that from texts of
        the period.

        What we have instead is a technical term, which applies to a form of
        interpretation which seems to take some liberties with the text, and
        therefore, has been appropriated by scholars to refer to any number of
        phenomena, as though simply giving it that label a) tells us something
        meaningful (which it doesn't -- any more than saying "this is an articular
        infinitive") and b) arguing based on a that you can then say "this text means
        something totally different than what it appears or has a totally different
        origin than you expect because it owes its existence to a technique only
        documented 200 years later". The way midrash is being used by some
        participants in this discussion reminds me of the article title, "Q is
        whatever you make it" (or similar wording). It is methodologically improper,
        IMO, to take a term from 200 A.D., which has a very specific meaning, and,
        ignoring that definition, apply it to works of an earlier period, while
        failing to define it. If one won't define pizza enough to make it distinct
        from something else, then there's no reason to not call a Big Mac a pizza.
        If you define pizza strictly enough, however, that you can actually say,
        "This qualifies as a pizza but this does not," then "pizza" is a useful
        term. I've referred to a work which critiques the application of the term
        midrash to phenomena which came into being before the rabbis defined midrash
        or its approach. If you wish to grab that label and slap it on whatever you
        wish, I cannot stop you. I, however, prefer a non-Humpty Dumpty approach to
        language. Words have specific referents. They don't mean anything you'd like
        them to mean.

        I ask again then: if John used some technique to turn, say, the parable
        of Luke 16 into a very different story for very different purposes, none of
        which can be an historical account, what genre does the FG belong to? You
        only get three choices. It's not methodologically valid to say "First
        century people in the Med knew three genres. I'm going to think outside the
        box, and invent another and impose it upon a First century document."
        There was NO genre of midrash in John's day. He could not apply it because
        it did not exist. Pesher as an approach existed but not midrash because
        midrash should refer only to the procedure which its practitioners referred
        to by that name, not any old phenomenon from earlier days. Why is it such a
        problem to give up an anachronistic label?

        Ken Litwak

        > Simply because the process was not codified until around the
        > second century does not mean that the method was not used
        > in the first century or even earlier. To suggest that it was a
        > rabbinical method, so it should not be considered as a method
        > used in Christian circles ignores the fact that the first Christians
        > were all children of Israel. The Gospel of John provides ample
        > evidence that great Jewish teachers like Nicodemus were
        > disciples of Jesus. Of course pedagogical techniques used in
        > rabbinical schools would have been used in early Christian
        > schools! Why wouldn't they be used?

        I never denied this. I denied that anyone in John's day used a technique
        which, so far as we can tell from known documents, did not exist as a
        technique in John's day. It's like telling me that alchemists measured gram
        atoms, when they didn't even know for sure that atoms existed. Or, it's like
        calling Apuleius sci-fi, even though that genre didn't exist.

        > > John is absolutely clearly not a romance (and those who claim
        > > that any Gospel is a Greek romance have obviously not read
        > > closely enough a Greek romance).
        > > Therefore, its genre must be one in which we ought to take the
        > > narrative as intending to talk about actual events, regardless of
        > > how they are presented or reported.
        > Here I suspect that you and I have different starting places. I am
        > absolutely convinced that the writer(s) of the Fourth Gospel were
        > presenting THE TRUTH. In the first century mind set, that does
        > not mean that they were attempting to write a history of Jesus.
        > Modern scholars have been frustrated time and again when they
        > have attempted to use the tools of historical criticism developed
        > to study the Synoptics - on the Fourth Gospel. The results are
        > very confusing and often frustrating to the scholars who try it.

        That only means the tools are inappropriate, in part because they depend on a
        flawed notion of historical research, viz., a van Rankean-Positivist
        approach. First century audiences knew three genres: historia, Bioi and
        romance. You don't get to choose another because you don't like those
        choices. Well, I can't stop you from doing so but I can't responsibly
        consider the result as having validity. What you are suggesting is that same
        thing as an example of ideological criticism, reaping from the text what is
        not there according a worldview that the author could not possibly have had.

        > A history in the first century was an account written by servants
        > of a king or conqueror of events that detail the great victories of
        > that king.

        In some cases this is true, but it does not fit the case of Josephus, the
        author of LAB, other Hellenistic Jewish historiographers, nor even, so far as
        I can see, the advice of either Lucian or Dionysius of Halicarnassus. This
        goes back to my point above. Hellenistic historiogrpahy's definitions should
        be gained from pieces of the period, not imposed from without.

        > The TRUTH about Jesus does not fit such an objective
        > exactly. In fact, such truth cannot be conveyed using such a form.
        > There is a need to reflect in greater depth about the meaning of
        > the resurrection than a mere history could achieve.

        This seems contradictory to me. If it is not an historical account of a
        resurrection, then surely it does not recount a real resurrection and there
        is nothing "true" about resurrection reflected by it to talk about. You are
        certainly permitted to call John's Gospel fiction, and say that John used
        fiction to present "truth". That's a theoretical possibility. IN that case,
        however, we are free to completely ignore any questions regarding what
        happened because John was not thing to ell us what happened. He's using the
        license granted by "midrash" to crate any old thing that will suit his
        purposes for "truth" telling. That sure makes the prologue easier to deal
        with. We don't have to interpret it. We just have to decide what all that
        midrash is trying to tell us truth-wise. If midrash is what I want to make
        it, then the entire Gospel can be a midrash. Since you won't define this
        term precisely, anything fits it.

        > I suspect that when you see the word "midrash commentary"
        > you are assuming that someone has made up a story and tried
        > to pass off that story as history. That is not what I am saying
        > at all. Using my theory I can say that Lazarus is not a historical
        > person without suggesting that the story of the raising of Lazarus
        > is fiction. For those two sentences to be true, we as scholars
        > must be able to look for truth in a category other than history.

        No. What I assume is that the term midrash is being completely misapplied
        to refer to some other phenomena which no rabbi would have understood as
        valid hermeneutically as an example of midrash. Choose a different term.
        Call it a fable. Call it a parable. Call it whatever you want to call it,
        but don't overload one term with a specific referent for something unrelated.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.