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

Re: [John_Lit] Mark based on "John" (pre-redactional)

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/2/2002 9:32:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, Peter.Hofrichter@sbg.ac.at writes:
    Message 1 of 73 , Apr 2 2:17 PM
      In a message dated 4/2/2002 9:32:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      Peter.Hofrichter@... writes:

      << Answer to Leonard Maluf

      Dear Leonard,
      Your interpretation is very interesting, but you need for it
      auxiliary hypotheses not based in the text itself. You think that
      Matthew was the only predecessor of Luke. >>

      My hypothesis is that Matt was the only predecessor of Luke of which we know,
      and a sufficient one to explain 9:46-48, allowing, of course, for creativity
      -- which is perfectly reasonable, since if Luke did not intend to rewrite
      Matt significantly there would have been no reason at all for him to write.
      He was not a copyist, but a writer.

      <<Then, why should Luke change a story dealing exclusively with children into
      a story about Paul as sent by Christ and God? And why then should he
      maintain the children-motive, which is of no use in this context. >>

      To your first question I have just responded: Luke's policy was, wherever
      possible (i.e., wherever he could find justification for doing so from a
      related passage in Matt, Paul or LXX OT), to do something really creative
      with the text of Matthew. He retained the child motif, because he intended to
      use it, quite cleverly, as a cryptic allusion to Paul (translating the Latin
      name Paulus: hO MIKROTEROS), and also playing with the Benjamin motif in Gen
      42:32, 34 (Benjamin being Paul's ancestor as in Phil 3:5). All of this in
      response to Luke's reformulated version of the question that was in the
      twelve disciples' minds as to "who might be greater than they"? (the correct
      translation of Lk 9:46, and compare 1 Cor 15:9).

      << Even in the case "somebody smaller (mikroteros) than all of you"
      might really mean Paul (like maybe the "elachistos" in the Kingdom of
      God in Mt), this does not prove that Luke could have invented the
      typically johannine sending-word in its full length, which Mark would
      have shortened and John would have learned only from Luke.>>

      My argument is not that Luke invented the sending-word, but that he got it
      from Matt 10:40 and reapplied it, allusively, to Paul. This is just one of
      many proofs that the Patristic understanding of Luke as the gospel of Paul
      has some real value to it. For Luke's audience it was important that the very
      strongly legitimating statement (he who receives you receives me, etc.) have
      a direct relevance to the one they should be listening to in order to be
      obedient to God. For this audience it could have no more than an historical
      curiosity that the words had originally been addressed by Jesus to the 12, as
      they are in Matt 10.

      <<And why should Mark, writing after Mt and Lk and pushing Peter, the
      and the Twelfe, speak then of a concurrence among the Twelfe? This
      issue must have been outdated for long time. Howsoever, you need a
      lot of explanations, wheras the sequence of Jn, Mk, Mt and Lk can be
      derived rather evidently from the text alone.>>

      You exaggerate the problems. Mark's is a diplomatic text, simply attempting
      to recover, where possible, the meanings of both Matt and Lk. Thus, e.g., the
      question as Mark formulates it - TIS MEIZWN - is left absolute so as to cover
      the possible meanings of both Matt 18:1 and Lk 9:46. But then Mark gets into
      trouble when he follows Luke more closely in 9:37 without realizing why Luke
      had transported the whole sending-formula from Matt 10:40 into this context
      (namely, Luke's intended cryptic allusion to Paul as an apostle sent by Jesus
      and representing him and God).

      My hypothesis has thus explained:

      1. Why, in 18:1-5, Matthew has no equivalent to Lk 9:48 and Mk 9:37, with the
      full sending-formula, including a reference to receiving God. In Matt, 18:5
      has nothing to do with the reception given an apostle. It simply says that to
      welcome a little one in the Christian community is to welcome Christ (a good
      Matthean idea: cf. Matt 25:40).

      2. But because of the verbal and conceptual link between this text (Matt
      18:5) and Matt 10:40 (they both speak of receiving Jesus in the act of
      receiving someone else) Luke feels authorized to rewrite the story to make it
      allude to Paul the apostle, the least of the apostles and the little one who
      is great (in response to a question in the disciples' minds: "who might be
      greater than they [i.e., the Twelve]"?).

      3. Then Mark comes along. His text shows clear traces of both of the
      different agendas of Matt's and Lk's text. Read it carefully to see this in
      detail. It is very evident and makes extremely good sense of the hypothesized
      sequence of Gospel composition.

      4. John's text can easily be explained as based on Matt 10:40, or on the
      tradition that lies behind this text. It is always very difficult to
      demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that John is using the Synoptics
      because he does so in a manner that is even freer than the way in which Luke
      uses Matt. It is my hunch that John does know the Synoptic texts, but it can
      never be more than a hunch, I guess.

      << But what is about the next text I proposed for discussion:
      Joh 12,25 und Mk 8,35>>

      I haven't examined this example yet, and would prefer to treat it in a
      separate post.

      Leonard Maluf
    • 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 4:16 PM
        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.