Re: [John_Lit] Mark based on "John" (pre-redactional)
- In a message dated 4/2/2002 11:35:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
<< First of all I want to apologize that I did not carefully read
Leonards reply and did not realize that he pointed to Mt 10,40. Sorry
and OK! But this context with potizein, to give to drink, does not
really fit to lambanein, recieve. >>
But this is only mentioned two verses after the cited text, in a string of
loosely related ideas. I don't understand your objection here.
<<To me that shows that after Mk both
Mt and Lk used anew "John", because contrary to Mark both quote the
whole johannine wording.>>
I understand that this is your position, but you haven't proven it to me. Or
given me any good reason to change my own view of the matter as expressed in
my previous posts.
<< If Mt deviating from Mk separates this
saying from the childrens issue and from the ranking strive among the
disciples, this could all together point to an anti-pauline
background - like the elachistos in the kingdom of heavens.
Nevertheless, the mikroi do have also here a positive connotation.>>
This would be an interesting observation IF Matt is a late Gospel. It is much
more evident to me that Luke is a pro-Pauline Gospel than that Matt is an
anti-Pauline Gospel. My theory requires only the former, and it is mightily
confirmed by Acts.
<< But then, do you think that Matthew has invented this johannine
saying and John has leanrend from him? >>
No, I think it might be a saying of Jesus that Matt has preserved and that
John liked. The saying is not at all un-Matthean either.
1. For Jesus as the one who "sent" the apostles, see esp. 10:5, 16.
2. And as for Jesus having himself been "sent", this is certainly implied in
9:38, where the "Lord of the harvest" sends out the workers, or Matt 21:36,
where Jesus is "sent" by the "Lord of the vineyard" (21:39). And then of
course the idea is found also in Matt 21:23-27. John is clearly fond of the
idea, but I see no reason to posit that it originates with him.
- Thomas W Butler wrote:> If this story were made up out of whole cloth, it
> When I say that a passage of scripture in the 4G is a midrashDisciplined or not, either John recounted the raising of Lazarus as an event,
> 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.
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 andNo, I am not overlooking the genre of midrash. Let's try this one more time
> 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.
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
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?
>I never denied this. I denied that anyone in John's day used a technique
> 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?
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.
>That only means the tools are inappropriate, in part because they depend on a
> > 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.
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.
>In some cases this is true, but it does not fit the case of Josephus, the
> 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.
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 objectiveThis seems contradictory to me. If it is not an historical account of a
> 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.
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.
>No. What I assume is that the term midrash is being completely misapplied
> 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.
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.