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

Re: [John_Lit] architriklinos once more

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    ... Yes, but the absence of evidence should also indicate certain probabilities, which should not be disregarded. ... So then how is Barrett s statement to be
    Message 1 of 39 , Jul 2, 2002
      On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
      > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

      > > According to C. K. Barrett, _The Gospel According to St. John_, 1955, p.
      > > 161, "[W]e lack Jewish evidence for any office corresponding to the title
      > > architriklinos". And he further suggests that this may indicate a
      > > Hellenistic origin for this story.
      >
      > So what? As you are fond of saying on NGs when people point out to you
      > that there is a lack of evidence for many of the claims you make
      > there, "absence of evidence should not necessarily be taken as
      > evidence of absence".

      Yes, but the absence of evidence should also indicate certain
      probabilities, which should not be disregarded.

      > In any event, as I know from personal contact with Barret himself (who
      > is, by the way, a card carrying member of the Guild you find so
      > corrupt and lazy and bigoted and biased, whose members you claim
      > rarely these days ever engage in "rigorous and stringent critical
      > analysis"), his statement that the story may have an Hellenistic
      > origin is not to be taken as if he was saying it was composed, let
      > alone edited, by a Gentile -- as you seem to want to do.

      So then how is Barrett's statement to be interpreted?

      It's clear that the Diatessaronic versions, with their "master of the
      house", rather than "architriklinos", preserve a story that fits a lot
      more comfortably into the context of a rural Jewish household. And, of
      course, there are also some other items in the Diatessaronic story that
      indicate a closer connection with rural Galilee and with traditional
      Judaism, rather than with the Hellenistic social milieu.

      These considerations seem to point to our Diatessaronic witnesses
      preserving a version of the miracle of Jesus that is earlier than what we
      find in the canonical text.

      Yours,

      Yuri.

      PS. At this time, I'm consulting various commentaries on John, and writing
      a brief essay looking into the theological motifs as intended by the
      earliest author of this story. Should be done soon.

      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
    • heronblu
      ... Michael, I am more of a student than a scholar of the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, even (maybe, especially) students have opinions, too. It would indeed
      Message 39 of 39 , Jul 9, 2002
        --- In johannine_literature@y..., michael Hardin <michael1517@y...>
        wrote:
        >
        > For some time now I have been studying the usage of
        > words with 'double meanings' in 4G. I am curious to
        > know if others have also found the 'author's' use of
        > words that have a double meaning to be of value . . . .

        Michael, I am more of a student than a scholar of the fourth
        gospel. Nevertheless, even (maybe, especially) students have
        opinions, too. It would indeed be an interesting and controversial
        study to tabulate and classify the most obvious ones. The most
        frequent reason I can see for the double (and sometimes more)
        meanings is in support of the Johannine technique I call "dialogues
        with dummies." The poor sap who is shown as questioning Jesus almost
        always misunderstands what Jesus is telling him and, regarding words
        with more than one possible meaning, only gets the infelicitous one
        and is blind to what Jesus is actually saying. Jesus is then given
        the opportunity to explain further for the benefit of the intended
        audience. (The dummy is almost never shown as ever getting the
        point.) I think this goes so far as to include instances in which
        both meanings have to be in the listener/reader's mind in order to
        have any hope of following Jesus. Perhaps the most obvious example
        is John 3:3. Nicodemus interprets *gennhth anwthen* as meaning
        only "born again." The usually excellent NAB makes the opposite
        error, interpreting the words as meaning only "born from above." A
        proper understanding, in my opinion, requires that Jesus be
        understood as meaning both things. One must be reborn in the Spirit
        in order to see the kingdom of God.

        To say the same thing with different words, I think that the author
        wants his or her audience to think and not to merely swallow dogma.
        He is as much as saying that just as Jesus is more than appears on
        the surface, Jesus' message is more profound than surface appearances
        might lead one to believe.
        Yours in Christ,
        Lou
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.