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

Re: [John_Lit] Johannine priority

Expand Messages
  • Billy Evans
    ... Dear Jack and Bob: Not only are bread and wine idioms in Aramaic for teaching etc, the MT uses them in such a way as well: (Is. 3:1; Prov. 9:5); however,
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 15, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      on 9/14/02 2:15 PM, Bob MacDonald at bobmacdonald@... wrote:

      > Jack wrote:
      >
      >>> In 1st century Aramaic "lachma" (bread) and "hamara" (wine) are idioms for
      > teaching. Drinking and eating, in Aramaic, are idioms for learning from a
      > teacher whose teachings are "bread and wine." This imagery abounds in
      > Jesus' sayings with such phrases <<
      >
      > Thank you, Jack. That is a very helpful reframing of the issues for me.
      > Thank you for this widening of perspective. (There were those in the Pauline
      > list that were hoping from input from you also.) There was little Aramaic
      > discussion on CP except for a few word guesses. Your insight into early
      > idiom makes the original credible without what might be seen as the
      > excessive metaphor that I used.
      >
      > Following the 'teaching' can then simply be seen as the means of growth into
      > the grace of the unity of the body and the multiple indwellings that are the
      > prayer in John. (There are enough warnings about failing to see metaphor for
      > an early or late first century audience.)
      >
      > Still I find the Eucharistic connection to the death of Jesus as a source of
      > power attractive - for following teaching needs a source of power especially
      > when the lessons are difficult.
      >
      > Again, thanks
      >
      > Bob
      >
      >
      > mailto::BobMacDonald@...
      > + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +
      >
      > Catch the foxes for us,
      > the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
      > for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
      > http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
      >
      >
      >
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      Dear Jack and Bob:

      Not only are bread and wine idioms in Aramaic for teaching etc, the MT uses
      them in such a way as well: (Is. 3:1; Prov. 9:5); however, whqt is amazing
      is how the Talmudists speak of eating the Messiah "Israel shall eat the
      years of Messiah." Next then they question this several ways and Hillel ends
      up saying "the Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have
      already eaten him up in the Hezekiah era." Thus even though eating flesh
      and drinking blood was repulsive in Israel, some of them thought of such a
      thing without a problem. I wonder how Hillel could say such a thing AND how
      the Rabbis did not seem appalled at such an idea unless they understood the
      figurative language and IT DID NOT BOTHER THEM? Certainly Jesus intended
      that they understood it this way since he makes his argument after John
      6:60f. "Does this offend you?...What if you see the Son of Man ascend up
      where he was earlier? Then you shall understand how impossible it is to eat
      my flesh literally when my flesh is not on Earth.

      So, my question: how immersed was this "eating flesh and drinking blood" in
      the Rabbinic schools. Which schools would have been more likely to swallow
      it (nice pun)? Was it a problem in the Johannine School since it is not
      mentioned in the synoptics?

      Billy Evans
      Hebrew Union College, doctorate courses
      University of So. Africa PhD dissertation
    • Paul Anderson
      Thanks, Jeffery, for the review. The fact that John s differences from the Synoptics were noticed suggests that John s integrity was at least to some degree
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 18, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, Jeffery, for the review.

        The fact that John's differences from the Synoptics were noticed suggests that John's integrity was at least to some degree respected. That sounds like good news to me.

        I imagine many of the classic issues will present themselves in considering the film:

        -- John's comparisons/contrasts to the Synoptics
        -- the relation of Jesus' signs to the I-Am sayings
        -- transitions between 1:18-1:19ff.; 3:22-30 and 3:31-36; chs. 4, 5, 6, and 7; 14:31 and 18:1 (thus the place of chs. 15-17); 11:2 and 12:1-8; 13:36 and 16:5; chs. 20 and 21; etc.
        -- the place of 7:53-8:11 within the surrounding narrative
        -- Jesus' travelling to and from Jerusalem
        -- presentations of the Ioudaioi
        -- portrayals of such theological tensions as John's high/low Christology, the Son's equal/subordinate relation to the Father, present/futuristic eschatology, formal/informal sacramentology, free will/predeterminism, the fore-knowledge/pathos of Jesus, etc.
        -- juxtapositions of Peter and the Beloved Disciple
        -- relations of archaeological details to theological concerns
        -- the "nearness" of the three Passovers
        -- the relation of the early Temple cleansing to the rest of the story's development
        -- dualism and receptions of Jesus
        -- particular Johannine details and presentations
        -- etc.

        The review reminds me of what John Barclay said several years ago; the sorts of questions raised by a non-technical reading of a biblical text seem to be the very issues that the most rigorous of scholars tend to work on--and debate. I guess John is no exception.

        Paul Anderson

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Horace Jeffery Hodges [mailto:jefferyhodges@...]
        Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 2:42 PM
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Filming of John's Gospel


        Thanks to all those with information about the Gospel
        of John on film. I have looked at an online review:

        http://www.crosswalk.com/fun/1218491.html

        The reviewer, Holly McClure, praises the movie but
        also notes what she considers "bad":

        <Because this is a literal translation of the Gospel
        of John, there are a few scenarios and characters
        missing that are familiar to many people who have read
        the other Gospels.Ê For instance, there is no
        explanation of what happens to John the Baptist after
        he recognizes Christ as the true Savior. After Judas
        betrays Christ, we don't see him hang himself. Jesus
        isn't shown praying in the garden and asking that the
        cup be passed from him. There's no explanation of who
        Mary Magdalene is and why she's constantly hanging
        around the disciples and Christ. During his trial,
        Jesus is never taken to Herod, no man steps from the
        crowd to help Jesus carry his cross and the thief on
        the cross who's repentant isn't told he will be in
        paradise that day with Jesus. AndÊÐ-Êperhaps most
        important for a person who might not know the story of
        Jesus nor be familiar with the ScripturesÊÐ-Êthere's
        no explanation of his appearance before many in that
        area or his ascension into heaven, so the audience
        doesn't see or know what happens to Jesus after he
        appears to his disciples and lets them see the holes
        in his hands. I'm aware that some of these scenarios
        are minor points to the story and in no way take
        anything away from the Gospel of John as it is
        literally translated. But I feel it's important to
        recognize that there may be a few people who see this
        movie who don't know the story of Jesus, who aren't
        familiar with the Scriptures and therefore have no
        idea of what happened in the other Gospels. So you may
        want to fill in the blanks with answers to some of
        those questions if you happen to attend the movie with
        an unbeliever.>

        It's interesting that a pious Christian would fault
        the movie for being too 'Johannine' (my term).

        Jeffery Hodges

        =====
        Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
        Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
        447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
        Yangsandong 411
        South Korea

        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
        http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

        SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
        MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.