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

Re: "Rabbinic Methods"

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Dwyer
    From a Lurker: The original message posted below assumes that rabbinic methods were available to the GosJ author. Isn t it still arguable that using such
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 20, 2002
      From a Lurker:

      The original message posted below assumes that "rabbinic methods" were
      available to the GosJ author. Isn't it still arguable that using such
      language is anachronistic? Perhaps a proto-rabbinic method existed in the
      first and second centuries C.E., but certainly not a full fledged one:
      correct? incorrect? partially correct?

      Kevin Dwyer

      -------Original Message-------

      From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, September 20, 2002 07:54:23 AM
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] relecture and antilanguage

      on 9/20/02 3:19 AM, Peter Phillips at p.m.phillips@... wrote:

      > Thanks for your input. I was interested in a couple of points you make
      > concerning the actual relecture and also concerning Jewish antilanguage.
      > First of all I am not so sure that the first three words of Gen.1.1 do
      > create 'emet' - the final letters of bereshit bara elohim is 'mem aleph
      tau'
      > and not the required 'aleph mem aleph tau'. So not too sure that the
      > relecture stands. But what if it does? Why would readers pick up the
      > relecture? Just three initial points against readers even being remotely
      > aware of it:

      Peter:

      Thanks for responding. The understanding of emet was understood in biblical
      times to be within Gen. 1:1. The spelling does not run exactly as you
      correctly pointed out. The aleph is the terminal letter of create, the mem
      from God (plural), and the tav from in the beginning. Readers picked up on
      this hidden insider language if they were "in the know" as we say. It is
      understood by recent scholarship that the Fourth Gospel must be understood
      as being written from a Jewish perspective (R. Brown, Kysar, C. Evans,
      Davies, Charlesworth, et al). I would say that insider readers were just as
      aware of the Evangelist's use of rabbinic methods as they were of Platonic
      influence in the book of Revelation (I am not making any case for common
      authorship). This form of notarikon was almost old new by the biblical
      period.

      I will have to respond to the rest later. The governor's wife is expecting
      me soon.

      regards

      Billy


      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/



      .

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.