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

Re: [John_Lit] relecture and antilanguage

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... I d be grateful if you d tell us just who these professors are. Will you please be kind enough to do so? Yours, Jeffrey Gibson ... Jeffrey B. Gibson,
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 21, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Billy Evans wrote:

      > Since I wanted to make sure I was being fair and to investigate my own
      > passions, I asked a Yale prof and one from Princeton to read these exchanges
      > in order to see if I had acted out of line or if my arguments were invalid.
      > I am sorry to say that both were surprised at your condescending tone from
      > the beginning. Their opinion was that you refused to listen and learn
      > something groundbreaking.

      I'd be grateful if you'd tell us just who these professors are. Will you please
      be kind enough to do so?

      Yours,

      Jeffrey Gibson
      ---
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Floor 1
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
      jgibson000@...
    • John Lupia
      ... Dear Peter: Excellent citations. For more see the following. ANTILANGUAGE: SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: Peter Burke and Roy Porter, eds., Languages and
      Message 2 of 17 , Sep 22, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Peter Phillips wrote:
        > The discussion on antilanguage I was talking about
        > can be found in M.A.K.
        > Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic, published in
        > 1978. Further studies
        > based on Halliday can be found in Malina,
        > Sociolingustics and John (both a
        > seminar paper and BTB paper), and in Petersen's The
        > Gospel of John and the
        > Sociology of Light. The idea is popularised in
        > Rohrbaugh/Malina's social
        > science commentary on John. There is little talk of
        > antilanguage in
        > sociolinguistics outside of the Biblical guild, or
        > nothing substantial that
        > I can find! This may be something to do with
        > Halliday's confusion about
        > antilanguage vs. dialect and register.

        Dear Peter:

        Excellent citations. For more see the following.

        ANTILANGUAGE: SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE:

        Peter Burke and Roy Porter, eds., Languages and
        jargons :�contributions to a social history of
        language (Cambridge [England] ;�Cambridge, Mass., USA
        :�Polity Press,�1995)

        Thad Ziolkowski, "Antilanguage of slavery : Frederick
        Douglass's 1845 Narrative," in Critical essays on
        Frederick Douglass. William L. Andrews, editor
        (Boston, Mass. :�G.K. Hall,�1991).



        ANTILANGUAGE: NT STUDIES (ST. JOHN & QUMRAN)

        Malina, Bruce J. and Rohrbaugh, Richard L. Social
        Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Augsburg
        Fortress Publishers: Minneapolis, MN. 1998. see page
        p. 57

        Robert Gundry, Jesus the Word According to John the
        Sectarian; A Paleofundamentalist Manifesto for
        Contemporary Evangelicalism, Especially Its Elites, In
        North America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002)

        William M. Schniedewind, "Qumran Hebrew as an
        Antilanguage" Journal of Biblical Literature 118:2
        (1999) 235-252

        Schniedewind, William M. "Linguistic Ideology in
        Qumran Hebrew." In Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of
        a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the
        Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. Takamitsu Muraoka
        and John F. Elwolde, 245-255. STDJ 36. Leiden: Brill,
        2000

        Best regards,
        John


        =====
        John N. Lupia, III
        501 North Avenue B-1
        Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
        Phone: (908) 994-9720
        Email: jlupia2@...
        Editor, Roman Catholic News
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
        http://sbc.yahoo.com
      • Jack Kilmon
        ... From: Peter Phillips To: Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 11:01 AM Subject: Re:
        Message 3 of 17 , Sep 22, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Peter Phillips" <p.m.phillips@...>
          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 11:01 AM
          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] relecture and antilanguage


          > The discussion on antilanguage I was talking about can be found in M.A.K.
          > Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic, published in 1978. Further studies
          > based on Halliday can be found in Malina, Sociolingustics and John (both a
          > seminar paper and BTB paper), and in Petersen's The Gospel of John and the
          > Sociology of Light. The idea is popularised in Rohrbaugh/Malina's social
          > science commentary on John. There is little talk of antilanguage in
          > sociolinguistics outside of the Biblical guild, or nothing substantial
          that
          > I can find! This may be something to do with Halliday's confusion about
          > antilanguage vs. dialect and register.
          >
          > Hope this brings it back into the Johannine sphere.


          Thank you, Pete. I have ordered Norman Petersens book to give it another
          read but as I recall, I thought it was more a rhetorical style for a counter
          culture which, of course, may describe the early Johannine Community. In
          this respect, "antilanguage" may go back to the HJ himself.

          Jack
        • Peter Phillips
          The discussion on antilanguage I was talking about can be found in M.A.K. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic, published in 1978. Further studies based on
          Message 4 of 17 , Sep 22, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            The discussion on antilanguage I was talking about can be found in M.A.K.
            Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic, published in 1978. Further studies
            based on Halliday can be found in Malina, Sociolingustics and John (both a
            seminar paper and BTB paper), and in Petersen's The Gospel of John and the
            Sociology of Light. The idea is popularised in Rohrbaugh/Malina's social
            science commentary on John. There is little talk of antilanguage in
            sociolinguistics outside of the Biblical guild, or nothing substantial that
            I can find! This may be something to do with Halliday's confusion about
            antilanguage vs. dialect and register.

            Hope this brings it back into the Johannine sphere.

            Pete


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Billy Evans" <biblewje@...>
            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:29 PM
            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] relecture and antilanguage


            > on 9/21/02 2:50 PM, Jack Kilmon at jkilmon@... wrote:
            >
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: "Billy Evans" <biblewje@...>
            > > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            > > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 1:14 PM
            > > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] relecture and antilanguage
            > >
            > >
            > >> Why are you assuming that John did not want his Greek readers to
            > > understand?
            > >> Your reading is too narrow and restricted. Think a bit! You can
            figure
            > > it
            > >> out. I have faith in you.
            > >> Moreover,
            > >>> the relecture is ends with the three consonants tau-aleph-mem. Why
            not
            > >>> consider other possibilities for this? Why choose to push this into
            > > 'emet'?
            > >>
            > >> emet is ecactly what the rabbis make out of this as I said earlier. Do
            > > you
            > >> read carefully? I make this point earlier. You are not following
            > >> contemporary American reading patterns. haha
            > >>
            > >>> Mightn't it be a relecture referring to the construct form of
            'me'ah' -
            > >>> meaning 'of a hundred' and by which we could infer (bizarrely as we
            have
            > > no
            > >>> evidence!) the actual number of scholars in the Johannine school? Or
            > > how
            > >>> about a relecture of 'me'ah' - the tower in Jerusalem, hence showing
            > > the
            > >>> Jerusalem focus of the Gospel - after all, the BD knows the high
            priest
            > > and
            > >>> lots of the Gospel is focussed there.
            > >>
            > >> I very well could except there is no rabbinic argument using these
            words
            > > for
            > >> such a point in which Johan drives home throughout his Gospel (which is
            > > well
            > >> known by the way in the best of Johannine scholarship).
            > >>
            > >> In fact, the only actual occurrence
            > >>> of these three consonants as a distinct word in biblical Hebrew comes
            in
            > > the
            > >>> contracted for of 'me-et' from 'min et' = 'from + direct object'. Of
            > >>> course, if you want to add to the final letters of the first three
            words
            > > of
            > >>> Gen. 1.1, well, why stop at adding an extra aleph?
            > >>
            > >> there is no extra aleph: I am following the exact argument of biblical
            > >> rabbis. Have you read Rabbinic literature? Have you sat at the feel
            of a
            > >> rabbi?
            > >>>
            > >>> Umberto Eco talks of economic interpretation. He may well be a good
            > > person
            > >>> to refer to since he intertwined throughout both the Name of the Rose
            > > and
            > >>> Foucaults Pendulum the whole kabbalistic genre of code-breaking and
            > >>> manipulation of relectures. I just have this feeling that your
            reading
            > >>> seems to steer very close to this genre rather than to anything close
            to
            > > an
            > >>> authentic first century reading of a Greek or Hebrew text. There are
            > > simply
            > >>> too many 'ifs' involved.
            > >>
            > >> Too much foreign ground for you don't you mean?
            > >>>
            > >>> Despite the reference to Schniedwind - you might want to have a look
            at
            > >>> Halliday's discussion of what antilanguage actually is. It is not
            what
            > > you
            > >>> think it is.
            > >
            > >> The Hebrew, Hellenistic, and Rabbinic profs I know had a good laugh at
            > > what
            > >> you said.
            > >> Believe me, I am being kind when compared to what they said about your
            > >> comments. I am sorry. I do believe in being civil due to our
            protocols
            > > and
            > >> who I belong to. Here is how I am choosing to respond to the general
            > > tenor
            > >> of you above notes:
            > >>
            > >> My understanding comes from superior rabbinic scholars. I am sorry to
            > > have
            > >> to put it that way, but that is how it is. Hebrew University, JTS, HUC
            > > etc.
            > >> Holladay (isn't this how you spell it--the prof who wrote the little
            > > digest
            > >> on biblical Hebrew) isn't qualified to comment against the experts in
            the
            > >> field. There are Jewish linguistics (written in Modern Hebrew) who lay
            > > out
            > >> exactly what I am saying--look those up. Of course, even if one were
            to
            > > say
            > >> it wasn't antilanguage I could invent my own linguistic nomenclature.
            But
            > >> why do that when (I don't need Holladay's opinions) I have had the best
            > > tell
            > >> me that this (my position) is correct. I only say this because you are
            > > not
            > >> yielding to the experts in the field. I am not going to say more since
            > > the
            > >> Bible does warn me from getting into it,....
            > >>
            > >> You did attack my knowledge so I must say in light of my training YOU
            > >> obviously do not know about rabbinic writings within Hellenism. As I
            said
            > >> earlier, I am presenting a watershed document that will change
            everyone's
            > >> position one way of the other. I do expect interests to be stired.
            God I
            > >> surely hope so. However, I do expect respect to be given to scholars
            and
            > >> when someone is not an expert in the precise field one would have the
            > >> spiritual gift of restraint and self control. I obviously cannot
            discuss
            > > my
            > >> dissertation at all now, nor am I going to. You will just have to
            wait.
            > >>
            > >> The best of my spiritual self just want to say thanks for your imput:
            it
            > > is
            > >> revealing. I will take what you say to heart and make note of it as I
            > >> compose how to present my information to the public.
            > >
            > >
            > > I am growing uncomfortable with a condescending tone and borderline ad
            > > hominem along with the suggestion of some kind of "superior" scholarship
            > > regarding "rabbinical" voo-doo anti-language that appears anachronistic.
            I
            > > will grow more comfortable when the tone is moderated to a more
            collegial
            > > level and this issue related more clearly to Johannine studies.
            > >
            > > Jack Kilmon
            > > Moderator
            > >
            > >
            > > 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/
            > >
            > >
            > Sorry, I only responded in kind. I thought my response was what you
            wanted.
            > Jack, If you are going to point fingers I would ask you to read the
            > progression of these exchanges. I am aware of my own shortcomings and the
            > log that protrudes from my own eye from time to time. Fortunately, that
            > tree usually acts as a good preventative from seeing the speck in someone
            > else's eye.
            >
            > Since I wanted to make sure I was being fair and to investigate my own
            > passions, I asked a Yale prof and one from Princeton to read these
            exchanges
            > in order to see if I had acted out of line or if my arguments were
            invalid.
            > I am sorry to say that both were surprised at your condescending tone from
            > the beginning. Their opinion was that you refused to listen and learn
            > something groundbreaking. This is a common problem when a paradigm is
            > shattered. I was eager to teach something to this group of participants
            as
            > revolutionary in Johannine studies as what Bultmann brought to the table
            > about fifty years ago. At any rate I shall not contribute any more to
            your
            > kingdom. I though this was a scholarly site.
            >
            > But, I forgive you.
            >
            > My apologies to those who had to witness this narrow exchange. I hope
            that
            > everyone will research as Plato demanded as seen in the inscription over
            his
            > school: Let no one enter here who does not understand the mathematical
            > (that is, the presuppositions). While this was not an issue between Jack
            > and myself, I have found that one presupposition most biblical critics
            hold
            > to is this: no one can have an original thought. Another is that common
            > Koine speaking fold wrote in a consistent Greek style of their day and
            that
            > no variations existed.
            >
            > May we live outside the box!
            >
            > B
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > 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/
            >
            >
            >
          • Peter Phillips
            ... counter ... The problem is that Petersen follows Malina and Neyrey in reinventing antilanguage. Halliday warns that antilanguage might not be the most
            Message 5 of 17 , Sep 22, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > Thank you, Pete. I have ordered Norman Petersens book to give it another
              > read but as I recall, I thought it was more a rhetorical style for a
              counter
              > culture which, of course, may describe the early Johannine Community. In
              > this respect, "antilanguage" may go back to the HJ himself.
              >
              > Jack
              >
              The problem is that Petersen follows Malina and Neyrey in reinventing
              antilanguage. Halliday warns that antilanguage might not be the most
              appropriate description for the language transition that happens within
              religious communities because of metaphorical stretching of semantic domains
              and the such-like. So really you need to work out what antilanguage is
              first and then determine whether Johannine use of Koine is antilanguage. I
              argue that it is not what Petersen and others suggest and that the use of
              antilanguage characteristics do not signal an exclusive and self-absorbed
              community in any case. But that's off the point...

              Pete
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.