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

[John_Lit] Re: the adelphoi

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 11/3/1999 5:51:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, mcoloe@netspace.net.au writes:
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 11/3/1999 5:51:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      mcoloe@... writes:

      << Thanks for the responses, I'm inclined towards your view David that they
      function in order to enable a shift in meaning from a familial group based
      on kinship ties, in John 2 and 7, to a familial group based on ties of
      faith. After the 'hour' the true family of Jesus are the disciples who are
      identified in 20:18 as the adelphoi Mary is sent to in 20:17. If this is so
      then this term must be read inclusively ie as brothers and sisters since
      Mary is one of the group included in 'your Father'. The single word
      'brethren' to translate adelphoi does not bring out its inclusiveness so
      until English comes up with a better word, I think the more accurate
      translation would have to be 'brothers and sisters' .>>

      I don't see how Mary "is one of the group included in 'your Father'". It is a
      direct address statement, and one that is supposed to be uttered BY Mary to
      the (presumably) all male group of disciples (cf. 20:24: Thomas, one of the
      twelve...). Mary is addressed by Jesus as "woman" in 20:15, and by her proper
      name in 20:16. Her response in the latter verse suggests rather a
      relationship of master-servant between Jesus and her than one of
      brother-sister. Echoes of the Song of Songs in the text seem also to suggest
      a lover-beloved relationship.

      On the other hand, I have always understood the English term "brethren" as an
      inclusive term, especially when used in texts that have a Jewish background.
      Analogously, the first time the thought ever occurred to me that "for us men
      and for our salvation..." in the Nicean creed might be affirming the
      soteriological effect of Jesus' death for males only was when I noticed the
      term "men" in the phrase being loudly omitted by a woman in the pew behind me.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Mary Coloe
      ... I take your point here but is there a strong grammatical argument for reading this as if it were in quotation marks and therefore the direct words Mary is
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 3, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        >I don't see how Mary "is one of the group included in 'your Father'". It is
        >a direct address statement, and one that is supposed to be uttered BY Mary to
        >the (presumably) all male group of disciples (cf. 20:24: Thomas, one of the
        >twelve...).

        I take your point here but is there a strong grammatical argument for
        reading this as if it were in quotation marks and therefore the direct
        words Mary is to speak to the disciples group as if she is not included
        within that group. Is there in the grammar of the statement the equivalent
        of "Thus says the Lord,'I go to ....'

        Mary is addressed by Jesus as "woman" in 20:15, and by her
        >proper name in 20:16. Her response in the latter verse suggests rather a
        >relationship of master-servant between Jesus and her than one of
        >brother-sister. Echoes of the Song of Songs in the text seem also to
        >suggest
        >a lover-beloved relationship.
        >
        >On the other hand, I have always understood the English term "brethren" as
        >an
        >inclusive term, especially when used in texts that have a Jewish
        >background.
        >Analogously, the first time the thought ever occurred to me that "for us
        >men
        >and for our salvation..." in the Nicean creed might be affirming the
        >soteriological effect of Jesus' death for males only was when I noticed the
        >term "men" in the phrase being loudly omitted by a woman in the pew behind
        >me.
        >
        >Leonard Maluf
        >
        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background &
        >research interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
        >Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        >Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
        >
        >-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
        >-- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=johannine_literature&m=1
        >
        >
        >
        Dr. Mary Coloe pbvm
        School of Theology
        Australian Catholic University
        PO. Box 213, Oakleigh. VIC 3166
        ph (61 + 3) 9563 3697 Fax. (61 + 3) 9563 3653.

        *** Please note as of March 1 2000 my address will change to
        Australian Catholic University
        St Patrick's Campus
        Locked bag 4115
        Fitzroy Business Centre
        377 Gore Street
        Fitzroy Vic 3065

        Similarly my email address will change to M.Coloe@...

        I do not yet know my new phone numbers but the switchboard will be 9953 3000
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 11/3/1999 8:11:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, M.Coloe@christ.acu.edu.au writes: I don t see how Mary is one of the group included in
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 3, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 11/3/1999 8:11:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
          M.Coloe@... writes:

          << >I don't see how Mary "is one of the group included in 'your Father'". It
          is
          >a direct address statement, and one that is supposed to be uttered BY Mary
          to
          >the (presumably) all male group of disciples (cf. 20:24: Thomas, one of the
          >twelve...).

          I take your point here but is there a strong grammatical argument for
          reading this as if it were in quotation marks and therefore the direct
          words Mary is to speak to the disciples group as if she is not included
          within that group. Is there in the grammar of the statement the equivalent
          of "Thus says the Lord,'I go to ....'
          >>

          I think the phrase could have been put in indirect discourse (as it is, by
          the way, in some modern versions), and then a reference to Mary would
          certainly have been implied in the pronoun "your". Because it is in direct
          discourse in the Greek, such a reading seems to me to be excluded, though I
          am not sure how much, if anything at all, should be made out of this fact. I
          think one would have to assume that Mary as an historical person, and a
          disciple of Jesus, must herself belong, in John's thinking, to Jesus' new
          family as a "sister", whose "father" is God. But I am not sure how interested
          the Evangelist is in her "as an historical person", so her symbolic value to
          John perhaps dictates other relational emphases in his text.

          On second thought, I wonder if what I said above is really correct. Even if
          the statement is direct discourse, I wonder if the "your" might not still
          implicate Mary herself. I'm not sure any more.

          Leonard Maluf
        • ejdanna@trapdoor.arvotek.net
          ... This displacement, however, is not unknown in the Synoptics. See e.g. Mk. 3:31-35; 10:28-30parr. Elizabeth Danna
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 4, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, David Rensberger wrote:

            > them from this role. It may be, then, that 20:17 is meant to reinforce
            > this displacement of Jesus' physical brothers by his believing
            > disciples.
            This displacement, however, is not unknown in the Synoptics. See e.g.
            Mk. 3:31-35; 10:28-30parr.
            Elizabeth Danna
          • ProfRam@aol.com
            In Jn 20:17, the matter of direct vs. indirect discourse is rather a tough call. But it seems to me it has to be indirect because Mary is not told to say, I
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 4, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              In Jn 20:17, the matter of direct vs. indirect discourse is rather a tough
              call. But it seems to me it has to be indirect because Mary is not told to
              say, "I am ascending" (*she* is obviously not ascending), but either "He is
              ascending" or "He said, 'I am ascending.'"

              Thus I would translate, "Go to my brothers and tell them that I am ascending
              to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." This leaves open
              just a crack the possibility that Mary might be included in the "your," but
              even as indirect discourse the possibility is remote at best. The play
              between "brothers" and "Father" tells against it, as does the accent on the
              fact that Mary is to say it "to them" (autois).

              Just by the way, notice also the abrupt shift from direct to indirect
              discourse in v 18, a shift which seems to have bothered the scribes so that
              they tried out a couple of variants: Mary told the disciples that "'I have
              seen the Lord,' and he said these things to her."

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