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

[John_Lit] Re: Question about John 4 and Gen24/29/Ex2

Expand Messages
  • kymhsm <khs@picknowl.com.au>
    Dear Jeffrey, I am sorry for the offence. I actually feel awkward about mentioning my book myself and try to do it as little as possible. I do think you have
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Jeffrey,

      I am sorry for the offence. I actually feel awkward about
      mentioning my book myself and try to do it as little as possible. I
      do think you have been a little harsh by saying that I am "drawing
      attention to (my) book with every post (I) make(s) to John-Lit". Do
      a search - I do not mention it in every post. The last time I
      mentioned it was in response to a question from you.

      In my previous post which provoked your complaint I only
      mentioned it in response to a request for material from Piet.
      However, having reread his post I see that I was wrong to do so
      as he was after material prior to 1960. I apologize again.

      If I do mention it it is only because I (feel I) need to offer some
      substantiation to the ideas which I have expressed - particularly
      about the structure of John - which I know, despite their very
      conservative theology, are not mainstream. I will try to do so in
      the future.

      Sincerely,

      Kym Smith
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... [snip] Kym, Thank you for your gracious reply -- it is probably more than I deserve. And once again, apologies for posting my grumblings on list. Yours,
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        "kymhsm " wrote:

        > Dear Jeffrey,
        >
        > I am sorry for the offence. I actually feel awkward about
        > mentioning my book myself and try to do it as little as possible. I
        > do think you have been a little harsh by saying that I am "drawing
        > attention to (my) book with every post (I) make(s) to John-Lit". Do
        > a search - I do not mention it in every post. The last time I
        > mentioned it was in response to a question from you.

        [snip]

        Kym,

        Thank you for your gracious reply -- it is probably more than I deserve. And
        once again, apologies for posting my grumblings on list.

        Yours,

        Jeffrey
        --

        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

        1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
        Chicago, IL 60626

        jgibson000@...
      • Elizabeth Danna
        I have been following this discussion, and I m reminded of some reading that I did while writing my thesis. There is a thorough discussion of this matter in an
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I have been following this discussion, and I'm reminded of some
          reading that I did
          while writing my thesis. There is a thorough discussion of this matter
          in an article by
          Lyle Eslinger, "The Wooing of the Woman at the Well: Jesus, the Reader
          and
          Reader-Response Criticism," Literature and Theology 1/1 (1987) pp
          167-83.
          Eslinger argues that some of the vocabulary of this scene has sexual
          overtones,
          and that the scene picks up on a recurring Old Testament type-scene in
          which a man or
          his representative meets his future wife at a well (Gen. 24:10-61;
          29:1-20; Ex. 2:15b-21).
          According to this reading, through the first half of the encounter “both
          characters are
          engaging in a bit of covert verbal coquetry.” Or so it seems. But if
          the woman intends
          her language to be interpreted as verbal coquetry, Jesus does not intend
          his language to
          be so interpreted, and he soon rebuffs her by telling her to get her
          husband. According to
          Eslinger, the reader becomes clued into the carnal interpretation of the
          encounter by
          picking up the type-scene references and the overtones of the language.
          All this, plus the
          overtly nuptial atmosphere of 2:1-11 and 3:27-30, in turn leads the
          reader to expect a
          betrothal between Jesus and the woman; an expectation which is
          frustrated when Jesus
          indicates at v. 17 that he is not interested in romance with her.
          Through chapters 1-3 the reader
          of John’s Gospel has watched as various characters have fallen into the
          trap of
          misunderstanding Jesus’ words and actions; but the narrator has given
          the reader “inside
          information” which allows him to avoid falling into the trap. For
          example, at 2:19-21
          “the Jews” misunderstand Jesus because they think that he is referring
          to the Temple
          building, but the reader knows that he is not, and thus understands.
          Here in chapter 4,
          according to Eslinger, the reader falls into the trap along with the
          Samaritan woman by
          coming to expect a betrothal, and thus gains personal experience of how
          difficult
          understanding Jesus can be. In falling into the trap the reader makes
          an error “far worse
          than that of the Samaritan woman, because it was an error in judgement,
          not one of
          ignorance.”
          I must admit that I find this reading amusing - but how convincing
          is it? In
          focusing on the overtones of the language and on the betrothal aspects
          of the Old
          Testament type-scenes, Eslinger has picked up on an aspect of this
          narrative which is
          there - he has not imagined it. The Old Testament type-scene references
          and the
          overtones of the language are indeed there to be picked up on. But in
          stressing the
          betrothal aspects of the narrative as he does, Eslinger minimises
          another aspect of the
          narrative which is more important - its salvation-history aspect. To
          return to the Old
          Testament narratives which Eslinger calls type-scenes for the Johannine
          narrative: it is
          true that in these narratives the meeting at a well leads to marriage.
          But more important
          is the fact that the relationships which begin in this manner are steps
          in the formation of
          the people of God. So also this New Testament wellside meeting
          represents a step in the
          redefinition of the people of God. As to the idea of the narrator
          deliberately trapping the
          reader, I find this unlikely for a first-century narrative, especially
          one whose implied author
          wants to win the implied reader over to his point of view. It should
          also be noted that, this
          approach makes both Jesus and the woman act in ways contrary to the
          cultural scripts of
          their culture.

          Elizabeth Danna
        • Mary Coloe
          An addition to the discussion is the awareness that the FG already sets up Jesus as the bridegroom in John 2 and 3. In the Cana scene it is Jesus, not the
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 4, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            An addition to the discussion is the awareness that the FG already sets up
            Jesus as the bridegroom in John 2 and 3. In the Cana scene it is Jesus,
            not the bridegroom as would be the custom, who produces the good wine, so
            as the wine provider at a wedding he is presented as the bridegroom, and
            then at the end of chapter 3 the Baptist speaks of Jesus as the bridegroom.
            So that by the time we enter in John 4 our reading should have prepared us
            for this 'man meets woman at well' scene. Ezekiel 37 and the parable of
            the two sticks, i think is also pertinent. When Judah and Samaria are
            joined again in covenant (marriage) then I will put my sanctuary among
            them, my dwelling shall be with them (v. 26). So I read this scene, with
            all its marriage/covenant symbolism as the wooing back of Samaria so God
            can dwell in their midst - hence all the discussion about where is the
            proper sanctuary - this mountain or Jerusalem.

            Dr. Mary Coloe pbvm
            Australian Catholic University Limited
            (ABN 15050 192660)

            Locked Bag 4115
            Fitzroy. VIC 3065 AUSTRALIA

            ph (61 + 3) 99533137 Fax (61 + 3) 99533245
            M.Coloe@...
          • kymhsm
            Dear Elizabeth, Having spoken of Lyle Eslinger s comparison of John 4 with the OT well scenes, you wrote:
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 4, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Elizabeth,

              Having spoken of Lyle Eslinger's comparison of John 4 with the
              OT well scenes, you wrote:

              <<<I must admit that I find this reading amusing - but how
              convincing is it? In focusing on the overtones of the language
              and on the betrothal aspects of the Old Testament type-scenes,
              Eslinger has picked up on an aspect of this narrative which is
              there - he has not imagined it. The Old Testament type-scene
              references and the overtones of the language are indeed there
              to be picked up on. But in stressing the betrothal aspects of the
              narrative as he does, Eslinger minimises another aspect of the
              narrative which is more important - its salvation-history aspect.
              To return to the Old Testament narratives which Eslinger calls
              type-scenes for the Johannine narrative: it is true that in these
              narratives the meeting at a well leads to marriage. But more
              important is the fact that the relationships which begin in this
              manner are steps in the formation of the people of God. So also
              this New Testament wellside meeting represents a step in the
              redefinition of the people of God.>>>

              With no expectation that you would agree with the whole scheme
              that I propose and ignoring any reference to `my
              you-probably-know-what', I suspect that the connection I have
              drawn across the chiastic structure of 4:16-27 (#3248) brings
              together the betrothal theme of the encounter at the well and the
              `salvation-history aspect' which you found lacking in Eslinger's
              article. Jesus, as the True Husband, draws out the True Bride –
              those who worship neither here nor there but in Spirit and in truth
              – of which the Samaritan woman became a part. The Husband
              and Bride theme shows `the formation of the people of God' in
              the most intimate way possible.

              It also adds to the climax Mary Coloe has indicated was building
              up to the well scene.

              If I might throw in an extra thought: if I am right in my acceptance
              of a. the priority of the Revelation over the gospel and b. the
              common authorship of the two, then I believe the reason for the
              strong marriage theme in the gospel was the indelible effect on
              John of the vision of the glorified Bride in the zenith of the
              Apocalypse.

              Sincerely,

              Kym Smith
              Adelaide
              South Australia
              khs@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.