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

Re: [John_Lit] The Johannine Community

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    At 10:59 AM 9/1/2003 -0500, McGrath, James ... James, Your hypothesis is a bit strained. While it seems to be true that the present
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:59 AM 9/1/2003 -0500, "McGrath, James" <jfmcgrat@...>
      wrote:
      >Before this discussion gets any further I want to raise a parallel
      >question: in view of the fact that the Fourth Gospel (indeed, the
      >Johannine corpus as a whole) never uses esthiw (or however one is
      >supposed to transliterate it into English!), mightn't a linguistic
      >explanation be simpler? For whatever reason, the author simply did not
      >have this word as part of his vocabulary. Whenever he speaks of 'eating'
      >in the present tense, he uses trwgw, and for the aorist he uses ephagon
      >and cognates. What might be REALLY interesting would be to see if there
      >is other Koine Greek literature with this same linguistic peculiarity -
      >perhaps it was a regionalism, and might help us localize the 'Johannine
      >community' (if there ever was such a creature). But my main question is
      >whether this characteristic of John's vocabulary is best explained
      >theologically, or simply linguistically.

      James,
      Your hypothesis is a bit strained. While it seems to be true that the
      present tense of esthio does not seem to appear in GJohn, it does appear in
      other Gospels, such as Matthew 26:21 "while they were eating...", Luke 15:2
      , etc.

      Bob



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mike Grondin
      ... Sorry. Bob is right; I m wrong. My search technique was obviously faulty. Mike G.
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In replying to James McGrath, I wrote:
        > It seems not to have been a regionalism, since I'm unable to find
        > a single usage of 'esthiw' in the entire NT!

        Sorry. Bob is right; I'm wrong. My search technique was obviously
        faulty.

        Mike G.
      • Tobias Hägerland
        ... the ... of ... by ... Perhaps this summary of the late Fr Brown s theological agenda may be derived from reading his Community of the Beloved Disciple
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          John M. Noble wrote:

          > Raymond Brown's agenda seems to be to present the teaching about
          the
          > paraclete in 4G and 1J in the context of a community divided and in
          > the process of self destructing, thus bringing into question this
          > aspect which he claims gives a 'different tone from apostolic
          > Christianity'. I personally don't see how 1J could be used to help
          > interpret 4G; it seems to go the other way around. So when RB makes
          > statements like 'the use of the epistles as a correct guide to
          > interpreting the Gospel finally won for John a place in the canon
          of
          > the church', I believe that he is really questioning the canonicity
          > of 4G. Particularly when he claims that the beloved disciple wasn't
          > John at all and anyway the letter wasn't written by him but rather
          by
          > an unreliable community.

          Perhaps this summary of the late Fr Brown's theological 'agenda' may
          be derived from reading his 'Community of the Beloved Disciple' in
          isolation? I do not think it will fit into the broader picture that
          one gets from reading other books written by this scholar.

          First, as a loyal Roman Catholic, Brown would hardly have arrogated
          for himself the authority to redefine the canon of Scripture. In his
          commentaries on the Gospel and Epistles of John, Brown frequently
          discusses the enduring theological import of particular passages, and
          gives his views regarding to what extent the contents is binding on
          contemporary Catholics. Besides showing himself to be not only an
          academic exegete but also a sensitive theologian, Brown thus
          demonstrates his full acceptance of the canon as defined by the
          Church. However, he would probably have been reluctant to treat any
          of the biblical books as canonical in and by itself. The canonical
          interpretation of a certain passage presupposes the entire canon.
          None of the different biblical books present a perfect theology in
          isolation, so each writing has to be 'balanced' by the other
          canonical writings. I think Brown would say that the Gospel according
          to John cannot function as a reliable norm for Christian faith and
          morals if it is not read as one of many voices in the canon. As far
          as I can remember, Brown spelled these things out quite clearly in
          his 'Introduction to the New Testament'.

          Second, Brown did not exactly depict the 'Johannine community' as
          self-destructing; rather, he thought that it had been incorporated
          and assimilated into the 'Great Church'. He may have held the view
          that the Johannine community could not survive as an isolated
          community, just as the Johannine literature had to be assumed into
          the larger biblical canon in order to retain enduring significance.
          But he certainly did not depict Johannine Christians as the bad guys.
          Brown, as I have understood him, was welcoming different 'tones' both
          in primitive and contemporary Christianity.

          Third, I doubt that Brown's reconstruction of the Johannine community
          (a reconstruction which I, incidentally, find quite removed from
          reality) was part of any 'agenda'. In his commentary on the Gospel,
          Brown still held to the traditional view which identified the Beloved
          Disciple as John, son of Zebedee. It was scholarly argument and
          hardly anything else that forced him to revise his opinion on this
          matter. To my mind, this sets an example for all of us who try to be
          honest scholars and truth-seekers.

          Tobias Hägerland, M.Th.
          Ph.D. Candidate
          Göteborg University
          Department of Religious Studies and Theology
        • Moloney, Francis J
          As someone who has worked extensively on Ray Brown s contribution, especially in editing, updating, introducing and concluding his posthumous Introduction to
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            As someone who has worked extensively on Ray Brown's contribution, especially in editing, updating, introducing and concluding his posthumous "Introduction to the Gospel of John" (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2003), I very much appreciate Tobias' contribution. It matches my own conclusions, soon to be delivered at the Baltimore Conference: "The Gospel of John: The Legacy of Raymond E. Brown and Beyond." For an earlier reflection, see my "Raymond Brown's New Introduction to the Gospel of John: A Presentation and Some Questions," CBQ 65 (2003): 1-21.

            Thanks.

            Frank Moloney, SDB

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Tobias Hägerland [mailto:tobias.hagerland@...]
            Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:17 AM
            To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The Johannine Community


            John M. Noble wrote:

            > Raymond Brown's agenda seems to be to present the teaching about
            the
            > paraclete in 4G and 1J in the context of a community divided and in
            > the process of self destructing, thus bringing into question this
            > aspect which he claims gives a 'different tone from apostolic
            > Christianity'. I personally don't see how 1J could be used to help
            > interpret 4G; it seems to go the other way around. So when RB makes
            > statements like 'the use of the epistles as a correct guide to
            > interpreting the Gospel finally won for John a place in the canon
            of
            > the church', I believe that he is really questioning the canonicity
            > of 4G. Particularly when he claims that the beloved disciple wasn't
            > John at all and anyway the letter wasn't written by him but rather
            by
            > an unreliable community.

            Perhaps this summary of the late Fr Brown's theological 'agenda' may
            be derived from reading his 'Community of the Beloved Disciple' in
            isolation? I do not think it will fit into the broader picture that
            one gets from reading other books written by this scholar.

            First, as a loyal Roman Catholic, Brown would hardly have arrogated
            for himself the authority to redefine the canon of Scripture. In his
            commentaries on the Gospel and Epistles of John, Brown frequently
            discusses the enduring theological import of particular passages, and
            gives his views regarding to what extent the contents is binding on
            contemporary Catholics. Besides showing himself to be not only an
            academic exegete but also a sensitive theologian, Brown thus
            demonstrates his full acceptance of the canon as defined by the
            Church. However, he would probably have been reluctant to treat any
            of the biblical books as canonical in and by itself. The canonical
            interpretation of a certain passage presupposes the entire canon.
            None of the different biblical books present a perfect theology in
            isolation, so each writing has to be 'balanced' by the other
            canonical writings. I think Brown would say that the Gospel according
            to John cannot function as a reliable norm for Christian faith and
            morals if it is not read as one of many voices in the canon. As far
            as I can remember, Brown spelled these things out quite clearly in
            his 'Introduction to the New Testament'.

            Second, Brown did not exactly depict the 'Johannine community' as
            self-destructing; rather, he thought that it had been incorporated
            and assimilated into the 'Great Church'. He may have held the view
            that the Johannine community could not survive as an isolated
            community, just as the Johannine literature had to be assumed into
            the larger biblical canon in order to retain enduring significance.
            But he certainly did not depict Johannine Christians as the bad guys.
            Brown, as I have understood him, was welcoming different 'tones' both
            in primitive and contemporary Christianity.

            Third, I doubt that Brown's reconstruction of the Johannine community
            (a reconstruction which I, incidentally, find quite removed from
            reality) was part of any 'agenda'. In his commentary on the Gospel,
            Brown still held to the traditional view which identified the Beloved
            Disciple as John, son of Zebedee. It was scholarly argument and
            hardly anything else that forced him to revise his opinion on this
            matter. To my mind, this sets an example for all of us who try to be
            honest scholars and truth-seekers.

            Tobias Hägerland, M.Th.
            Ph.D. Candidate
            Göteborg University
            Department of Religious Studies and Theology



            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/
          • John M. Noble
            Hej, Tobias! Thanks for your mail. I admit I was being a little (only a little) provocative in the tone of the last paragraph; I was trying to see what sort of
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Hej, Tobias!

              Thanks for your mail. I admit I was being a little (only a little)
              provocative in the tone of the last paragraph; I was trying to see
              what sort of reaction there would be if I applied to RB's work the
              sort of techniques he applied to holy scripture (namely, seeing
              spooks under the carpet and agendas in places where there probably
              aren't any). The reply was pretty much as I expected, but it was
              quite satisfying to get it anyway.

              You brought in an extra element; namely, the beliefs, loyalties and
              sincerely held faith of RB. I had simply pointed to apparently
              disparaging remarks he had made concerning 1J and 4G and suggested
              that such a view essentially questioned whether the works were
              canonical. I'll respond briefly to my views on RB's faith, but only
              briefly, since I feel that it is off topic for this list.

              >First, as a loyal Roman Catholic, Brown would hardly have arrogated
              >for himself the authority to redefine the canon of Scripture. In his
              >commentaries on the Gospel and Epistles of John, Brown frequently
              >discusses the enduring theological import of particular passages, and
              >gives his views regarding to what extent the contents is binding on
              >contemporary Catholics. Besides showing himself to be not only an
              >academic exegete but also a sensitive theologian, Brown thus
              >demonstrates his full acceptance of the canon as defined by the
              >Church.

              I didn't get that impression from his work. He quotes that the church
              teaches 'a qualified estimation of the gospels' (footnote on p.26 of
              Community of Beloved Disciple' and then goes on to use this
              qualification fairly liberally. I noted the 'nihil obstat' and
              'imprimatur' labels inside the front cover and imagined that the
              censors must have given approval through clenched teeth,
              understanding that technically RB had not erred, but wondering if the
              1964 Biblical Commission Instruction (which he quotes to show that he
              really is such a good sensitive Catholic interpreter and teacher)
              knew what they were letting themselves in for by permitting such
              interpretational liberty.

              In response to your question: no, my view does not come from reading
              'Community' alone. It comes primarily from statements in his
              commentary on 1J, one statement in particular.

              Looking at 1J3v6, on sinless perfection, he says quite bluntly 'No
              other NT author contradicts himself so sharply within such a short
              span of writing.'

              I personally would never claim that an NT author had contradicted
              himself. Yes, anyone who makes such a statement does arrogate himself
              above scripture in so doing. It's quite all right for an academic and
              scholar to do this, but it is incompatible with a Christian
              confession of faith, RC or otherwise.

              He does go on to modify this initial blunt statement, but the
              statement has already been clearly made. The author of the epistle is
              referring to two different things. RB seems to be suggesting that the
              two types of perfection discussed in 1 John are heretical and
              orthodox; these are somehow supposed to represent heretical and
              orthodox interpretations of 4G. I find this resolution deeply
              unsatisfactory, since there is no evidence in the text to suggest
              that the author believes that one of his two positions concerning
              sinless perfection is wrong.

              I personally would never presume to suggest that there is any
              contradiction in the Holy Writ. If there appears to be one and I
              can't resolve it, I simply take the view that my brain isn't big
              enough and hopefully I'll be able to resolve it later.

              At this point in particular, it is my sincerely held belief that to
              reject the idea that both 1J1v8,9 and 1J3v6 are true in a believer's
              life at one and the same time is to reject the heart and guts of the
              Christian faith. That is my heartfelt belief about RB's faith; he has
              rejected Christ and Him crucified. I base my conclusion entirely on
              his own confession, the statement he made concerning 1J3v6. I didn't
              want to mention this (because I prefer to avoid thinking about such
              things and reaching such conclusions and anyway it is off the topic
              for the list), but you forced it by mentioning that RB was a loyal
              Roman Catholic, who wouldn't arrogate himself above scripture. Here
              he has stated that scripture is self contradictory which very much is
              arrogating himself above scripture. Much more importantly, he has
              missed something utterly vital in the process of so doing.

              I believe that Luther's lecture on Romans 7v14-25 lead to a good
              understanding of the dichotomy found in 1J1v8,9 and 1J3v6.

              >However, he would probably have been reluctant to treat any
              >of the biblical books as canonical in and by itself. The canonical
              >interpretation of a certain passage presupposes the entire canon.
              >None of the different biblical books present a perfect theology in
              >isolation, so each writing has to be 'balanced' by the other
              >canonical writings. I think Brown would say that the Gospel according
              >to John cannot function as a reliable norm for Christian faith and
              >morals if it is not read as one of many voices in the canon. As far
              >as I can remember, Brown spelled these things out quite clearly in
              >his 'Introduction to the New Testament'.

              A fine theoretical statement, if you take it to mean that one needs
              the whole canon to understand the true meaning of any individual
              part. I'm sure that many would agree with this statement of theory,
              but would sharply differ on how to put it into practice, rendering
              the statement vague and meaningless. Whatever he might have said to
              clarify this in his 'Introduction to the New Testament', it seems
              incompatible with his statement that scripture is self contradictory.

              >Second, Brown did not exactly depict the 'Johannine community' as
              >self-destructing; rather, he thought that it had been incorporated
              >and assimilated into the 'Great Church'. He may have held the view
              >that the Johannine community could not survive as an isolated
              >community, just as the Johannine literature had to be assumed into
              >the larger biblical canon in order to retain enduring significance.
              >But he certainly did not depict Johannine Christians as the bad guys.
              >Brown, as I have understood him, was welcoming different 'tones' both
              >in primitive and contemporary Christianity.

              OK ... If these are the good guys, then I certainly wouldn't like to
              meet the bad guys!!!! I already quoted from his book in previous
              submission statements that give this impression and left them looking
              pretty bad, at least to me.

              >Third, I doubt that Brown's reconstruction of the Johannine community
              >(a reconstruction which I, incidentally, find quite removed from
              >reality) was part of any 'agenda'. In his commentary on the Gospel,
              >Brown still held to the traditional view which identified the Beloved
              >Disciple as John, son of Zebedee. It was scholarly argument and
              >hardly anything else that forced him to revise his opinion on this
              >matter. To my mind, this sets an example for all of us who try to be
              >honest scholars and truth-seekers.

              With reference to your second point, the reasons he gives for placing
              the beloved disciple as someone different from the big three are
              hardly complimentary! either for the beloved disciple, or for the big
              three, or for the community.

              Whether there is an intentional 'agenda' or not, the community
              certainly enables him to bypass the clear and plain resolution of the
              dichotomy between 1J1v8,9 and 1J3v6 and give a somewhat strained
              explanation of something that is intended to apply to each and every
              individual believer in terms of two points of view within the
              community, thus conveniently removing the Christian content of the
              letter.

              John M. Noble

              >
              >Tobias Hägerland, M.Th.
              >Ph.D. Candidate
              >Göteborg University
              >Department of Religious Studies and Theology
            • Tobias Hägerland
              John M. Noble, You obviously posted your message on this list before we had our off- list e-mail exchange on this topic. I think that the latter sorted some
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 8, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                John M. Noble,

                You obviously posted your message on this list before we had our off-
                list e-mail exchange on this topic. I think that the latter sorted
                some things out, and I feel that the discussion is rapidly moving
                away from matters exegetical, so I will not continue the debate here.

                One final comment though: sometimes provoking language can be quite
                healthy and inspiring, but you should be careful not to go too far in
                that direction. And to suggest that someone has 'rejected Christ' is,
                to my mind, an accusation too serious to be launched on such shaky
                foundations.

                Respectfully,
                Tobias Hägerland, M.Th.
                Ph.D. Candidate
                Göteborg University
                Department of Religious Studies and Theology
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.