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

Re: [John_Lit] The Johannine Community

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    ... Sorry. Bob is right; I m wrong. My search technique was obviously faulty. Mike G.
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 1, 2003
      --- 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 2 of 10 , Sep 2, 2003
        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 3 of 10 , Sep 2, 2003
          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 4 of 10 , Sep 2, 2003
            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 5 of 10 , Sep 8, 2003
              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.