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

Re: [John_Lit] (Re)dating the gospel! of John

Expand Messages
  • Peter.Hofrichter
    Corretion: two angels! To exclud identification with Jesus!
    Message 1 of 57 , Jan 23, 2004
      Corretion: two angels! To exclud identification with Jesus!
      Am 23.01.2004 um 13:10 schrieb Peter.Hofrichter:

      >
      > Am 21.01.2004 um 22:14 schrieb Peter.Hofrichter:
      >
      >>> Mark
      >>> could have been aware of other traditions (including the Johannine)
      >>> and probably would have included them if he felt they were worthy
      >>> (see
      >>> two feedings, for instance). In that sense, IF some of John's
      >>> tradition were known in its written (or oral) form, that could have
      >>> been included by Mark. The difficulty is ascertaining whether such
      >>> may
      >>> have been the case.
      >>
      >> I don't believe that "John" was the only source of Mark. Not at all:
      >> He
      >> must have had may be a collection of sayings and parables and of
      >> wonders. This has been independently from my theory suggested by many
      >> scholars. As to oral or written an to the two feedings see below!
      >
      > Once more to Paul: This was not an answer to what you had written. I
      > apologize for this new misunderstanding due to only flying
      > superficially over the lines. Sorry! But hopefully now really to your
      > argument:
      >
      > I tried in my book "Modell und Vorlage" to work out the tendency of
      > dependance in each case of parallel texts. Some proved to show a clear
      > tendency from John to Mark, some not so clear and some were ambigous.
      > But in only one case the tendency was clearly reverse form Mark to
      > John. And there must have been in deed a secundary influence in the
      > other direction: That was the angel in the tombe of Jesus, who must
      > have been a Markan reinterepretation of the risen Lord himself speaking
      > to Mary of Magdala, but now added once more as angel to the text of
      > "John". Mark did not want Mary of Magdala to be the first to whom Jesus
      > had appeared with only a message to the disciples. So he made of the
      > risen Jesus only an angel (in fact: two angels in order to be not
      > identified
      > with Jesus), who gave the women a message for the
      > disciples that he himself would appear to them later in Galilee. You
      > may call it interfluentiality or inter-Gospel-dialogue that now in the
      > reverse direction the angel was also introduced into "John" by partly
      > dubbeling the dialogue: Woman, why are you weepng? But in all other
      > cases of parallel texts I could not find any probability for an
      > influence from Mark to John. In the relation between John and Luke it
      > was similar: There were (as far as I remember; I have the book actually
      > not with me) two such reverse cases, which also could be explained.
      > Anyhow, you may believe me or not, but one has to look carefully and
      > without prejudice at each parallel text and try to find out how a
      > dependancy could have run.
      >
      > Yours
      > Peter
    • Peter.Hofrichter
      ... Dear Paul, of course, I cannot write now a conference paper, but I can give some hints. I shall treat 3 points: 1. Common observations, 2. Literary
      Message 57 of 57 , Jan 28, 2004
        Am 26.01.2004 um 02:50 schrieb Paul Anderson:

        > one has to look carefully and
        > without prejudice at each parallel text and try to find out how a
        > dependancy could have run.
        >
        > Yours
        > Peter
        >
        > (Paul) Thanks, Peter, I agree. One should indeed look at particular
        > contacts and seek to make plausible inferences based upon the evidence
        > emerging from the texts themselves. This is what I am trying to do as
        > well. As I look at Mark 6 and 8 and John 6, the evidence seems to
        > point more toward three independent traditions (two in Mark, and one
        > in John--here I do agree with Fortna), each having something of its
        > own autonomous Jesus tradition rather than having been dependent on
        > the others.
        >
        > If you could just give us one more description of the basis for your
        > judgments, I think that will wrap up our discussion well. As I think
        > about the various options (and there may be more than these), the
        > following seem to outline the major alternatives:
        >
        > a) John depends on Mark (in oral or written form)
        > b) Mark depends on John (in oral or written form)
        > c) John or Mark depends on something like the other (a Signs Gospel
        > or another hypothetical source)
        > d) John and Mark are completely independent
        > e) John and Mark are autonomous (not derivative of the other) but
        > somewhat engaged along the way
        >
        > If you could describe why the evidence points toward b) in ways more
        > convincing than any of the others, that would be a help (that's what
        > I've tried to do regarding e) in my "Interfluentiality" and
        > "Answerability" essays). We could then compare exegetical evidence and
        > test deductions from the evidence effectively.
        >
        > Thanks so much!
        >
        > Paul Anderson
        >
        > PS I've just learned that Ian McKay's thesis will be published in
        > WUNT II later this year. That is good news for the discipline!
        >
        > If you could just give us one more description of the basis for your
        > judgments, I think that will wrap up our discussion well. As I think
        > about the various options (and there may be more than these), the
        > following seem to outline the major alternatives:


        Dear Paul, of course, I cannot write now a conference paper, but I can
        give some hints. I shall treat 3 points: 1. Common observations, 2.
        Literary relations, 3. Motives and 4. Radaction of Mark on the basis of
        John.

        1: To start with common observations: In John the story seems to fit
        into the Eliya typology and shows no purpose outside of itself. Some
        features like the boy with the food or the fish are useless for any
        theological interpretation. Only the following bread sermon provides an
        interpretation and meaning of the story from afterward. Contrary to
        that the two feedings stories of Mark tell from the beginning the
        essentials, and they are related to one another, and this not only at
        the end when Jesus speaks at once about both of them together (8,19f).
        There he refers to the symbolical numbers 12 and 7 of the baskets full
        of bread pieces gathered and points to them as if to the key of the
        whole message. The suspicion that 12 and 7 has something to do with
        Jews and pagans / all mankind (12 tribes of Israel and 7 days of
        creation) will be confirmed by additional facts. Tracing back from
        there you will find that also the numbers of the breads to be
        multiplied, 5 and 7, fit to the same concept (5 books of Moses),
        similarly the 5000 and 4000 people (e.g. 4 rivers of paradise, etc.).
        Mk tried even to locate the two events clearly on Jewish and pagan
        soil: near Bethsaida the first one and in the �middle of the Decapolis�
        the second one. Last not least the words of blessing spoken over the
        food to be multiplied are different. Eulogein reminds of the Jewish
        beracha, and eucharistein was already largely used by St. Paul in his
        letters to his heathen Christians in a quasi-liturgical way. In this
        light John seems to be still simply Hellenistic-Jewish: The helpers
        Andreas and Philippus are the hellenists among the apostles, the
        background of the numbers5 and 12 is Jewish, the place is not clearly
        qualified, the terminology of eucharistein is the same like that of
        Paul. Together with its unnecessary details the story in John makes a
        more original impression. On the other hand the two stories of Mark are
        linked together and are conceived as a logical unity according to a
        certain literary concept and purpose. Moreover the second feeding story
        of Mark seems rather pale without really original and individual
        features. It looks more like a formal repetition of the first one than
        proving a living separate tradition.

        2. To seem more original or more sophisticated has nothing to do with
        literary relationship. This is another issue: But there are remarkable
        parallels between John and both of the stories of Mark. All three are
        told in exactly the same sequence of elements varying constructions and
        synonymas. That seems to exclude oral tradition as a common source but
        shows the usual literary practice of paraphrasing. But certain elements
        of John are found only in either the first or the second story of Mark,
        e.g.: Jn6 and Mk8: �Apekriqh autw Filippos� / �apekriqhsan autw�; Jn6
        and Mk5 have in common �pente (artous kriqinous) kai duo opsaria /
        icqyas� and �cortos / cortw � anepesan�, once more Jn6 and Mk8
        �eucaristhsas� and �perisseusanta / perisseumata�, in Jn6 and Mk5 again
        dwdeka kofinous / kofinwn�. O course, there are also properties of
        Mark�s both stories as �esplancisqh / splancnizomai� or �Posous artous
        exete� or (kat)eklasen (�) kai edidou. One can imagine that Mark has
        inserted these elements but scarcely that John disliked and canceled
        them.

        3. If we admit at least the formal possibility that Mark could have
        used John and made of this one feeding story his two, the next question
        may be if he could have a motive to do so. Every criminal investigator
        has to ask for the possible motives. of the suspicious persons. Mark is
        a propagandist of Peter and James (when he speaks of the sons of
        Zebedee John remains in the shadow). We know that both wanted the
        tables of Jewish and pagan faithful to be divided. On the other hand
        the hellenists had no problem in converting not only Jews but also
        heathens to the same community. They did so from the beginning in
        Antioch alredy before Paul was sent there together with Barnabas to
        look for order. The call for division was certainly secundary to the
        practice of the hellenists. And the strive between Peter and Paul was
        even later. Moreover the hellenists lost very soon their importance.
        Andrew disappears totally from the stage, and Philip is probably
        downgraded to the evangelist of Luke�s acts. It is much more likely
        that Mark has made two of one than that �John� (the Hellenists) made
        one of two, what Luke as a pupil of Paul later on in his Gospel really
        did.

        4. OK, our suspicion is strengthened, now let us look on a lager scale
        at the relation between Mark and John on the basis of his doubling the
        feeding story. If you agree that the chapters 5 and 6 of John have been
        changed you can discover that Mark probably did not only double from
        John the feeding story but the whole sequence from the Samaritan woman
        till to the bread sermon. But he did that only concerning the structure
        and replacing John�s material by his own. He starts twice with the
        story of a woman, first with the healing of the Haemorhoea who is a Jew
        and the second time with the Syrophoenician who is a pagan. Then he
        tells at first how Jesus went through the land of the Jews ending up
        with the first feeding and an interpretation of it. In the second turn
        Jesus goes to the land of the pagans and ends up in the second feeding
        and once more an interpretation. That means that Mark wanted to divide
        totally between the two missions to the Jews and to the pagans and to
        root this practice already in the example of Jesus himself. And this
        means also that the pattern of his Gospel was an earlier scripture,
        which, according to my opinion, was later enlarged to our Gospel of
        John and which I would call �Hellenistenbuch� � Booklet of the
        Hellenists.

        Dear Paul, thank you for giving me the opportunity of explaining what I
        mean!
        Sincerely yours
        Peter



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.