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

Re: John and the infancy gospels

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    ... Robertson (Wordpictures: This ignorance of the fact that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem belongs to the Jews, not to John the author of the Gospel.
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 13, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Joseph Codsi wrote:
      > The fact that John leaves the third question unanswered can
      > mean that either he did not know that Jesus was born in
      > Bethlehem, or that he did not consider this kind of allegation to
      > be historical.
      > Is there a way of deciding between these two possibilities?



      Robertson (Wordpictures:"This ignorance of the fact that Jesus was
      actually born in Bethlehem belongs to the Jews, not to John the author
      of the Gospel."

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
    • Peter.Hofrichter
      ... I came just back from a journey and found in my mail box this discussion around Jn 6,42 and 7,27 and 7,42 on the basis of the position that John knew
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 19, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Am 18.02.2004 um 21:18 schrieb Arne Halbakken:

        >> If you think it is
        >> not worthwile to change at least hypothetically ones traditional views
        >> I shall not waste my time.
        >> P.H.
        >
        > Please continue to post!
        >
        > There are at least 308 other people on the Johannine Literature list
        > besides Mike.
        >
        > Arne Halbakken

        I came just back from a journey and found in my mail box this
        discussion around Jn 6,42 and 7,27 and 7,42 on the basis of the
        position that John knew Matthew and Luke. So I jumped into it with my
        remark. I can understand that the people involved were angry. They had
        invested much energy in the arguments to vindicate the silence of John
        concerning the the informations the synoptic infancy stories already
        provide. I once more apologize for disturbing this discussion on a hig
        level. I really admire the learnedness of the sophisticated
        argumentations referring to the Old Testament. I only wanted to remind
        the colleagues that if they could admit the reverse dependance between
        the Gospels these problems would not at all exist. And simplicity is a
        strong argument for the ability of a theory to solve given problems.

        May I remind of Justinus Martyr, who in his Dialogue with the Jew
        Trypon also mentions in the mouth of Tryphon the same Jewish theories
        on the origin of the Messiah, we know already from John. But there
        Justinus answers with the synoptic tradition. Justinus recognizes and
        quotes as "Hypomnêmata twn apostolwn" only the three synoptic Gospels.
        Whether or not he may have known also John, is a matter of a learned
        discussion, which I do’nt want to seize now. Although it cannot be
        striktly proved, the theories about the origin of the Messiah mentioned
        in John and Justinus may have really been popular among Jews. Otherwise
        Justinus would have risked to be not take serious.

        The first one to write that Jesus was born in Bethlehem was Matthew.
        This was a requirement of his fulfillment idea: Among all theories
        about the origin of the Messiah his birth in Bethlehem was the only one
        to be in fulfillment of the Scripture. That Jesus was known as coming
        from Nazarteth is explained by a later settlement of the Holy family
        there and in addition vindicated by a further reference to a word of
        the the Scripture: "He shall be called a Nazoraios", which as we know
        does not exist.

        Peter Hofrichter
      • Peter.Hofrichter
        ... I came just back from a journey and found in my mail box this discussion around Jn 6,42 and 7,27 and 7,42 on the basis of the position that John knew
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 19, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Am 18.02.2004 um 21:18 schrieb Arne Halbakken:

          >> If you think it is
          >> not worthwile to change at least hypothetically ones traditional views
          >> I shall not waste my time.
          >> P.H.
          >
          > Please continue to post!
          >
          > There are at least 308 other people on the Johannine Literature list
          > besides Mike.
          >
          > Arne Halbakken

          I came just back from a journey and found in my mail box this
          discussion around Jn 6,42 and 7,27 and 7,42 on the basis of the
          position that John knew Matthew and Luke. So I jumped into it with my
          remark. I can understand that the people involved were angry. They had
          invested much energy in the arguments to vindicate the silence of John
          concerning the the informations the synoptic infancy stories already
          provide. I once more apologize for disturbing this discussion on a hig
          level. I really admire the learnedness of the sophisticated
          argumentations referring to the Old Testament. I only wanted to remind
          the colleagues that if they could admit the reverse dependance between
          the Gospels these problems would not at all exist. And simplicity is a
          strong argument for the ability of a theory to solve given problems.

          May I remind of Justinus Martyr, who in his Dialogue with the Jew
          Trypon also mentions in the mouth of Tryphon the same Jewish theories
          on the origin of the Messiah, we know already from John. But there
          Justinus answers with the synoptic tradition. Justinus recognizes and
          quotes as "Hypomnêmata twn apostolwn" only the three synoptic Gospels.
          Whether or not he may have known also John, is a matter of a learned
          discussion, which I do’nt want to seize now. Although it cannot be
          striktly proved, the theories about the origin of the Messiah mentioned
          in John and Justinus may have really been popular among Jews. Otherwise
          Justinus would have risked to be not take serious.

          The first one to write that Jesus was born in Bethlehem was Matthew.
          This was a requirement of his fulfillment idea: Among all theories
          about the origin of the Messiah his birth in Bethlehem was the only one
          to be in fulfillment of the Scripture. That Jesus was known as coming
          from Nazarteth he tried to explain by a later settlement of the Holy
          family there and in addition to vindicate by a further reference to a
          word of the the Scripture: "He shall be called a Nazoraios", which – as
          we know – does not even exist. Luke will solve this contradiction in
          another way. But both were already victims of their theory.

          But why did "John" at all raise these questions and mention these
          opinions? I think only to show ironicly the unbelieve of the "Jews".
          Already Philippus points to what is exclusively necessary concerning
          the identity of Jesus: "Come and see!" – Let all possible theories
          behind you and realize what is obious to your eyes.

          Peter Hofrichter
        • Mike Grondin
          ... It really is amazing to me how people will try to evade the main point of a criticism by bringing in all sorts of irrelevant issues to divert attention and
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 19, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Peter.Hofrichter wrote:
            > If you think it is not worthwile to change at least hypothetically
            > ones traditional views I shall not waste my time.

            It really is amazing to me how people will try to evade the main
            point of a criticism by bringing in all sorts of irrelevant issues
            to divert attention and thereby obscure the question. I purposely
            did not include the above remark in quoting from your note because
            it was an unworthy remark of a diversionary nature. Since you've
            now repeated it in the course of quoting from an off-list note,
            however, it becomes necessary to point out that my criticism of
            your "baiting" tactic had nothing to do with whether one ought
            to entertain thoughts of an early Ur-John - it had to do with the
            ethics of baiting tactics, period. In point of fact, I was the one
            in the earlier discussion that allowed for the possibility that GJn
            (or some it) might NOT have been preceded by Lk and Mt. So the above
            remark was not only generally irrelevant and diversionary to my
            criticism of baiting tactics, but even went to far as to impute to
            me a position contrary to what I had indicated.

            Your off-list letter-writer remarks "Please continue to post!", and
            this also was never in question, the diversionary faux-threat "I
            shall not waste my time" to the contrary notwithstanding.

            Mike Grondin
            Mt. Clemens, MI
          • Peter.Hofrichter
            Dear Mike, you may have observed that we are not so far from one another about John’s intention concerning the origin of Jesus. Why so much text on my
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 19, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Mike,
              you may have observed that we are not so far from one another about
              "John’s" intention concerning the origin of Jesus. Why so much text on
              my mis-behaviour? I do'nt mind of one more apology. Let us speak about
              John!
              Peter
            • Mike Grondin
              ... Fine with me. For starters, can you give some indication of at least the major positions as to what was in early John and what wasn t? We had been talking
              Message 6 of 9 , Feb 19, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Peter.Hofrichter wrote:
                > Let us speak about John!

                Fine with me. For starters, can you give some indication of at least
                the major positions as to what was in early John and what wasn't?
                We had been talking about chapter 7, for example. Would that be
                regarded by most early-daters as part of early John? Or only some
                of them? For those of us outside the early-daters circles, it can be
                as confusing as Ur-Mark, and then after awhile one throws up one's
                hands and just says, "How can one deal with a hypothetical object
                that keeps changing, depending on who's talking about it? An object
                that seemingly can never be defined with any widely-agreed
                specificity?" Intertextual analysis requires a certain relative
                fixity to the objects in question, but the never-ending questions of
                chronological order (not only of whole texts, but of parts as well)
                puts that relationship in constant question.

                Mike Grondin
              • Peter.Hofrichter
                ... there are old observations that in many obvious parallels between John and the Synoptics the direction of dependance surprisingly goes not from the
                Message 7 of 9 , Feb 19, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Am 19.02.2004 um 17:29 schrieb Mike Grondin:

                  > --- Peter.Hofrichter wrote:
                  >> Let us speak about John!
                  >
                  > Fine with me. For starters, can you give some indication of at least
                  > the major positions as to what was in early John and what wasn't?
                  > We had been talking about chapter 7, for example. Would that be
                  > regarded by most early-daters as part of early John? Or only some
                  > of them?


                  there are old observations that in many obvious parallels between John
                  and the Synoptics the direction of dependance surprisingly goes not
                  from the synoptics to John but from John to the Synoptics. The logic is
                  clear: If there are literal relations and John is not depending from
                  the Synoptics then the Synoptics seem to depend on John. Most
                  early-daters agree that Luke has litteraly used "John". Probably less
                  are willing to agree that already Mark is based on "John" and also
                  Matthew has used him in single cases. There are "early daters", who
                  admit only the canonical "John" as a whole, others think that "John"
                  has had a development. I can speak only for myself. I think that
                  already Mark is based on "John" and that the development of "John" is
                  mirrored step by step in its being used by the authors of the synoptic
                  Gospels. There might have been a development even before that, but
                  there is little hope for objective criteria for a "Ur-John". What can
                  clearly be observed is, to what extend "John" was used by those who
                  followed him: It is obvious that all synoptists show no what so ever
                  parallels to the farwell sermons of the chapters Jn 15-17. Therefore
                  these chapters might have been added only after the composition of the
                  Gospel of Luke. It is also obvious that Mark may have known John only
                  in its extend till to where Jesus appears to Mary of Magdala because he
                  ends his own Gospel originally with his parallel of the appearance of
                  Jesus before the women. As to Jn 7,27.41f there is no evidence of a
                  direct parallel, but it seems to have been already part of "John"
                  before Mark and negatively used by Mark (Mk 35-37a) and positively by
                  Matthew, because this may be his source of Mt 1,20; 2,1 etc. This is at
                  least my opinion.

                  > For those of us outside the early-daters circles, it can be
                  > as confusing as Ur-Mark, and then after awhile one throws up one's
                  > hands and just says, "How can one deal with a hypothetical object
                  > that keeps changing, depending on who's talking about it? An object
                  > that seemingly can never be defined with any widely-agreed
                  > specificity?" Intertextual analysis requires a certain relative
                  > fixity to the objects in question, but the never-ending questions of
                  > chronological order (not only of whole texts, but of parts as well)
                  > puts that relationship in constant question.

                  Of course, there is no fixity except in the obvious parallel pericopes
                  in the different steps of development. But this is the major part of
                  the text.

                  Peter Hofrichter








                  >
                  > Mike Grondin
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > 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
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Bob Schacht
                  ... One way to approach this is to look at what the Jesus Seminar wrote about the sources of Mark (which, after compiling, they then ignore.) So, from The Five
                  Message 8 of 9 , Feb 19, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 08:39 PM 2/19/2004 +0100, Peter.Hofrichter wrote:

                    >Am 19.02.2004 um 17:29 schrieb Mike Grondin:
                    >
                    > >... For starters, can you give some indication of at least
                    > > the major positions as to what was in early John and what wasn't?
                    > > We had been talking about chapter 7, for example. Would that be
                    > > regarded by most early-daters as part of early John? Or only some
                    > > of them?
                    >
                    >
                    >... I think that already Mark is based on "John" and that the development
                    >of "John" is
                    >mirrored step by step in its being used by the authors of the synoptic
                    >Gospels. There might have been a development even before that, but
                    >there is little hope for objective criteria for a "Ur-John". ...


                    One way to approach this is to look at what the Jesus Seminar wrote about
                    the sources of Mark (which, after compiling, they then ignore.) So, from
                    The Five Gospels, I find the following:

                    Passages in Mark in which the source listed includes John
                    2:1-12
                    6:4
                    6:35-44
                    6:47-52
                    8:35
                    11:15-17
                    11:24
                    14:3-9
                    14:27-31
                    14:43-50
                    15:2


                    There are plenty of other sources where we're invited to compare passages
                    from John as a possible source (passages cited as "Cf." under "Source").
                    There are also a number of passages citing the Edgerton Gospel as a source.

                    The Jesus Seminar favored an early Signs Gospel that it dates to the decade
                    prior to Mark

                    Bob

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Peter.Hofrichter
                    ... I could identify 51 places or subjects where John seems to be the source of Mark. I copied the following list from the Contents of my book Modell und
                    Message 9 of 9 , Feb 20, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Am 20.02.2004 um 00:44 schrieb Bob Schacht:

                      >
                      > Passages in Mark in which the source listed includes John
                      > 2:1-12
                      > 6:4
                      > 6:35-44
                      > 6:47-52
                      > 8:35
                      > 11:15-17
                      > 11:24
                      > 14:3-9
                      > 14:27-31
                      > 14:43-50
                      > 15:2

                      I could identify 51 places or subjects where John seems to be the
                      source of Mark. I copied the following list from the "Contents" of my
                      book "Modell und Vorlage der Synoptiker - Das vorredaktionelle
                      Johannesevangelium", Hildesheim (Olms) 2002, - unfortunately not with
                      numbers of chapter and verses, but only with subjects:

                      1. Der Logos 35
                      2. Der Gesandte 36
                      3. Taeuferzeugnis und Taufe Jesu 37
                      4. Die ersten Jünger 38
                      5. Mutter und Brueder Jesu 40
                      6. Tempelreinigung 41
                      7. Einleitung einer Frage: Wiedergeburt bzw. Kaisersteuer 42
                      8. Der Bräutigam 43
                      9. Jesus geht nach Galilaea 44
                      10. Der Prophet gilt nichts in seiner Vaterstadt 44
                      11. Fieberheilung in Kafarnaum 44
                      12. Heilung eines Lahmen 45
                      13. Speisungsgeschichte 46
                      14. Seewandel 51
                      15. Zeichenforderung 53
                      16. Petrusbekenntnis 53
                      17. Den Tod nicht kosten 54
                      18. Sehen und doch nicht sehen 1 55
                      19. Hirt und Schafe 55
                      20. Tötungsbeschluss 56
                      21. Betanien 56
                      22. Einzug in Jerusalem 58
                      23. Wer sein Leben liebt 59
                      24. Dienen 59
                      25. Todesangst 60
                      26. Himmelsstimme 60
                      27. Sehen und doch nicht sehen 2 61
                      28. Wer mich aufnimmt 62
                      29. Abschiedsmahl und Verräter 62
                      30. Vorhersage der Verleugnung des Petrus 64
                      31. Gebet 65
                      32. Der Geist wird euch lehren 65
                      33. Steht auf, gehen wir! 65
                      34. Gefangennahme 66
                      35. Kelchwort 66
                      36. Verleugnung des Petrus 1 67
                      37. Verhör durch Hannas 68
                      38. Verleugnung des Petrus 2 69
                      39. Verhör durch Pilatus 71
                      40. Barabbas 71
                      41. Geisselung und Dornenkrönung 72
                      42. Freigabe zur Kreuzigung 73
                      43. Kreuzigung 75
                      44. Verteilung der Kleider 76
                      45. Frauen unter dem Kreuz 77
                      46. Essig und Jesu Tod 79
                      47. Josef von Arimathäa 80
                      48. Grablegung 81
                      49. Frauen beim Grab 82
                      50. Gegenläufige Abhängigkeit: Maria Magdalena informiert
                      Petrus und die / den (anderen) Jünger 83
                      51./52. Erscheinung von (Engeln und) Jesus

                      Peter

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