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

Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31

Expand Messages
  • Martin Edwards
    ... One almost ... to the ... the light ... The ruling class had been Hellenistic in outlook since the Seleucid period. A likely source of the insistence of
    Message 1 of 22 , May 1, 2004
      --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bullin"
      <bill.bullin@u...> wrote:
      >
      One almost
      > ludicrous notion is that they were Jewish-Greek trained and had been
      to the
      > gym! A far more serious point relates to the Shema and the Johannine
      > emphasis on love, incidentally cropping up in 1 Peter as well as Romans
      > since JM was associated with the ministry of both; the more so in
      the light
      > of Tom Wright's work on 1 Cor 8:6.
      >
      > If it is possible to see more of your line of thinking, I would be most
      > grateful.
      >
      > Bill

      The ruling class had been Hellenistic in outlook since the Seleucid
      period. A likely source of the insistence of the "Sadducees" on the
      written Torah alone is to minimize the burden of ritual observance.
      On the other hand, even if a rich young man had just come from the
      gym, he would probably have put something on.

      Martin Edwards BA(UEA) PGCE(Hull) RT(England and Wales)
      No current institution
    • Bill Bullin
      ... been ... Johannine ... light ... Hello Martin. I suspect our trains of thought are passing each other a bit. The most I was saying, almost too embarrassed
      Message 2 of 22 , May 2, 2004
        > One almost ludicrous notion is that they were Jewish-Greek trained and had
        been
        > to the gym! A far more serious point relates to the Shema and the
        Johannine
        > > emphasis on love, incidentally cropping up in 1 Peter as well as Romans
        > > since JM was associated with the ministry of both; the more so in the
        light
        > > of Tom Wright's work on 1 Cor 8:6.

        > The ruling class had been Hellenistic in outlook since the Seleucid
        > period. A likely source of the insistence of the "Sadducees" on the
        > written Torah alone is to minimize the burden of ritual observance.
        > On the other hand, even if a rich young man had just come from the
        > gym, he would probably have put something on.
        >
        > Martin Edwards BA(UEA) PGCE(Hull) RT(England and Wales)
        >
        Hello Martin. I suspect our trains of thought are passing each other a bit.
        The most I was saying, almost too embarrassed to say really, was that for
        anyone who already posits a connection between the BD, the rich young ruler
        and the fleeing youth, (and some make a connection between John Mark and the
        latter two), is that *running* is a verbal common denominator; in terms of
        the youth he was pretty niffty on his feet. I have no reason to consider him
        merely a piece of symbolic fiction, esp. in Mark. It therefore seems most
        reasonable that he had followed the apostolic group and Jesus to the garden
        from the meal. The night would have been warm, he was minimally clad but not
        'indescent' according to accepted standards of piety, he may have made a
        split-second decision to follow and wasn't expecting to get involved. That
        he fled naked was merely incidental to escaping, no more.

        What I understand you to be saying is that priestly Jews of the ruling class
        of the Sadducees may well have participated in the gymnasium. My comment
        about the style of appraoch of the rich young ruler was not that he ran up
        naked, no, simply that the evangelist notes that he ran up; almost as if,
        presuming for an instance that he was John Mark, that there was something of
        a familiar comment, John Mark is a runner, hence runner, gym, a Greek
        educated Jew. Well, I admit this is not mrely historical thin ice, it is
        walking on water. My more serious point is the importance of this 'rich
        young ruler' (harmonising badly again). His nearness to the Kingdom,
        compared even with the disciples who were almost 'kingdom blind'; Jesus'
        love for him and his enthusiasm not only for the Torah and the Shema but
        also for the neighbour, in theory. It is but a small step from here to love
        'one another' but a million miles when faced with the radical challenge to
        sell, give, and follow.

        It is so tempting to harmonise because it is so, so romantic, (almost a
        Greek romance), to see this guy as the fleeing youth and the BD. But just as
        the historical mind should not be seduced by romance, neither is it a
        sufficient reason to reject historical possibilities. I am much more
        interested in youthfulness as a common theme and Josephian typology in the
        mind of Jesus, particularly at the last supper. Bread and wine, the baker
        and the butler. Joseph and Benjamin, Jesus and the youthful BD. The upper
        room seems to be full of strutting cocks crowing and Jesus is in anguish. He
        can take this crowing babble. He gets up, fills a bowl and shames them. No
        one wants to be first anymore. The position of honour falls to the least,
        the wee laddie running to and fro with the food; the wipper snapper. The
        last is elevated to first. The conversation turns blacker. Even now Peter is
        at it: "Ask him who it is, BD, nudge nudge, wink wink." And then a second
        time, "Not me Lord....". And in anguish and life saving surgery Jesus
        finally cuts to the heart of Petrine infantile psychology with his eyes and
        his tongue: "Dry up you strutting cockrel, you won't even last the night
        out. While you have been crowing I have been praying for you. But for the
        grace of God you and Judas, are merely the butler and the baker, wheras I
        must be both, both for you all. "You run: I hang". Let us depart:...".

        Well, this is the romantic, ecentric form of my own explorations of the last
        supper at present. But the status of the BD, if he was the youngest and
        least at the supper, would have been vastly elevated when the Jerusalem
        cockerels broke into the dawn chorus and Peter broke down; after the BD had
        taken his place in the front row as the lights went out in full 'Mel Gibson
        like' close up, and after the dust had settled and witnesses and testimony
        took pride of place.

        But I am a bit worried that I may have entirely missed your historical point
        which I suspect may be linked to Martin Goodman and his *The Ruling Class of
        Judea*, (1987).

        Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
      • Martin Edwards
        ... historical point ... Class of ... Tcherikover: Hellenism and the Jews. Regards, Mart.
        Message 3 of 22 , May 3, 2004
          --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bullin"
          <bill.bullin@u...> wrote:

          >
          > But I am a bit worried that I may have entirely missed your
          historical point
          > which I suspect may be linked to Martin Goodman and his *The Ruling
          Class of
          > Judea*, (1987).
          >
          > Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).

          Tcherikover: Hellenism and the Jews.

          Regards,
          Mart.
        • Bill Bullin
          ... *The Ruling ... Bill: As in the Israeli historian and papyrologist, Victor Tcherikover, *Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews*, (1966)? Incidentally,
          Message 4 of 22 , May 4, 2004
            > > But I am a bit worried that I may have entirely missed your
            > historical point which I suspect may be linked to Martin Goodman and his
            *The Ruling
            > Class of Judea*, (1987).
            > >
            > > Bill Bullin
            >
            > Tcherikover: Hellenism and the Jews.
            >
            > Regards,
            > Mart.

            Bill: As in the Israeli historian and papyrologist, Victor Tcherikover,
            *Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews*, (1966)?
            Incidentally, there is a potential economic connecting web linking 1 John
            3:17, Mark 12: 33-34, Luke 18:30, Mark 10:30, Luke 10:12, Mark 10:22 and
            //'s. Luke 22:26 is interesting too, since one might expect the contrast
            with the 'greatest' would be the 'least' not the youngest; the contrast is
            the more so if it is postulated that Peter was the oldest and therefore
            assumed the role of leadership Strangely too the Lucan Jesus seems to be
            referring to the least in the same breath as mentioning the one who serves
            tables. Was the one serving elevated to the place of honour that we know was
            occupied by the BD? Judas appears to have departed having been offered the
            bread but before the wine was distributed. On my Josephian hypothesis, Judas
            shares in the fate of the baker but not in the fate of the butler. Jesus and
            the others.

            For those who postulate John Mark as the BD, it is as well to make the point
            explicitly by paraphrasing Acts; "After some days Paul said to Barnabas,
            'Come, let us return and visit the believers in every city where we
            proclaimed the word of the Lord and see how they are doing'. Barnabas wanted
            to take with them the BD But Paul decided not to take with them one who had
            deserted / withdrew from (APOSTANTA) them in Pamphilia and had not
            accompanied them in the work. The disagreement became so sharp that they
            parted company; Mark took the Beloved Disciple away with him and sailed away
            to Cyprus." Acts 15:36-39. Paul's objection to Mark may relate to him not
            having visited the cities they talked of revisting, rather than his previous
            withdrawl per se.

            Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
          • Bill Bullin
            ... Bill Bullin comments: According to Raymond Brown, AB Vol. I (1971), 512-513, PISTEUEIN is used 98 times in the Fourth Gospel. However of these 98 examples
            Message 5 of 22 , May 5, 2004
              Mark Matso wrote:

              > But dating doesn't' really get at the central issue of the purpose of
              > the 4G, and the way that "to believe" is used in the gospel (the most
              > uses of the verb in the NT, around 85 times!).
              >
              Bill Bullin comments:

              According to Raymond Brown, AB Vol. I (1971), 512-513, PISTEUEIN is used 98
              times in the Fourth Gospel. However of these 98 examples , 36 (6 x 6) use
              the preposition EIS after PISTEUEIN, 'believe into'. In the whole Johannine
              corpus this construction occurs 37 times of which 31 relate to Jesus. This
              strongly parallels the concept of *baptism into* the Name or into Jesus.
              Brown (513) adds: "Although there are various stages in the development of
              faith..., in general John uses PISTEUEIN EIS for true, salvic faith."

              Later though he also tells us: "It is worthy of note that in the Gospel most
              of the uses of PISTEUEIN (74 out of 98), occur in chs i-xii or the Book of
              Signs. This division of frequency agrees with the thesis that in the Book
              of Signs Jesus is presenting to men the choice of believing, while in the
              Gospel of Glory (chs xiii xx) he is speaking to those who already believe
              and, thus, in presuming faith. It is true that in xiv 10 Jesus decries the
              inadequacy of the faith of the disciples and that he tries to increase their
              commitment (xiv), but the groundwork of faith has been laid. The emphasis on
              the response of the disciples in the Book of Glory is in terms of love which
              is the perfection of the commitment of the believer," 513.

              The 36 examples of PISTEUEIN EIS may represent something of a schema uniting
              the whole document (bearing in mind the distribution of the 144 'pater's as
              noted by Dunn), whilst the 74 examples may be a sub schema in chs 1-12, (73
              the gematria of CHOKMAH is related to 74 through the first prime number
              magic square where 37 is the central square, of the 8 remaining sub-squares
              another is 73 whilst opposite squares equal 74. This prime number square
              appears to be the schema underlying Qoholeth, if A.G. Wright's numerical
              analysis is accepted). It is tempting to search for two 'lost' examples of
              PISTEUEIN in the Johannine variants, since that would give a total of 100
              (10 x 10), dividing into 36 (6 x 6) examples of PISTEUEIN EIS leaving a
              remainder of 64 (8 x 8). As it is, 98 less 74 leaves 24 which is itself a
              priestly number relating to the annual rotation of priestly divisions in the
              temple.

              Are these figures significant and if so what did they mean to the Evangelist
              and those who add their witness to his? And is Brown's acceptance of a
              division into a Book of Signs and a Book of Glory significant in respect of
              the question originally posed concerning John 20:21 and the responses so far
              discussed. Hmmm. Food for thought.

              Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
            • geomelick@AOL.com
              Bill: According to my reconstruction of the Last Supper, Mark, as the youngest of the disciples, was washing the disciples feet. When the controversy
              Message 6 of 22 , May 5, 2004
                Bill:

                According to my reconstruction of the Last Supper, Mark, as the youngest of
                the disciples, was washing the disciples' feet. When the controversy occurred,
                Jesus took over the foot washing duties, the greatest becoming as the
                youngest. He then placed Mark at his side, saying "Whoever receives this child in my
                name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me" (Luke
                9:48). The author or redactor reported this in slightly changed form in John
                13.20 This is how Mark came to be lying close to the breast of Jesus.

                George Melick MA
                Drexel University, Retired


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • McGrath, James
                An interesting suggestion, but I m probably not alone in desiring more information. What evidence do you have that John Mark was present at this meal, was the
                Message 7 of 22 , May 5, 2004
                  An interesting suggestion, but I'm probably not alone in desiring more
                  information. What evidence do you have that John Mark was present at
                  this meal, was the youngest of the disciples, and perhaps most
                  importantly, that although disciples could not be asked to untie their
                  teacher's sandals, they could be given the duty of footwashing?

                  Looking forward to hearing more about your interesting reconstruction!

                  James McGrath



                  *****************************
                  Dr. James F. McGrath
                  Assistant Professor of Religion
                  Butler University, Indianapolis
                  http://religion.sytes.net
                  *****************************



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: geomelick@... [mailto:geomelick@...]
                  Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:28 AM
                  To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31


                  Bill:

                  According to my reconstruction of the Last Supper, Mark, as the youngest
                  of
                  the disciples, was washing the disciples' feet. When the controversy
                  occurred,
                  Jesus took over the foot washing duties, the greatest becoming as the
                  youngest. He then placed Mark at his side, saying "Whoever receives
                  this child in my
                  name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me"
                  (Luke
                  9:48). The author or redactor reported this in slightly changed form in
                  John
                  13.20 This is how Mark came to be lying close to the breast of Jesus.

                  George Melick MA
                  Drexel University, Retired


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                  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
                • geomelick@AOL.com
                  James: My hypothesis is based on two suggestions about Mark. The first is that he was the BD and the second is that he was the son of Simon Peter. The latter
                  Message 8 of 22 , May 6, 2004
                    James:

                    My hypothesis is based on two suggestions about Mark. The first is that he
                    was the BD and the second is that he was the son of Simon Peter. The latter
                    suggestion has a long history. In commenting on 1 Peter 5:13 Henry Alford wrote
                    that Mark was "perhaps the actual son of St. Peter, bearing this name." For
                    this view he cited Oecumenius and Bengel. According to Swete, ho huios mou in
                    this verse does not involve spiritual relationship of the kind expressed by
                    teknon in Paul's letters. In commenting on this verse William Barclay wrote
                    that "Mark might quite well be literally Peter's son." In the Encyclopedia
                    Americana F. C. Grant wrote that the reference "would be more natural if the
                    relationship was physical as well as spiritual." What surprises me is that no one
                    else to my knowledge has tried connecting these two suggestions.

                    As a young boy, Mark would have stayed close to his father when away from
                    Capernaum and thus would have been present at the meal although not initially at
                    the table. According to Richardson, "It would be the duty of the youngest
                    member of the group of disciples attached to a rabbi to perform such acts of
                    menial service as foot-washing."

                    My most recent SBL paper is posted on my website www.beloveddisciple.net, and
                    an earlier paper presented at a national SBL meeting is on
                    www.fourthgospel.com. Go to unpublished papers and click on "M".

                    George Melick, MA
                    Drexel University (Retired)


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