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

Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31

Expand Messages
  • Bill Bullin
    ... *The Ruling ... Bill: As in the Israeli historian and papyrologist, Victor Tcherikover, *Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews*, (1966)? Incidentally,
    Message 1 of 22 , May 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > > 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 2 of 22 , May 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 22 , May 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 22 , May 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 22 , May 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              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.