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

Re: [John_Lit] John 21

Expand Messages
  • Bill Bullin
    ... Hello George You may well be right about 4G:21 and Luke 5: 1-11 being parrallels without dependence. But the solution could easily be reversed: J. A. T.
    Message 1 of 20 , May 27, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > Bill:
      >
      > In my book I followed the suggestion of Garvie that Luke 5:1-11 is
      > the proper context for the narrative in John 21 (page 18). R. E.
      > Brown concluded that independently Luke and John have preserved
      > variant forms of the same story.
      >
      > My argument is that the author of John 21 mistook the account in
      > Mark's notes of the call of Peter to be a post-resurrection
      > appearance. When Jesus told Peter that the BD must remain until he
      > returns, it meant only that Mark could not accompany his father.
      > This misunderstanding led to the belief that the BD would not die
      > until Jesus came again which led to a crisis when Mark died.
      >
      > I delivered a paper before the Society for Biblical Literature on
      > this subject, which I hope to have published.
      >
      > George
      >
      Hello George

      You may well be right about 4G:21 and Luke 5: 1-11 being parrallels without
      dependence. But the solution could easily be reversed:

      J. A. T. Robinson, Priority (1985), 16 n. 49 comments:

      "Thus, on the story of the miraculous draft of fishes in Luke 5 and John 21,
      Fortna writes (Gospel of Signs, 97ff.): 'Bultmann
      holda that in the tradition the Easter element was predominant and that it
      is Luke who has artificially inserted it into the Galilean ministry of
      Jesus...From the forgoing, however, it appears that the story is basically a
      miracle like any other during Jesus' life-time and it is John who has made
      it into an Easter story.' Robinson concludes: "Who is to say which is
      right? Both would seem to me to be about equally arbitrary."

      Robinson's conclusion seems fair. F. F. Bruce notes that only John uses the
      name 'Tiberias'. C.K. Barrett, (2nd 1978), 576ff, does not consider the
      vocabulary and style of 21: 1-14 demands a different hand but views it as a
      clumsy addition if made by the same writer. He also notes unevenness, the
      fishermens' fish are not used, and three different words are used for fish
      in different parts of the narrative: vs.5, PROSPHAGION (a rare word); vs. 6
      & 8, ICTHUWN (also in multiplication miracle of Mark 6:41; Matthew 14:19; &
      Luke 9:13), and vs. 13, OPSARION (also used in the multiplication in John
      6:9); see also G. of T. logion 8 which is more Johannine than Lucan with
      its reference to the wise fisherman. Barrett cites P. M. Benoit, II, 274 to
      the effect that Luke was dependent on John rather than vice versa but
      Barrett takes the view that the two may well be independent, as you do.

      The beginning of John 21 "After these things...", seems to completely
      contradict the (all male) witness of 1 Cor. 15:5, i.e. that the first
      appearance was to Peter, but if Peter had travelled with the BD, Thomas etc.
      to Galilee to explain to Galilean disciples the rumours of the women and the
      empty tomb, then the return to fishing and despondency of the men fits
      perfectly and I Cor. refers to the first appearance to Peter and to men,
      confirmed by Matthew. John 20:19 refers to an appearance to women, Thomas
      was in Galilee. Luke 24:13 seems to contradict this reconstruction unless
      24:13 does not relate to 24:12 which is not evident. John 21:14 enumerates
      this as the third appearance to disciples which would give an appearance to
      Mary, an appearance to the women disciples, and now an appearance to Peter.

      I certainly do not think, and we seem to share this view, that 4G was
      *dependent* on Luke. If anything, and this is rather idiosyncratic, I think
      4G with chapter 21 up to 19, less the gloss, was 'published' before Luke
      added Mark (perhaps Papias's 'Matthew') to his proto-Luke. I think Luke in
      final form may have been published well after Acts which I date around 62
      CE. If canonical Mark actually began life as Papias' 'Matthew', it would
      unite Marcan Priority with Papias' testimony. Mark seems to me to have lost
      its conclusion which John 21: 1-19 knew and somehow seems to preserve,
      though not in 'Mark's' exact vocabulary, (4G jumps suddenly from Jerusalem
      to Galilee). Notice how well it dovetails with Mark 14:28 and 16:7. In
      contrast Luke preserves tradition reasonably accurately but has no idea of
      order so he begins with the general EGENETO in 5:1.

      Somehow the Gospels and their designations became confused before our
      sub-apostolic witnesses kick in. I posit a fault line breaking the chain of
      oral testimony following the persecutions of Nero and the subsequent
      devastations of the Jewish War and its aftermarth as we agree in respect of
      4G and John Mark; the earlier 4G is, the easier such a lost chain of
      testimony is to account for.

      I agree with your point about the BD's sharp eyes being the first to
      recognise Jesus, the distance between boat and land allowing a voice to be
      heard but not immediately recognised but clarity of sight to be an issue
      dividing the young from the middle-aged.

      The gloss of vs. 19 and 20 through to 25 is a Johannine addition to the
      preserved Marcan conclusion. Peter's reaction, leaping from the boat, fits
      with a post-resurrection appearance as does Peter's Lucan confession, Peter
      having fallen to his knees: "Depart from me for I am a sinful man" ~ (5:8)
      makes perfect sense as a post-denial confession cf. Mark 14:66-72, a major
      Marcan issue, leading naturally in to the three questions and three
      confessions of love with a Johannine switch from fish to Johannine sheep.
      The fish though become 153, not only a triangle number ( 1+2+3 etc ..+ 17),
      but the 17th triangle number, relating to the well attested reduced value of
      the divine Name YHWH by gematria where Y = 1 and not 10: (1+5+6+5=17) and
      quite possibly to the outpouring of a fish filled river flowing from the
      Temple to the Dead Sea (Ezekiel 47:10), a Johannine type Pentecost avoiding
      direct reference to the Temple calendar; see J. A. Emerton JTS 9, (1958),
      86-89; 11 (1960), 335f; and P.R. Ackroyd, JTS 10, (1959), 49.

      "He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old...", but the 153
      fish Name him, giving the Name above all Names, that at the Name of Jesus
      every knee should bend..."; "But when Simon Peter saw it he fell down at
      Jesus knees, saying...".

      Warmest regards

      Bill Bullin
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: Bill Bullin To: Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:18 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
      Message 2 of 20 , May 27, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Bill Bullin" <bill.bullin@...>
        To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:18 AM
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21


        > I certainly do not think, and we seem to share this view, that 4G was
        > *dependent* on Luke. If anything, and this is rather idiosyncratic, I
        think
        > 4G with chapter 21 up to 19, less the gloss, was 'published' before Luke
        > added Mark (perhaps Papias's 'Matthew') to his proto-Luke. I think Luke in
        > final form may have been published well after Acts which I date around 62
        > CE. If canonical Mark actually began life as Papias' 'Matthew', it would
        > unite Marcan Priority with Papias' testimony. Mark seems to me to have
        lost
        > its conclusion which John 21: 1-19 knew and somehow seems to preserve,


        Perhaps that is because John 21 is the missing chapter of Mark removed and
        appended to John in an attempt to soften the disparities between the two
        communities. Papias' Matthew refers to the Aramaic "Gospel of the Hebrews."

        Jack
      • Bob Schacht
        ... Is there any support for this allegation based on such standard literary tools as stylistic analysis, vocabulary, etc? That is, apart from the subject
        Message 3 of 20 , May 27, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          At 09:32 AM 5/27/2004 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
          >----- Original Message -----
          >From: "Bill Bullin" <bill.bullin@...>
          >To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
          >Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:18 AM
          >Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21
          >
          >
          > > ... Mark seems to me to have lost
          > > its conclusion which John 21: 1-19 knew and somehow seems to preserve,
          >
          >
          >Perhaps that is because John 21 is the missing chapter of Mark removed and
          >appended to John in an attempt to soften the disparities between the two
          >communities.

          Is there any support for this allegation based on such standard literary
          tools as stylistic analysis, vocabulary, etc? That is, apart from the
          subject matter appearing to be a nice fit, can John 21 be shown to bear
          Markan finger prints, and to NOT have Johannine fingerprints?

          Bob
          Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D., Research Associate
          Adjunct Faculty, Department of Anthropology
          Northern Arizona University
          Flagstaff, AZ
          (928) 527-4002



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Bill Bullin
          ... Hebrews. ... Yes indeed Jack, Gospel of the Hebrews , but who were these Hebrews and were they distinct from the Jews ? In its present form, 4G 21
          Message 4 of 20 , May 27, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            > Perhaps that is because John 21 is the missing chapter of Mark removed and
            > appended to John in an attempt to soften the disparities between the two
            > communities. Papias' Matthew refers to the Aramaic "Gospel of the
            Hebrews."
            >
            > Jack
            >

            Yes indeed Jack, 'Gospel of the Hebrews', but who were these 'Hebrews' and
            were they distinct from 'the Jews'?

            In its present form, 4G 21 does not seem linguistically very Marcan. Where
            are all those KAIs? It seems to me to have had a Johannine 'once over'. We
            might even be looking at an ur-Markus. I wonder if Bauckham's identified
            accomodations for 'readers / hearers of Mark' indicate knowledge of
            canonical Mark or merely of an ur-Markus? But while we are talking about
            relationships between the circles of Mark and John, can I float the
            following?

            On 'the Jews' in John's Gospel, note that the Aramaic Targum
            Yerushalmi, states:

            "Judah, your brethren shall praise you and it is through your name they
            shall be called Jews, .You delivered Joseph my son from his murderers [lit.
            Yehudah and Yehudayya]. The Targum Onkelos [11-12] includes the following:
            His garment shall be of a rich purple, and his coat in fine wool tinged with
            scarlet and many colours. His mountains shall be reddened with his
            vineyards, his vine presses overflow. His valleys shall be whitened with
            wheat and flocks of sheep and goats".

            Here with Joseph, we seem to have bread and wine imagary, (I am the bread of
            life; I am
            the true vine); a reference to a coat of many colours as the LXX translates
            the references to Joseph's coat; perhaps interpreted by the primirive church
            as the multi-coloured
            Temple Curtain mentioned in Mark 15:38: "And the curtain of the temple was
            torn in two, from top to bottom." However, 'John' writing for readers of
            'Mark', implies a contrast between the curtain and the seamless tunic: 'now
            the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top', John 19:23. What a
            laboured description for an incidental point but is anything incidental
            rather than symbolic in 4G? ANWTHEN (top), is used in both 'Mark' and
            'John'. Furthermore, Jesus' garments are divided into four like the colours
            of the temple curtain.

            It is a long while since I read the Bauckham article but I note at the end
            that I have scrawled:

            "The key issue is what "John" did about "Mark's ending!"

            Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... From: Bob Schacht To: Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
            Message 5 of 20 , May 27, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Bob Schacht" <bobschacht@...>
              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:36 AM
              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21: Missing chapter of Mark?


              > At 09:32 AM 5/27/2004 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
              > >----- Original Message -----
              > >From: "Bill Bullin" <bill.bullin@...>
              > >To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
              > >Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:18 AM
              > >Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21
              > >
              > >
              > > > ... Mark seems to me to have lost
              > > > its conclusion which John 21: 1-19 knew and somehow seems to preserve,
              > >
              > >
              > >Perhaps that is because John 21 is the missing chapter of Mark removed
              and
              > >appended to John in an attempt to soften the disparities between the two
              > >communities.
              >
              > Is there any support for this allegation based on such standard literary
              > tools as stylistic analysis, vocabulary, etc? That is, apart from the
              > subject matter appearing to be a nice fit, can John 21 be shown to bear
              > Markan finger prints, and to NOT have Johannine fingerprints?


              I became suspicious that John 21 was the missing ending of Mark many years
              ago based on content and ch. 21's disharmony with 4G and harmony with Mark.
              What caught my attention while studying the style of Mark was the author's
              proclivity for bracketing. The thrice denial of Mark 14:30, 72 requires,
              IMO, the thrice love at John 21:15-17 and Peter as the "new shepherd" ("feed
              my sheep") conforms to Mark. I was surprised when I saw Evan Powell's "The
              Unfinished Gospel" come out in 1994 that is about this very hypothesis. I
              could then comfort myself that I at least thought of it independently but
              Powell does a great job in presenting the evidence. Although the chapter
              has been totally reworked by the Johannine school, I think there is still
              enough of Mark to be found, like John 21:20 epistrafeis de o petros
              blepei... "turned" used twice by Mark but none in John 1 thru 20. John 1-20
              makes no mention of the disciples as fishermen, a theme that originates in
              Mark yet John 21 presents the disciples as such. The sons of Zebedee,
              absent in John 1-20 and prominent in the synoptic tradition, are mentioned
              in John 21:2.
              Sean Freyne in "Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels" (1988) discusses the Markan
              symbology of the Galilee as the antithesis to Jerusalem and the "launching
              pad" of Jesus' ministry where Jesus is to appear after the resurrection.
              John 21 as the ending of Mark would be the first appearance after the
              resurrection where the Johannine editor makes it the 3rd to conform with the
              last chapter of John (20). Powell's case is very convincing that 4G21 is
              the missing ending of Mark appended to 4G to soften the polemic against
              Peter. The book is a great read.

              Jack
            • Bill Bullin
              Bill Bullin ... Jack Kilmon ... and ... Bob Schacht ... Could I confine myself to one little non-standard observation? Mark 14: 66-73 is a detail rich unit of
              Message 6 of 20 , May 28, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Bill Bullin
                > > > ... Mark seems to me to have lost
                > > > its conclusion which John 21: 1-19 knew and somehow seems to preserve,
                Jack Kilmon
                > >Perhaps that is because John 21 is the missing chapter of Mark removed
                and
                > >appended to John in an attempt to soften the disparities between the two
                > >communities.

                Bob Schacht

                > Is there any support for this allegation based on such standard literary
                > tools as stylistic analysis, vocabulary, etc? That is, apart from the
                > subject matter appearing to be a nice fit, can John 21 be shown to bear
                > Markan finger prints, and to NOT have Johannine fingerprints?
                >
                Could I confine myself to one little non-standard observation?
                Mark 14: 66-73 is a detail rich unit of narrative, which, if removed, would
                not interupt the flow of the document unduly.
                However if it were to be removed the prediction of Peter's denial (14:27-31)
                would be left hanging. If Mark ended at Mark 16:8, Peter's restoration would
                be left hanging in a similar way.

                My very non-standard comment is this, the unit is composed of 125 Greek
                words, 125 being a cubic number (5x5x5). This may be a complete coincidence
                or it may point to a crafted composition indicating something significant
                about the mindset of the composer and readers / hearers. The most important
                cube in Judaism or Judahism was the Holy of Holies (cf. also Rev. 21:10-17)
                the only place where the divine Name could be spoken, and then only on the
                Day of Atonement by the High Priest. It is as if Peter, in denying Jesus,
                was denying him with curses and an oath in the divine presence, the very
                'holy of holies', bearing in mind that the torn flesh of Jesus appears to be
                linked with the torn veil in the temple, (15:38). If we are not dealing with
                a mere coincidence, the Marcan narrative absolutely demands a restoration
                and in Galilee (14:28; 16:7).

                This interpretation posits a very high christology, almost as high as the
                suggestion that Mark 4:13-20 is composed of two halves each of 73 Greek
                words because 73 is the gematriah of CHOKMAH (Wisdom), and that the word
                LOGOS replaces SPOROS four times in the first half and four times in the
                second half, eight times in all or (2x2x2). But what on earth could connect
                wisdom, divine Messianic seed, and a logos Christology? That the parrallel
                to Mark 4:13-20 in Canonical Matthew (13:18-23), may be divided into two
                halves, each of 64 Greek words, (4x4x4=64) is another odd coincidence, but
                surely nothing more, surely not?

                I appreciate these comments may seem wearisome, even tedious but, I submit,
                not quite as tedious as counting 153 fishes within minutes of encountering
                someone who had been publicy crucified only days ago. Cool or what?! Of
                course 153 may be a symbolic triangle number, the 17th, but what might be
                the significance of 17 (Y = 1, H = 5, W = 6, H = 5)? And could Emerton and
                Ackroyd have had a point with their link to Ezekiel 47:1-12?

                Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).

                PS "If the system [of gematria] is as old as it seems, and which would imply
                that Hebrew letter-numbers were invented independently of the Greek model,
                we would still have to explain why they had no use in everyday life until
                the Common Era. One plausible answer to that question would be that since
                the letters of the Hebrew alphabet acquired a sacred character very early
                on, the Jews avoided using sacred characters for profane purposes", Ifrah
                Georges, The Universal History of Numbers, Harvill, (1994, E.T. 1998), 238.

                Was priestly 'number magic' linked to christology through the divine Name
                and made public with the priesthood of all believers, (1 Peter 2: 9-10); and
                was such number magic linked to the creation Prologue of Genesis, so
                important to John 1 and so much New Testament Christology (Philippians,
                Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation)?
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... B. H. Streeter, THE FOUR GOSPELS (1924), floated this idea much earlier: The scientific guess in which I venture to indulge is that the lost end of Mark
                Message 7 of 20 , May 28, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 05:08 PM 5/27/2004 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                  >I was surprised when I saw Evan Powell's "The
                  >Unfinished Gospel" come out in 1994 that is about this very hypothesis. I
                  >could then comfort myself that I at least thought of it independently but
                  >Powell does a great job in presenting the evidence.

                  B. H. Streeter, THE FOUR GOSPELS (1924), floated this idea much earlier:

                  "The 'scientific guess' in which I venture to indulge is that the lost
                  end of Mark contained an Appearance to Mary Magdalene, followed by one
                  to Peter and others when fishing on the Lake of Galilee, and that John
                  derived his version of these incidents from the lost conclusion of Mark."
                  (p. 351, of the 2d. ed., 1926).

                  Stephen Carlson


                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                • Piet van Veldhuizen
                  ... In a discussion which is becoming a wild stream of guesses, your question is, in my humble opinion, most relevant. Now there is an interesting study in
                  Message 8 of 20 , May 28, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bob Schacht wrote:

                    >Is there any support for this allegation based on such standard literary
                    >tools as stylistic analysis, vocabulary, etc? That is, apart from the
                    >subject matter appearing to be a nice fit, can John 21 be shown to bear
                    >Markan finger prints, and to NOT have Johannine fingerprints?
                    >
                    In a discussion which is becoming a wild stream of guesses, your
                    question is, in my humble opinion, most relevant. Now there is an
                    interesting study in Johannine style and vocabulary: Eugen Ruckstuhl and
                    Peter Dschulnigg, "Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage im Johannesevangelium",
                    Freiburg 1991 - in which, if I remember correctly, John 21 is proved to
                    be thoroughly Johannine.
                    In a much simpler way, anyone can falsify the thesis (of John 21 being a
                    Markan text) quite easily: just paste John 21 into Mark on the spot
                    where it would have fit in, and read your reconstructed Markan text
                    aloud, in Greek of course. You will then hear how un-Markan John 21
                    sounds - in fact, how Johannine it sounds.
                    The tiring thing in all this debate (to me, that is) is that it moves
                    away so easily from the Greek text and its literary characteristics, as
                    a text to be read and heard and understood by the hearer, into fancy
                    theories, either about backgrounds that cannot be verified, or about the
                    text as a mysterious code.

                    Kind greetings,
                    Piet van Veldhuizen
                    (Reformed minister, just finishing a PhD thesis on John 4)
                    Rotterdam, Netherlands
                    website: http://home01.planet.nl/~veldh395 <http://home01.planet.nl/%7Eveldh395>
                    website Immanuelkerk: www.hervormdkralingen.com/immanuel <http://www.hervormdkralingen.com/immanuel>



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Bob Schacht
                    ... Thanks! This is exactly the kind of thing I was asking for. Can you give us a summary of the johannine features of John 21? Bob Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
                    Message 9 of 20 , May 28, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 03:11 PM 5/28/2004 +0200, you wrote:
                      >Bob Schacht wrote:
                      >
                      > >Is there any support for this allegation based on such standard literary
                      > >tools as stylistic analysis, vocabulary, etc? That is, apart from the
                      > >subject matter appearing to be a nice fit, can John 21 be shown to bear
                      > >Markan finger prints, and to NOT have Johannine fingerprints?
                      > >
                      >In a discussion which is becoming a wild stream of guesses, your
                      >question is, in my humble opinion, most relevant. Now there is an
                      >interesting study in Johannine style and vocabulary: Eugen Ruckstuhl and
                      >Peter Dschulnigg, "Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage im Johannesevangelium",
                      >Freiburg 1991 - in which, if I remember correctly, John 21 is proved to
                      >be thoroughly Johannine.
                      >In a much simpler way, anyone can falsify the thesis (of John 21 being a
                      >Markan text) quite easily: just paste John 21 into Mark on the spot
                      >where it would have fit in, and read your reconstructed Markan text
                      >aloud, in Greek of course. You will then hear how un-Markan John 21
                      >sounds - in fact, how Johannine it sounds.
                      >The tiring thing in all this debate (to me, that is) is that it moves
                      >away so easily from the Greek text and its literary characteristics, as
                      >a text to be read and heard and understood by the hearer, into fancy
                      >theories, either about backgrounds that cannot be verified, or about the
                      >text as a mysterious code.
                      >
                      >Kind greetings,
                      >Piet van Veldhuizen

                      Thanks! This is exactly the kind of thing I was asking for. Can you give us
                      a summary of the johannine features of John 21?

                      Bob

                      Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
                      Northern Arizona University
                      Flagstaff, AZ

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • geomelick@AOL.com
                      Bill: As you know, my theory of the composition of 4G is that it is dependent on notes that Mark wrote and is independent of the first three. My paper on the
                      Message 10 of 20 , May 28, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bill:

                        As you know, my theory of the composition of 4G is that it is dependent on
                        notes that Mark wrote and is independent of the first three. My paper on the
                        origin of 4G presented at the 1987 national meeting of the SBL in Boston can be
                        accessed at Joe Gagne's website, www.fourthgospel.com. Click on Unpublished
                        papers and then on the initial "M". I spoke to Robert Fortna at the meeting
                        and gave him a copy of the paper, but never heard from him. He told me he was
                        suspicious of documents that are not anonymous.

                        I maintain that the evident despondency in John 21 is the result of the death
                        of John, not Jesus. When they resume fishing, they toil all night without
                        success. At dawn, Mark and another boy were casting the net. I can attest to
                        this from my own experience. My children often continued to fish long after I
                        had given up. Jesus called out to them, "Children, have you any fish?"
                        Commentators try hard to explain the use of this address. The simplest explanation
                        is that he was calling out to children. Mark recognized Jesus, and told his
                        father.who swam to shore. Verses 15-18 either come from another story or were
                        composed by the evangelist. When Peter followed Jesus, he saw Mark tagging
                        along and asked Jesus, "What about Him?" In other words, can he come along?
                        Jesus said he must remain until his return. Mark turned back and probably
                        counted the fish.

                        Mark's notes were not in order. Luke was Mark's coworker and would have
                        known the context for this story. The author of 4G alone among the evangelists
                        had access to Mark's notes but was not familiar with the circumstances and
                        mistook this story for a post-resurrection appearance. After Mark's death the
                        author rewrote this account and appended it to the gospel which ended with verse
                        20:31. The saying that the BD must remain until Jesus returned had been
                        mistakenly thought to refer to the parousia and Mark's death created a crisis in the
                        Johannine community.

                        Chapter 21 needed a conclusion, and the author used the ending of Mark's
                        notes, verse 21:25.

                        George

                        George Melick, MA
                        Drexel University, Retired


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Piet van Veldhuizen
                        ... Dear George, Your presuppositions seem to be at least these: 1. Mark was Peter s son 2. Mark was fishing on the shore when the disciples were in the ship
                        Message 11 of 20 , May 28, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          geomelick@... wrote:

                          >Mark recognized Jesus, and told his
                          >father.who swam to shore. Verses 15-18 either come from another story or were
                          >composed by the evangelist. When Peter followed Jesus, he saw Mark tagging
                          >along and asked Jesus, "What about Him?" In other words, can he come along?
                          >Jesus said he must remain until his return. Mark turned back and probably
                          >counted the fish.
                          >
                          Dear George,
                          Your presuppositions seem to be at least these:
                          1. Mark was Peter's son
                          2. Mark was fishing on the shore when the disciples were in the ship
                          3. Jesus addressed Mark, not the disciples
                          4. Peter was concerned about leaving his alleged son unattended
                          5. The number of fishes in John 21 is of Markan origin
                          6. (?) Mark is the BD

                          None of these presuppositions is based in the text itself. They have to
                          be true all at the same time to have your theory work. In science, no
                          one would allow for an experiment like that.

                          Also, you seem to explain the text by proving its inadequacy. You
                          suggest that readers who have recognized the text as dealing with
                          matters of discipleship, witness and parousia, mistake a defected story
                          (about Peter looking for a baby-sit for his son Mark, who remains hidden
                          in the narrative) for a theological text. This seems to me a quite
                          destructive kind of exegesis.

                          And I wonder - if you take the historical truth of the text so
                          literally, the number of 153 fishes being the result of someone's
                          counting, how does this understanding of truth match with your literary
                          criticism, about the evangelist composing some verses or pasting them in
                          from another source?

                          Kind greetings,

                          Piet van Veldhuizen
                          Lieven de Keystraat 30
                          3067KJ Rotterdam
                          010 4219649

                          website: http://home01.planet.nl/~veldh395 <http://home01.planet.nl/%7Eveldh395>
                          website Immanuelkerk: www.hervormdkralingen.com/immanuel <http://www.hervormdkralingen.com/immanuel>



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Jack Kilmon
                          That s great, Stephen. Do you think he meant that the author of John had read Ur-Marcus and derived it from a non-truncated Mark or that he also thought
                          Message 12 of 20 , May 28, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            That's great, Stephen. Do you think he meant that the author of John had
                            read "Ur-Marcus" and derived it from a non-truncated Mark or that he also
                            thought the ending of Mark was removed and attached to John?

                            Jack

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
                            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 6:59 AM
                            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21: Missing chapter of Mark?


                            > At 05:08 PM 5/27/2004 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                            > >I was surprised when I saw Evan Powell's "The
                            > >Unfinished Gospel" come out in 1994 that is about this very hypothesis.
                            I
                            > >could then comfort myself that I at least thought of it independently but
                            > >Powell does a great job in presenting the evidence.
                            >
                            > B. H. Streeter, THE FOUR GOSPELS (1924), floated this idea much earlier:
                            >
                            > "The 'scientific guess' in which I venture to indulge is that the lost
                            > end of Mark contained an Appearance to Mary Magdalene, followed by one
                            > to Peter and others when fishing on the Lake of Galilee, and that John
                            > derived his version of these incidents from the lost conclusion of Mark."
                            > (p. 351, of the 2d. ed., 1926).
                            >
                            > Stephen Carlson
                            >
                            >
                            > --
                            > Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                            > Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
                            > "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > 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
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • Jack Kilmon
                            ... From: Piet van Veldhuizen To: Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 8:11 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
                            Message 13 of 20 , May 28, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Piet van Veldhuizen" <pi.veldhuizen@...>
                              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 8:11 AM
                              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21: Missing chapter of Mark?


                              > Bob Schacht wrote:
                              >
                              > >Is there any support for this allegation based on such standard literary
                              > >tools as stylistic analysis, vocabulary, etc? That is, apart from the
                              > >subject matter appearing to be a nice fit, can John 21 be shown to bear
                              > >Markan finger prints, and to NOT have Johannine fingerprints?
                              > >
                              > In a discussion which is becoming a wild stream of guesses, your
                              > question is, in my humble opinion, most relevant. Now there is an
                              > interesting study in Johannine style and vocabulary: Eugen Ruckstuhl and
                              > Peter Dschulnigg, "Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage im Johannesevangelium",
                              > Freiburg 1991 - in which, if I remember correctly, John 21 is proved to
                              > be thoroughly Johannine.
                              > In a much simpler way, anyone can falsify the thesis (of John 21 being a
                              > Markan text) quite easily: just paste John 21 into Mark on the spot
                              > where it would have fit in, and read your reconstructed Markan text
                              > aloud, in Greek of course. You will then hear how un-Markan John 21
                              > sounds - in fact, how Johannine it sounds.
                              > The tiring thing in all this debate (to me, that is) is that it moves
                              > away so easily from the Greek text and its literary characteristics, as
                              > a text to be read and heard and understood by the hearer, into fancy
                              > theories, either about backgrounds that cannot be verified, or about the
                              > text as a mysterious code.


                              If John 21 was originally Markan, I am not bothered that it has been
                              thoroughly reworked stylistically by the Johannine editors. 4G is, IMO, the
                              most reshufflled, reworked, multiply redacted and edited Gospel, having
                              itself had been reworked at least 4 times before the 4th century. There are
                              a number of reasons of form and content to suspect ch 21 was originally the
                              end of Mark and not at all fanciful. It is, I will admit, thinking "out of
                              the box" but out of the box thinking is not the same as fanciful. We are
                              not talking Da Vinci Codes and green aliens here but a reasonable
                              proposition that needs to be tested on the basis of form and source
                              criticism, not vocabulary and style.

                              Jack Kilmon
                              San Marcos, Texas
                            • Paul Anderson
                              Thanks, colleagues, for an engaged discussion on an interesting subject. The second ending of Mark has considerably distinct vocabulary from the rest of Mark,
                              Message 14 of 20 , May 28, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Thanks, colleagues, for an engaged discussion on an interesting subject. The second ending of Mark has considerably distinct vocabulary from the rest of Mark, and given the textual fact of its absence in earlier manuscripts clearly comes from a different hand and a later time. However, its style and vocabulary are also distinct from Johannine material despite interesting similarities.

                                The way I think this should be approached (as many are aware--see the Answerability essay on the JLit website) is to see the second ending of Mark having gathered material from several sources, including Luke, Acts, and John, or at least respresenting familiarity with motifs included in those and other traditions. This, I believe, is the most plausible case of the Johannine tradition having influenced the later Markan (should that be deutero-Markan?) tradition.

                                Take care,

                                Paul Anderson

                                PS I'm working through Professor Theobald's Herrenworte monograph today; it really seems to be breaking new ground--anyone care to comment on it?

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Jack Kilmon [mailto:jkilmon@...]
                                Sent: Fri 5/28/2004 3:49 PM
                                To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                                Cc:
                                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21: Missing chapter of Mark?



                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "Piet van Veldhuizen" <pi.veldhuizen@...>
                                To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 8:11 AM
                                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21: Missing chapter of Mark?


                                > Bob Schacht wrote:
                                >
                                > >Is there any support for this allegation based on such standard literary
                                > >tools as stylistic analysis, vocabulary, etc? That is, apart from the
                                > >subject matter appearing to be a nice fit, can John 21 be shown to bear
                                > >Markan finger prints, and to NOT have Johannine fingerprints?
                                > >
                                > In a discussion which is becoming a wild stream of guesses, your
                                > question is, in my humble opinion, most relevant. Now there is an
                                > interesting study in Johannine style and vocabulary: Eugen Ruckstuhl and
                                > Peter Dschulnigg, "Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage im Johannesevangelium",
                                > Freiburg 1991 - in which, if I remember correctly, John 21 is proved to
                                > be thoroughly Johannine.
                                > In a much simpler way, anyone can falsify the thesis (of John 21 being a
                                > Markan text) quite easily: just paste John 21 into Mark on the spot
                                > where it would have fit in, and read your reconstructed Markan text
                                > aloud, in Greek of course. You will then hear how un-Markan John 21
                                > sounds - in fact, how Johannine it sounds.
                                > The tiring thing in all this debate (to me, that is) is that it moves
                                > away so easily from the Greek text and its literary characteristics, as
                                > a text to be read and heard and understood by the hearer, into fancy
                                > theories, either about backgrounds that cannot be verified, or about the
                                > text as a mysterious code.


                                If John 21 was originally Markan, I am not bothered that it has been
                                thoroughly reworked stylistically by the Johannine editors. 4G is, IMO, the
                                most reshufflled, reworked, multiply redacted and edited Gospel, having
                                itself had been reworked at least 4 times before the 4th century. There are
                                a number of reasons of form and content to suspect ch 21 was originally the
                                end of Mark and not at all fanciful. It is, I will admit, thinking "out of
                                the box" but out of the box thinking is not the same as fanciful. We are
                                not talking Da Vinci Codes and green aliens here but a reasonable
                                proposition that needs to be tested on the basis of form and source
                                criticism, not vocabulary and style.

                                Jack Kilmon
                                San Marcos, Texas



                                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









                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Stephen C. Carlson
                                ... As he explains a little later, Streeter proposed that either John used a non-truncated version of Mark or used a local oral tradition in Ephesus that was
                                Message 15 of 20 , May 28, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 04:56 PM 5/28/2004 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                                  >That's great, Stephen. Do you think he meant that the author of John had
                                  >read "Ur-Marcus" and derived it from a non-truncated Mark or that he also
                                  >thought the ending of Mark was removed and attached to John?

                                  As he explains a little later, Streeter proposed that either John used
                                  a non-truncated version of Mark or used a local oral tradition in Ephesus
                                  that was "more or less equivalent." Streeter located Mark in Ephesus
                                  before going to Rome on the basis of 2 Tim. as Streeter was of the then-
                                  common opinion that 2 Tim included some authentic Pauline fragments. I
                                  think he preferred the documentary option.

                                  Stephen Carlson
                                  --
                                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                  Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
                                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                • Bill Bullin
                                  ... Hi Piet It is a rare thing that anything is *proved* in N.T. studies whilst it is clear that nothing is new under the sun , (Steven Carlson s valuable
                                  Message 16 of 20 , May 28, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > Bob Schacht wrote:
                                    >
                                    > >Is there any support for this allegation based on such standard literary
                                    > >tools as stylistic analysis, vocabulary, etc? That is, apart from the
                                    > >subject matter appearing to be a nice fit, can John 21 be shown to bear
                                    > >Markan finger prints, and to NOT have Johannine fingerprints?
                                    > >
                                    > In a discussion which is becoming a wild stream of guesses, your
                                    > question is, in my humble opinion, most relevant. Now there is an
                                    > interesting study in Johannine style and vocabulary: Eugen Ruckstuhl and
                                    > Peter Dschulnigg, "Stilkritik und Verfasserfrage im Johannesevangelium",
                                    > Freiburg 1991 - in which, if I remember correctly, John 21 is proved to
                                    > be thoroughly Johannine.

                                    Hi Piet
                                    It is a rare thing that anything is *proved* in N.T. studies whilst it is
                                    clear that 'nothing is new under the sun', (Steven Carlson's valuable post).
                                    I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Marcan Greek is preserved in
                                    John 21 in any way intact are they? Only that the narrative outline has been
                                    preserved in the language of the Johannine circle, with Johannine
                                    fingerprints all over it. Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliabilty of
                                    John's Gospel (Apollos, (2001), 272 refers to a study in French by Bruno de
                                    Solages and J.M. Vacherot, 'Le Chapitre XXI de Jean: est il de la meme plume
                                    que le reste de l'Evangile?', Bulletin de litterature ecclesiastique 80:
                                    96-101. Although I have not seen this paper nor the one you cite, I find C.
                                    K. Barrett a trusty guide (2nd 1978), 576. He lists 28 words absent from
                                    1-20 but states the best collection of evidence is Bultmann's (700f). In
                                    short some are convinced that 21 is of a piece with 1-20 (Blomberg) whilst
                                    others are not (Barrett). For the record my view is that a Johannine
                                    redactor added the fishing story based on knowledge of Mark and that a
                                    subsequent clarification was added concerning the BD and Peter along with
                                    the community's testimony. In a way I am working back to my point of entry,
                                    namely that the BD was young though wise and priestly in background (John
                                    18:15), rather than that he was known to the high priest through the sale of
                                    salt fish. It's not that he knew the high priest's housekeeper / factor nor
                                    even that he knew the High Priest, but that the High Priest knew him which
                                    seems to me to be significantly different.

                                    > In a much simpler way, anyone can falsify the thesis (of John 21 being a
                                    > Markan text) quite easily: just paste John 21 into Mark on the spot
                                    > where it would have fit in, and read your reconstructed Markan text
                                    > aloud, in Greek of course. You will then hear how un-Markan John 21
                                    > sounds - in fact, how Johannine it sounds.
                                    > The tiring thing in all this debate (to me, that is) is that it moves
                                    > away so easily from the Greek text and its literary characteristics, as
                                    > a text to be read and heard and understood by the hearer, into fancy
                                    > theories, either about backgrounds that cannot be verified,

                                    Should the Johannine baby be cut in half, one half for literary critics and
                                    the other for the historians and christologists; this is intelligent but is
                                    it entirly wise?

                                    > or about the text as a mysterious code.

                                    As for mysterious I will offer you Hengel on Odeberg: "It is understandable
                                    that post-Christian Judaism partly retracted these forms of expression:
                                    polemical differentiation from Christian and gnostic 'heretics' made
                                    rethinking necessary. However, Jewish mysticism shows that even at a later
                                    time it was felt undesirable and impossible to give them up altogether.
                                    Investigation of the Jewish Hekalot and Merkabah literature for early
                                    Christian christology has still awide field to explore, as Billerbeck in his
                                    great commentary unfortunately paid too little attention to these texts,
                                    Odeberg's exegesis of the Gospel of John has remained a torso and Jewish
                                    scholars have often underestimated the significance of them, for apologetic
                                    reasons".

                                    I might instead have offered: C. Rowland, C. Fletcher Louis, M. Barker, F.
                                    Bovan, R. Murray, G. Scholem, T. Shrire, l. Ginsberg, J. Fossum, M. H.
                                    Farbridge, F. H.Colson, A.G. Wright, P.W. Skehan, M.J.J. Menken... I also
                                    add the rabbis on the Sopherim and M. Morgernstern on the numbering of the
                                    Genesis Apocryphon. Please note, not Drosnin, nor Thiring nor Allegro; but
                                    this too might be tiresome, a chasing after wind; not though, I submit as
                                    tiresome as counting 153 fishes!

                                    Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex)

                                    PS Has anyone ever considered that the two accounts of Judas' demise may
                                    reflect two community's different deep-rooted traditions concerning the
                                    murder of Abel by Cain, (strangulation vs being split open with a rock to
                                    the head from behind perhaps), but one common link? No doubt a bit off-list
                                    and not for the moment, but I plead 1 John 3:11 ff and John 17:12.
                                  • geomelick@AOL.com
                                    Dear Piet: Thank you for your response to my post of May 28th. Addressing points 1 and 6 first, these are the basic hypotheses of my theory. That Mark was
                                    Message 17 of 20 , May 29, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Dear Piet:

                                      Thank you for your response to my post of May 28th. Addressing points 1 and
                                      6 first, these are the basic hypotheses of my theory. That Mark was Peter's
                                      actual son is based on a literal reading of 1 Peter 5:13 (Oecumenius, Bengel,
                                      Alford, F. C. Grant, and William Barclay). That he was the BD was suggested by
                                      J. Wellhausen, J. Weiss, and Pierson Parker. Considering the long history of
                                      these separate identifications, it is surprising that no one else to my
                                      knowledge has combined them.

                                      Concerning point 2, the BD (Mark) was in the boat, not on shore. Jesus
                                      called out, "Children, have you any fish?". My interpretation is that he called
                                      out to children, Mark and another boy (point 3). Concerning point 4, asking if
                                      Mark could come along hardly seems out of place. I am not the first to
                                      suggest that 153 is the actual number of fish caught (point 5).

                                      Like Fortna, I maintain that 4E followed the source accurately sometimes, and
                                      at others took great liberties. I see no problem in assuming that 4E quoted
                                      the number of fish as found in the source, but rewrote the dialog between
                                      Jesus and Peter.

                                      George

                                      George Melick, MA
                                      Drexel University, Retired


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Mike Grondin
                                      ... The text, of course, provides no justification for this interpretation. ... the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. Therefore Jesus said TO THEM
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- George Melick wrote:
                                        > Jesus called out, "Children, have you any fish?". My
                                        > interpretation is that he called out to children, Mark
                                        > and another boy (point 3).

                                        The text, of course, provides no justification for this
                                        interpretation. "... the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.
                                        Therefore Jesus said TO THEM ...", the "them" in question clearly
                                        being the disciples. That the word 'children' is used in J's
                                        question doesn't in the least provide justification for ignoring
                                        the clear intent of the passage. He is being made to refer to the
                                        disciples as children - not to call out to some hypothetical minors
                                        on the boat. Nor is it implied that the BD recognized either the
                                        figure or the voice of Jesus; what's implied is that he inferred
                                        that the person on shore was Jesus from the large catch of fish.
                                        Again here (as in J's calling out to the disciples from shore),
                                        notice the actual confluence of thought within the text: first, the
                                        large catch of fish, then immediately following, BD's statement.
                                        The only way to interpret these passages differently is to take a
                                        word or sentence out of context, and then to ignore the fact that
                                        the interpretation of that isolated piece contradicts the context
                                        from which it was taken.

                                        That something symbolic is going on is indicated by two specific
                                        elements: the numbering of the fish, and the fact that J instructs
                                        the disciples to cast their nets off the RIGHT-hand side of the
                                        boat. The right-hand side of anything was considered to be the
                                        better side (whatever one took to be the better). Here we have
                                        disciples fishing for converts, and they have so far found none -
                                        apparently because they've been casting their nets off the left-
                                        hand side of the boat. What did the left-hand and right-hand sides
                                        of the boat represent to the author's mind? One possibility is that
                                        the Gentiles are on the left, the Hebrews on the right. Or maybe,
                                        Hellenistic Jews on the left and non-Hellenistic on the right.
                                        Whatever the case, I think that the huge catch of fish represented
                                        an unexpectedly successful conversion attempt among folks to
                                        the "right hand" of the disciples. To such a conversion attempt,
                                        the response might well be to say "This is the work of the Lord,"
                                        thereby "recognizing Jesus", i.e., recognizing that Jesus was at
                                        work advising and guiding the activities of the movement.

                                        Mike Grondin
                                        Mt. Clemens, MI
                                      • Jack Kilmon
                                        ... From: Arlene Sheldon To: Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:47 PM Subject: Re:
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Nov 24, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: "Arlene Sheldon" <wellofbethlehem@...>
                                          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:47 PM
                                          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21


                                          > Jack,
                                          >
                                          > Regarding John 21, I have discovered a few interesting points. First,
                                          > there are several similarities between John 21 and the book of Jonah.
                                          > Jonah allows himself to be cast into the sea, and Peter casts himself into
                                          > the sea. Jonah is swallowed by a fish, but Peter catches fish and then
                                          > eats some fish. The people of Ninevah don't know the difference between
                                          > their right hand and their left hand, so Jonah has to tell them. The
                                          > disciples don't know to fish on the right side of the boat, so Jesus has
                                          > to tell them. The King of Ninevah takes his robe off, but Peter puts his
                                          > clothes on. There is a discussion of whether Jonah should die, and whether
                                          > the people of Ninevah should live, and there is a discussion of how Peter
                                          > will die, and whether John should live.
                                          >
                                          > Second, there is a link between John 21 and Ezekiel 47:9,10, which says
                                          > an abundance of fish is caused by an abundance of water flowing into the
                                          > sea, and the abundance of fish in John 21 occurs when Jesus, the giver of
                                          > living water, is standing on the shore.
                                          >
                                          > Third, Jesus' cooking and serving breakfast seems to be linked to the
                                          > 23rd Psalm. When Jesus fed the multitudes, the people ate and were
                                          > satisfied, so they didn't "want." Jesus had them recline where there was
                                          > "much grass," like sheep in a pasture. He went to the other side of the
                                          > lake, and the people followed him, so he led them beside the still water.
                                          > Eventually, it's time to prepare the table of Psalm 23. Peter is alienated
                                          > from Jesus because he denied him. They are "enemies," who need to be
                                          > reconciled. Jesus prepares the breakfast and invites Peter, who is very
                                          > reluctant to say that he loves Jesus. These apparent allusions to the 23rd
                                          > Psalm seem to establish that Jesus is the good shepherd who gives his life
                                          > for the sheep.
                                          >
                                          > Fourth, the most interesting link, and the one that seems to tie
                                          > everything else together, is the link between John 21 and Acts 2. Of the
                                          > six disciples who remain in the boat after Peter jumps out, two of them
                                          > were named explicitly, two were named indirectly, as "ones of Zebedee,"
                                          > and two are anonymous. As Peter wraps up his sermon on the day of
                                          > Pentecost in Acts 2, he says "the promise" is for three groups of people
                                          > 1) you, 2) your children 3) all who are afar off. Note the similarity
                                          > between these three groups of people and the three types of people on the
                                          > boat in John 21 - people you address directly, children of people you
                                          > address directly, and people who are more distant, or unknown or
                                          > anonymous. The six disciples in the boat seem to be representative of the
                                          > people Peter will address his remarks to on the day of Pentecost.
                                          >
                                          > Lastly, there is a relationship between Jesus the good shepherd, who
                                          > gives his life for the sheep, and Jesus the giver of living water. This
                                          > relationship is found in 1 Chron 11:15-19. David's three men risk their
                                          > own lives to get David a drink of water from the well of bethlehem. David
                                          > values the water as the blood of the men who obtained it for him. Like the
                                          > men who obtained the water for David, Jesus sacrifices his own life to pay
                                          > the cost of providing the living water of the Holy Spirit to those who
                                          > believe and receive.
                                          >
                                          > I wouldn't be too quick to say that John 21 was added on to the Gospel of
                                          > John, because the Gospel of John doesn't seem to be complete without it.
                                          >
                                          > Arlene Sheldon


                                          Very good observations. It is my opinion, however, that Ch 21 was
                                          originally the ending of Mark and appended tyo John in an attempt to
                                          reconcile Petrine-antiPetrine hostilities between the two.

                                          Jack

                                          Jack Kilmon
                                          San Marcos, Texas
                                        • Fabbri Marco
                                          Jack, your suggestion that John 21 was the lost ending of Mark is intriguing. However, I would need to understand better what happened before and what happened
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Nov 27, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Jack,

                                            your suggestion that John 21 was the lost ending of Mark is intriguing.

                                            However, I would need to understand better what happened before and what
                                            happened after. What is your general picture?

                                            Is it something like:

                                            1) Mark 1-16,8 + John 21 written as one Gospel
                                            2) John 1-20 written as another indipendent Gospel
                                            3) John 21 moved from the end of Mark to the end of John, after John 20,31
                                            4) Mark 16,9-20 added after Mark 16,8 to replace the missing ending.

                                            Is this you idea? Or should anything be corrected?

                                            Marco V Fabbri


                                            On 11/24/06, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ----- Original Message -----
                                            > From: "Arlene Sheldon" <wellofbethlehem@...<wellofbethlehem%40yahoo.com>
                                            > >
                                            > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>
                                            > >
                                            > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:47 PM
                                            > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 21
                                            >
                                            > > Jack,
                                            > >
                                            > > Regarding John 21, I have discovered a few interesting points. First,
                                            > > there are several similarities between John 21 and the book of Jonah.
                                            > > Jonah allows himself to be cast into the sea, and Peter casts himself
                                            > into
                                            > > the sea. Jonah is swallowed by a fish, but Peter catches fish and then
                                            > > eats some fish. The people of Ninevah don't know the difference between
                                            > > their right hand and their left hand, so Jonah has to tell them. The
                                            > > disciples don't know to fish on the right side of the boat, so Jesus has
                                            >
                                            > > to tell them. The King of Ninevah takes his robe off, but Peter puts his
                                            >
                                            > > clothes on. There is a discussion of whether Jonah should die, and
                                            > whether
                                            > > the people of Ninevah should live, and there is a discussion of how
                                            > Peter
                                            > > will die, and whether John should live.
                                            > >
                                            > > Second, there is a link between John 21 and Ezekiel 47:9,10, which says
                                            > > an abundance of fish is caused by an abundance of water flowing into the
                                            >
                                            > > sea, and the abundance of fish in John 21 occurs when Jesus, the giver
                                            > of
                                            > > living water, is standing on the shore.
                                            > >
                                            > > Third, Jesus' cooking and serving breakfast seems to be linked to the
                                            > > 23rd Psalm. When Jesus fed the multitudes, the people ate and were
                                            > > satisfied, so they didn't "want." Jesus had them recline where there was
                                            >
                                            > > "much grass," like sheep in a pasture. He went to the other side of the
                                            > > lake, and the people followed him, so he led them beside the still
                                            > water.
                                            > > Eventually, it's time to prepare the table of Psalm 23. Peter is
                                            > alienated
                                            > > from Jesus because he denied him. They are "enemies," who need to be
                                            > > reconciled. Jesus prepares the breakfast and invites Peter, who is very
                                            > > reluctant to say that he loves Jesus. These apparent allusions to the
                                            > 23rd
                                            > > Psalm seem to establish that Jesus is the good shepherd who gives his
                                            > life
                                            > > for the sheep.
                                            > >
                                            > > Fourth, the most interesting link, and the one that seems to tie
                                            > > everything else together, is the link between John 21 and Acts 2. Of the
                                            >
                                            > > six disciples who remain in the boat after Peter jumps out, two of them
                                            > > were named explicitly, two were named indirectly, as "ones of Zebedee,"
                                            > > and two are anonymous. As Peter wraps up his sermon on the day of
                                            > > Pentecost in Acts 2, he says "the promise" is for three groups of people
                                            >
                                            > > 1) you, 2) your children 3) all who are afar off. Note the similarity
                                            > > between these three groups of people and the three types of people on
                                            > the
                                            > > boat in John 21 - people you address directly, children of people you
                                            > > address directly, and people who are more distant, or unknown or
                                            > > anonymous. The six disciples in the boat seem to be representative of
                                            > the
                                            > > people Peter will address his remarks to on the day of Pentecost.
                                            > >
                                            > > Lastly, there is a relationship between Jesus the good shepherd, who
                                            > > gives his life for the sheep, and Jesus the giver of living water. This
                                            > > relationship is found in 1 Chron 11:15-19. David's three men risk their
                                            > > own lives to get David a drink of water from the well of bethlehem.
                                            > David
                                            > > values the water as the blood of the men who obtained it for him. Like
                                            > the
                                            > > men who obtained the water for David, Jesus sacrifices his own life to
                                            > pay
                                            > > the cost of providing the living water of the Holy Spirit to those who
                                            > > believe and receive.
                                            > >
                                            > > I wouldn't be too quick to say that John 21 was added on to the Gospel
                                            > of
                                            > > John, because the Gospel of John doesn't seem to be complete without it.
                                            > >
                                            > > Arlene Sheldon
                                            >
                                            > Very good observations. It is my opinion, however, that Ch 21 was
                                            > originally the ending of Mark and appended tyo John in an attempt to
                                            > reconcile Petrine-antiPetrine hostilities between the two.
                                            >
                                            > Jack
                                            >
                                            > Jack Kilmon
                                            > San Marcos, Texas
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >



                                            --
                                            _______________________________________
                                            Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
                                            Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
                                            Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
                                            Piazza S. Apollinare 49
                                            I-00186 Roma
                                            Italy

                                            e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
                                            fax: ++39-06-68164400


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