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

Re: [John_Lit] John 21: Missing chapter of Mark?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.