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

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

Expand Messages
  • Bill Bullin
    The Genius of John by Peter Ellis (1984) where ... Please see reply to Piat ... being ... Thanks for this Richard, (off - line message noted for a reply too).
    Message 1 of 2 , May 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      The Genius of John by Peter Ellis (1984) where
      > Ellis provided evidentiary support for the chiastic structure presented by
      > Gerhard showing that ch 21 was both related and connected and was not a
      > later addition to John.
      > Consequently ch 21 has fingerprints all over it but they are not Markan.

      Please see reply to Piat

      > Gerhard and Ellis set forth five parts and 21 sections of John with 21
      > part of the last section. The 17th and 21st sections are parallel both
      > verbally and conceptually. The 21st section is also linked with the first.
      > Richard H. Anderson

      Thanks for this Richard, (off - line message noted for a reply too). Morton
      and McLeman posit another kind of (physical rather than literary) structure
      to 4G, a structure based on a codex with six sections, even going so far as
      to suggest that the codex had 28 lines to the page, (the number of Hebrew
      letters in Genesis 1:1, the number of times the lamb is used in Revelation
      (Bauckham), the 7th triangle number (Bauckham, Climax (1993), table on
      p393) and the first perfect number, the sum of its devisors); and 21 (3x7)
      letters to the line (gematriah of CHOKMAH wisdom: 37 or 73 and of logos,
      373; in I John ch. 1 'we' is used 21 times, curoiously all in ch. 1, while
      abide is used 21 times as well (ch. 2: 8 times; ch. 3: 8 times and ch. 4: 5

      I am a long way down the line to thinking the BD was a priestly genius who
      linked Hebrew number / Bereshith mysticism, the divine Name, his christology
      and even the structure of his document together in a similar way to the way
      A.G. Wright argued Qoholeth was structured. I am willing to admit that this
      could well be the redactor instead but is a servant greater than their
      master; was a redactor reflecting only what he had learnt from his priestly
      teacher, the BD?

      If it is not too irksome a request, are you able to post the divisions of
      the 21 parts and five sections?

      Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.