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

historicity matters in John and synoptics

Expand Messages
  • Frides Laméris
    ... From: Bill Bullin To: Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 13, 2004
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Bill Bullin <bill.bullin@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 10:34 AM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Burial story at close

      Hi Bill,

      You wrote:
      > I think we should not under estimate the dominance of drama and
      > in the Greek reader's hearer's mind.
      > If Gospel scenes are presented as one-man shows it is not because the
      > is necessarily either ignorant of the historical facts or dishonest. The
      > Gospels originally acted along with oral testimony and question and answer
      > dialogue. Only after the performance does the discussion really begin as
      > with Jesus' parables. Historiography has had a long evolution; forensic
      > detail and analysis is a relatively recent phenomenon and preoccupation.
      > Plot, passion, tradgedy and heroism were central concepts through which
      > information could be meaningfully communicated.

      You are right to a certain degree, I think. For me, Mark as one of the first
      to tell the Good Story about Jesus has done well. As I have been convinced
      by Robinson in his Priority of John, that usually the synoptics are confused
      rendering historical aspects as compared to Johns rendering, I confess I
      have an increasing tendency to expose these obvious historical
      (to use a gentle term) in the synoptics. So, I may seem to do some injustice
      Mark there, as he was of course not primarily interested in bringing out
      just historical matters on Jesus.

      I think it was John (apostle and evangelist himself) who must have been
      to mention that he (Mark) had written 'akriboos' (accurately), but that his
      (historical order) was lacking in merit.

      Like Robinson (and other pioneers), I take Gospel of John to be another
      try. When John is seen as making some historical corrections when compared
      to Mark,
      I do not bring them back to his (supposed) knowledge of Marks gospel, but to
      his being
      his own supreme source for Jesus' words and actions, as closest disciple and
      eyewitness. Of course, a rather traditional position, but for me the
      critical facts point
      in that direction.

      I believe that in Gospel of John, we will have NO mix of historically
      incorrect info
      with correct info (like in Mk,Mt and Lk). Gospel of John does not seem to be
      on that level.
      E.g. every archeological dig brings more out of John's correctness in
      archelogical and
      topographical details. Paul Anderson has an essay coming out in a book by
      which sums up several of these recent findings.

      Its of course quite another thing, that also John does not write (correct)
      history for histories
      sake alone. He has a most spiritual message to convey, his rendering
      certainly being
      the deepest of all his synoptic friends.

      When John in esotheric pictures is often likened to an eagle, one should not
      forget that
      although the eagle can fly high above the earth (symbolising his
      'philosophical' depth),
      this is also a bird that possesses unfailing sharp eyes that perceive very
      accurately any
      movement on the earth.

      > > Frides: Lets move on to the empty tomb, remove the stone and enter!

      Who will remove the guard?

      Good question! I know there exists an article with a title such as 'Who
      roled away the stone?'
      Now, we may write one: 'Who removed the guard'??
      All that hold to historicity matters may now have a difficult time (or
      Any one daring to suggest a 'spiritual' solution? Anybody on this list in
      for the possibility
      of a paranormal phenomenon?

      Bill, you want or like to take a (first) shot yourself?

      Best wishes, in appreciation of your contributions to the list

      Frides Laméris
      Zuidlaren (Home)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.