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

[John_Lit] Re: John 6:1 (was: Chapter 21)

Expand Messages
  • lozada@universe.uiwtx.edu
    Paul, Ron and others: I recently played with question of John 5/6 and the whole aporia question between the chapters. I think it would be interesting to look
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 29 2:01 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Paul, Ron and others:

      I recently played with question of John 5/6 and the whole aporia
      question between the chapters. I think it would be interesting to
      look at the literary-thematic connections between the two chapters
      to understand their present location. Not only is Paul essay (Sitz
      im Leben, Brill) very helpful, I think Peder Borger (John 6:
      Tradition, Interp, and Composition, Brill) and Gail O'Day (John
      6:15-21, Brill) are also very helpful.

      Bultmann's, Schnackenburg's, et. al. questioning of the order of
      these two chapters is quite interesting to me. Not because of the
      traditional question regarding the texts' history of composition, but
      in relation to the question of authority and canon. I am not sure
      where I want to go with the latter issues in the near future, but I
      do find it interesting that in my reading surrounding this part of
      the gospel, the question of final text/canon/authority vis-a-vis the
      role of the scholar is not pursued.

      Thanks for sparking another interest for me on this topic.

      Francisco Lozada, Jr.
      Univ. of the Incarnate Word
    • Ron Price
      ... Paul, On my Web site I present evidence that the main later additions were chs. 5, 15-16 and 21. This is obviously a complicated topic and I don t want to
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 29 2:03 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Paul Anderson wrote:

        > ....... parallel supplementing of chs. 5,
        >14, and 20 may betray some common moves in the adding of chs. 6, 15-17,
        >and 21 .......

        Paul,
        On my Web site I present evidence that the main later additions were
        chs. 5, 15-16 and 21.
        This is obviously a complicated topic and I don't want to draw you into
        a full scale debate. But I would like to challenge you on one point.

        Amongst several reasons why I think ch. 6 is original, one stands out
        as a piece of incidental evidence independent of signs or theology or
        synoptic dependence theories.
        In 6:1 we read: "Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee".
        To me this suggests that the whole chapter was originally intended to
        follow a story set somewhere in the vicinity of the lake.
        In my reconstruction this previous story is 4:46-54 where Jesus ends up
        at or near Capernaum.

        Do you agree with my deduction that the original intention behind 6:1
        was for 6:1 ff. to follow a story set in the vicinity of the lake? If
        so, how do you explain it on your hypothesis? If 6:1 ff. was once a
        separate pericope, why didn't the author simply write: "Jesus went to
        the east (or whichever) side of the Sea of Galilee", which would have
        been more suitable for a stand-alone story? If 6:1 ff. was written with
        the intention of inserting it after ch. 5, then surely the aporia
        remains unexplained.

        Ron Price

        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

        e-mail: ron.price@...

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      • Paul Anderson
        Thank you, Ron, some interesting possibilities here. Bultmann certainly thought John 4 and 6 were connected (water of life; bread of life, etc.), and your
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 29 6:54 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you, Ron, some interesting possibilities here. Bultmann certainly
          thought John 4 and 6 were connected (water of life; bread of life, etc.),
          and your crossing over theory has some plausibility to it.

          Of course, crossing over to the west side of the lake (a bit north of
          Tiberias) could have been done from the south or west, as well as from the
          north, so it could have been added (or even basic to the tradition) as a
          way of getting Jesus from Jerusalem to the Galilean shore.

          There are clear connections between John 5 and 7 (and the other
          controversy debates) which make me want to keep these chapters together as
          part of the first edition. John 6, however, shows evidence of at least
          four crises in the Johannine situation (see my Sitz im Leben essay in
          Culpepper's 1997 Brill volume), which suggest its maturity: a) corrections
          against synoptic-type thaumaturgy, b) dialogues with Jewish communities,
          c) anti-docetic correctives, and d) correctives to rising institutionalism
          in the late first-century church. These and other factors make me want to
          keep John 6 as part of the later material.

          On the other hand, John's sea-crossing narrative seems less developed than
          parallel synoptic ones (although more theophanic than epiphanic), and that
          could imply its primitivity.

          Thanks for another way to look at thinks, Ron.

          Paul

          Paul N. Anderson
          Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
          George Fox University
          Newberg, OR 97132
          503-554-2651
        • Ken Durkin
          Ron, I ve visited your website again. Am I right in thinking that you re saying: (1) the whole of chapter 1 as it stands belongs to the first edition (2) the
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 29 8:25 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Ron, I've visited your website again. Am I right in thinking that you're
            saying:
            (1) the whole of chapter 1 as it stands belongs to the first edition
            (2) the editor who added chapter 21 added nothing else
            (3) final eschatology is evidence of late material rather than early
            material
            (4) the "prologue" of 1Jn is later than the gospel prologue
            (5) the writer of 21 was influenced by Mt, and wrote mainly to set the
            record straight about Peter?

            Paul, I've read and enjoyed your demolition of Parker, and I've a few
            comments on it later. If there's a stone you don't leave it unturned.

            Ken Durkin
            kd27@...
          • Paul Anderson
            ... Thanks, Ken. I ll be polishing it up for submission to a journal, so any comments will be appreciated. PA Paul N. Anderson Professor of Biblical and
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 29 11:58 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              johannine_literature@egroups.com writes:
              >Paul, I've read and enjoyed your demolition of Parker, and I've a few
              >comments on it later. If there's a stone you don't leave it unturned.

              Thanks, Ken. I'll be polishing it up for submission to a journal, so any
              comments will be appreciated.

              PA

              Paul N. Anderson
              Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
              George Fox University
              Newberg, OR 97132
              503-554-2651
            • Paul Anderson
              ... Thanks, Francisco. On disordering/reordering, I question whether we can know that the material ever lay side by side at the same time to have been shifted
              Message 6 of 7 , Mar 29 5:34 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                johannine_literature@egroups.com writes:
                >Bultmann's, Schnackenburg's, et. al. questioning of the order of
                >these two chapters is quite interesting to me. Not because of the
                >traditional question regarding the texts' history of composition, but
                >in relation to the question of authority and canon. I am not sure
                >where I want to go with the latter issues in the near future, but I
                >do find it interesting that in my reading surrounding this part of
                >the gospel, the question of final text/canon/authority vis-a-vis the
                >role of the scholar is not pursued.

                Thanks, Francisco.

                On disordering/reordering, I question whether we can know that the
                material ever lay side by side at the same time to have been shifted
                around. More plausible is a tradition growing like a snowball rolling
                down a hill, gathering material as it goes along -- hence, an earlier
                edition and a final edition, but probably with some other sorts of accrual
                along the way.

                In my book I count up the number of disordered sections (10, according to
                Bultmann) within or surrounding John 6, which just happen to have occurred
                in between sentences. If you consider the likelihood of such, ten times
                in a row (at ca. 80 Greek characters per sentence), you have to place the
                likelihood at 1:80 to the 10th power (one chance in 10 quintillion). Talk
                about creating a crisis of faith for the would-be rational interpreter!
                Interestingly enough, these "disorderings" allow Bultmann to "resotre" the
                order in such a way to "expose" the poetic character of a hypothetical
                Offenbarungsreden source, which I doubt ever existed. Now if the evidence
                were strong for such a possibility, I'd be happy to adjust my
                interpretation accordingly. Since it is not, however, I must consider the
                material as more unitive in its origin (rather than alien -- despite its
                striking christological claims) and deal with the content otherwise.
                Likewise, the signs material.

                You are on to something in terms of authority, though. Within Bultmann's
                scheme, the theology of the evangelist comes accross as emphasizing the
                centrality of the Incarnation, liberated from supernaturalism, elevated
                Christology, futuristic eschatology, and apparent instrumentalistic
                sacramentology -- backed up by an elaborate diachronic literary/historical
                approach to the tradition's development argued by means of stylistic,
                contextual, and theological evidence (Fortna). In having tested all of
                his evidence on its own terms, though, the main things I conclude are
                that: a) Bultmann is correct that John is not derivative from the
                Synoptics (although at least a dozen aspects of John's engagements with
                synoptic traditions can be reasonably inferred), b) Bultmann is correct
                that John has a redactor and an evangelist, and c) John's theology is some
                of the most fascinating and refined of any in the NT -- it even reflects
                the sort of dialectical theologizing (Fowler's stage 5) that Bultmann
                himself does, but fails to allow for this first-century author.

                When will you talk to us about the Sitz im Leben of John 5 (and 7-10),
                Francisco?

                PA

                Paul N. Anderson
                Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
                George Fox University
                Newberg, OR 97132
                503-554-2651
              • Alan Perkins
                From: Alan Perkins Freelance student Bridgewater Vermont I can t resist pointing out that the difficulties here were probably caused by the author(s) of 4G
                Message 7 of 7 , Mar 29 7:53 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: Alan Perkins
                  Freelance student
                  Bridgewater Vermont

                  I can't resist pointing out that the difficulties here were probably caused
                  by the author(s) of 4G using a Microsoft word processor.

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Paul Anderson [mailto:panderso@...]
                  Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 8:35 PM
                  To: johannine_literature@egroups.com
                  Subject: [John_Lit] Re: John 6:1 (was: Chapter 21)


                  johannine_literature@egroups.com writes:
                  >Bultmann's, Schnackenburg's, et. al. questioning of the order of
                  >these two chapters is quite interesting to me. Not because of the
                  >traditional question regarding the texts' history of composition, but
                  >in relation to the question of authority and canon. I am not sure
                  >where I want to go with the latter issues in the near future, but I
                  >do find it interesting that in my reading surrounding this part of
                  >the gospel, the question of final text/canon/authority vis-a-vis the
                  >role of the scholar is not pursued.

                  Thanks, Francisco.

                  On disordering/reordering, I question whether we can know that the
                  material ever lay side by side at the same time to have been shifted
                  around. More plausible is a tradition growing like a snowball rolling
                  down a hill, gathering material as it goes along -- hence, an earlier
                  edition and a final edition, but probably with some other sorts of accrual
                  along the way.

                  In my book I count up the number of disordered sections (10, according to
                  Bultmann) within or surrounding John 6, which just happen to have occurred
                  in between sentences. If you consider the likelihood of such, ten times
                  in a row (at ca. 80 Greek characters per sentence), you have to place the
                  likelihood at 1:80 to the 10th power (one chance in 10 quintillion). Talk
                  about creating a crisis of faith for the would-be rational interpreter!
                  Interestingly enough, these "disorderings" allow Bultmann to "resotre" the
                  order in such a way to "expose" the poetic character of a hypothetical
                  Offenbarungsreden source, which I doubt ever existed. Now if the evidence
                  were strong for such a possibility, I'd be happy to adjust my
                  interpretation accordingly. Since it is not, however, I must consider the
                  material as more unitive in its origin (rather than alien -- despite its
                  striking christological claims) and deal with the content otherwise.
                  Likewise, the signs material.

                  You are on to something in terms of authority, though. Within Bultmann's
                  scheme, the theology of the evangelist comes accross as emphasizing the
                  centrality of the Incarnation, liberated from supernaturalism, elevated
                  Christology, futuristic eschatology, and apparent instrumentalistic
                  sacramentology -- backed up by an elaborate diachronic literary/historical
                  approach to the tradition's development argued by means of stylistic,
                  contextual, and theological evidence (Fortna). In having tested all of
                  his evidence on its own terms, though, the main things I conclude are
                  that: a) Bultmann is correct that John is not derivative from the
                  Synoptics (although at least a dozen aspects of John's engagements with
                  synoptic traditions can be reasonably inferred), b) Bultmann is correct
                  that John has a redactor and an evangelist, and c) John's theology is some
                  of the most fascinating and refined of any in the NT -- it even reflects
                  the sort of dialectical theologizing (Fowler's stage 5) that Bultmann
                  himself does, but fails to allow for this first-century author.

                  When will you talk to us about the Sitz im Leben of John 5 (and 7-10),
                  Francisco?

                  PA

                  Paul N. Anderson
                  Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
                  George Fox University
                  Newberg, OR 97132
                  503-554-2651


                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background &
                  research interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
                  Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                  Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
                  -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/johannine_literature/?m=1
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.