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, 2000
    • 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
    • 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 2 of 7 , Mar 29, 2000
      • 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 3 of 7 , Mar 29, 2000
        • 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 4 of 7 , Mar 29, 2000
          • 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 5 of 7 , Mar 29, 2000
            • 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 6 of 7 , Mar 29, 2000
              • 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.