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

Re: [John_Lit] Re: John as Title

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey L. Staley
    ... Yes. I don t know how else to read John 3:31ff on a narrative level. I suspect only 19th-21st century readers would find there a different character
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      > .
      > >
      > What do you think, Jeff, rather than seeing Jesus as speaking the in the
      > language of the fourth evangelist (thus a Johannine paraphrase, with
      > Müssner) perhaps we have here a presentation of John the Baptist speaking
      > like Jesus?

      Yes. I don't know how else to read John 3:31ff on a narrative level. I suspect only 19th-21st century readers would find there a
      different character than John. Not that I'm against 19th-21st century readings!

      >
      >
      > Then again, if the evangelist presents Jesus speaking in his own sermonic
      > paraphrases, perhaps he has done the same with JB.

      Yes, this is my point of view.

      >
      >
      >
    • Jeffrey L. Staley
      ... Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about that. Origen s commentary is too rarely consulted by most of us!
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 3, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        ProfRam@... wrote:

        > Jeff:
        >
        > On Jn 1:15-18, see my article in the Metzger Festschrift edited by Epp and
        > Fee in 1981, "Origen and the Text of John 1:15" (pp 87-104). The issue of
        > the speaker in 1:15-18 was thoroughly discussed by Origen and Heracleon way
        > back when.
        >

        Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about that. Origen's commentary is too rarely consulted by most of us!

        >
      • Jeffrey L. Staley
        ... I was thinking of the John 3:31ff problem, not the one in 1:15-18. I would suspect (though I have not investigated this at all), that since the nature of
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 4, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          > In a message dated 4/3/00 5:08:40 PM !!!First Boot!!!, staleyjl@...
          > writes:
          >
          > << Yes. I don't know how else to read John 3:31ff on a narrative level. I
          > suspect only 19th-21st century readers would find there a
          > different character than John. Not that I'm against 19th-21st century
          > readings!
          > >>
          >
          > If that's the case, then Origen and Heracleon were arguing like a couple of
          > 19th-21st century readers way back in the 3d century, in their dispute over
          > where John's words ended in 1:15-18.

          I was thinking of the John 3:31ff problem, not the one in 1:15-18. I would suspect (though I have not investigated this at all), that
          since the nature of prologues is towards narration rather than direct speech, the first tendency of ancient readers would be to look at
          1:15-18 as narration rather than direct speech. Or at least narration would be a more viable option there than in John 3. This is a
          hunch, and would be worth pursuing in the ancient commentators on John. Anyone looked at John Chrystostom's sermons on John in this
          regard? I have found them helpful for providing insights into Johannine characterization.

          Jeff
        • Jeffrey L. Staley
          ... Paul, the idea of distinctive theological content, for me is an interesting question. I think one would be hard pressed to find (much less prove) an
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 5, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            panderso@... wrote:

            > Looking at the distinctive JB material in John lately, I've been wondering
            > it there was a JB independent tradition or distinctive theological content
            > that has made it into the Johannine tradition and was developed
            > accordingly.

            Paul, the idea of "distinctive theological content," for me is an interesting question. I think one would be hard pressed to find (much
            less prove) an "independent" JB tradition behind FG. On the "distinctive theological content" side, the direction I would go would be to
            explore whether JB's language in FG is distinctive of the _character_ "JB." The author's (narrator's) point in John 1:7; 3:28, 33;
            5:33-36; 10:41 is clearly that JB's "witness" is a faithful testimony to who Jesus is, but there might be some subtleties of difference.
            Thus, the emphasis is on continuity of message, not distinctiveness. By contrast, the Synoptics focus more on the distinctiveness of
            John's message over against that of Jesus, wouldn't you say?
          • Jeffrey L. Staley
            ... Wow! Now there is a wild thought! I think of this saying as a prophetic riddle: the one coming after me was before me, because he was behind me. (I
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 6, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              > Here's another: does JB's statement in 1:15 (he was before me and after
              > me) lead to the cultic development of the pre-existent Logos motif in the
              > Johannine worship setting? Who knows?

              Wow! Now there is a wild thought! I think of this saying as a prophetic riddle: "the one coming after me was before me, because he was
              behind me." (I think I got that right--I don't have my Greek text handy). I have worked from the assumption that this phrase is simply
              a literary construct of the author (who likes riddles and puns).
            • Gregory Bloomquist
              I have come to the discussion late, so my apologies if what follows has been stated by others. If so, please simply disregard it. Re. 1.15: perhaps the author
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 6, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                I have come to the discussion late, so my apologies if what follows has
                been stated by others. If so, please simply disregard it.

                Re. 1.15: perhaps the author of the FG, who also delights in ambiguity,
                means more than one thing from the verse. We usually think in temporal
                terms when reading this text, just as Nicodemus thought in temporal not
                spatial terms when he heard Jesus' use of ANO^THEN.

                But, if, in 1.15, we switch to a functional understanding of ERXOMENOS
                OPISO^ MOU not as spatial but as a paraphrase for discipleship (i.e.,
                "disciple") and see EMPROSTHEN MOU and PRO^TOS MOU as a question of
                degree, not time (i.e., "greater than me" or "preferred above me"),
                then, one possibile translation would be:

                "The one who appears to be my follower-disciple has become greater
                than/superior to me (my teacher?) because he always was (i.e., did not
                just come into being, as John did) greater in rank than me."

                This is not intended to discount the temporal readings, but only to
                suggest that the temporal readings are there to mask in riddle-fashion
                what is "really" being said.

                Maybe this is what Jeff meant; if so, I couldn't agree more! :-)

                --
                L G Bloomquist
                http://www.bloomquist.on.ca
                visitalk.com PCN: 2001-1149-0865
              • Jeffrey L. Staley
                ... Yes, this is the idea. You said it very well! (And thanks for including the Greek, which I didn t remember quite rightly.) I would prefer, however, to
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 6, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Gregory Bloomquist wrote:

                  > I have come to the discussion late, so my apologies if what follows has
                  > been stated by others. If so, please simply disregard it.
                  >
                  > Re. 1.15: perhaps the author of the FG, who also delights in ambiguity,
                  > means more than one thing from the verse. We usually think in temporal
                  > terms when reading this text, just as Nicodemus thought in temporal not
                  > spatial terms when he heard Jesus' use of ANO^THEN.
                  >
                  > But, if, in 1.15, we switch to a functional understanding of ERXOMENOS
                  > OPISO^ MOU not as spatial but as a paraphrase for discipleship (i.e.,
                  > "disciple") and see EMPROSTHEN MOU and PRO^TOS MOU as a question of
                  > degree, not time (i.e., "greater than me" or "preferred above me"),
                  > then, one possibile translation would be:
                  >
                  > "The one who appears to be my follower-disciple has become greater
                  > than/superior to me (my teacher?) because he always was (i.e., did not
                  > just come into being, as John did) greater in rank than me."
                  >
                  > This is not intended to discount the temporal readings, but only to
                  > suggest that the temporal readings are there to mask in riddle-fashion
                  > what is "really" being said.
                  >
                  > Maybe this is what Jeff meant; if so, I couldn't agree more! :-)
                  >

                  Yes, this is the idea. You said it very well! (And thanks for including the Greek, which I didn't remember quite rightly.) I would
                  prefer, however, to keep the translation as much a riddle as possible, and put in a footnote the doubled meaning(s).

                  Jeff
                • Jeffrey L. Staley
                  ... An interesting way of looking at it. This would preserve, in v. 15, an authentic riddle of John then? It is unusual that the author likes the saying
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 6, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ProfRam@... wrote:

                    > Another way of putting it is that perhaps the Gospel of John begins the way
                    > it does precisely because the author had a tradition of John's pronouncement
                    > in 1:15 and 30. So he put 1:1-5 first and then verse 6 simply in order to
                    > illustrate v 15, by showing that Jesus preceded John in eternity even though
                    > John's ministry preceded his in time. Could it possibly be that simple?
                    >

                    An interesting way of looking at it. This would "preserve," in v. 15, an "authentic" riddle of John then? It is unusual that the author
                    "likes" the saying enough to repeat it twice, and has John allude to it even in 3:28. Do you think John's [real, historical] prophetic
                    activity was explicitly messianic in some way?

                    Jeff
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.