Fwd: Re: [John_Lit] 4G redactions
- Jack and Other J-Lit Listers,
I sent this message to the J-Lit group and it
bounced back to me. I believe I have repaired the
cause of the bounce, but if this message was not
previously received, I hope this copy will get
through. If it was previously received, please delete
--- Tom Butler <pastor_t@...> wrote:
> Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:56:04 -0800 (PST)<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> From: Tom Butler <pastor_t@...>
> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G redactions
> To: email@example.com
> Thank you for your explanation of why you think
> the Gospel According to John as we have it today is
> heavily redacted version of an older ("proto-John")
> gospel, written to "soften or remove the
> theme" of the proto-John Gospel.
> I like your theory as to the purpose of the
> in what I (with Brown, Culpepper and others) would
> call the Johannine community. It seems likely that
> this hymn would have been sung prior to the reading
> the text of the Gospel. It does not seem likely to
> me, however, that its placement at the beginning of
> the cannonical version of the gospel was necessarily
> arranged by a redactor. That it does not appear to
> have been of Aramaic origin does not require that it
> be considered a redaction in my opinion.
> I'm curious as to your considerations regarding
> book of signs. A few of your comments suggest to me
> that you consider the book of signs to be the result
> of a redactor or redactors rather than an intrinsic
> part of the "original" text.
> The reason I raise this question is that my theory
> sees the Prolog as a guide to the cypher for the
> contained in Jn. 1:19 - 13:20.
> By "sign" (semeia) I mean language intended to
> a meaning greater than at first is apparent, as do
> methaphors, oracles and symbols. The "cypher" for
> sacred signs woven into the Fourth Gospel is the
> version of the Torah, the Septuagint.
> In other words, I believe that in the Johannine
> community (probably a school - with Culpepper) of
> late first and early second century the readers of
> gospel were expected to expound upon the meaning of
> the signs that had been intentionally woven into the
> gospel text, but they were not free to use their own
> imagination to do this. They were required to make
> reference to that very same Greek term found in the
> LXX (usually in the Torah), and use the meaning of
> term derived from that LXX context to explain what
> meant in the gospel context. This is the Midrash
> method, commonly used in Rabbinical schools of that
> era. I believe it was used to teach what we now
> theology or at least an early branch of Christian
> theology, now called Christology.
> "In the beginning" clearly points the reader(s) to
> opening of the Torah. For Greek readers, it points
> especially clearly to the Septuagint version of the
> There is a clearly theological rationale for linking
> this phrase (a sign) with the logos (O LOGOS), a
> term used to describe the world in Stoic and
> Neo-platonic philosophy and thus a UIOS TOU THEO
> of god - but not as a name)(see Kleinknecht TDNT
> IV, p. 91), which was used in the LXX to translate a
> Hebrew term used describe the "background" of a
> matter, the meaning of a word or thing (and all
> have meaning). (See Proktsch TDNT vol.IV, p.92)
> The LXX bridges an important linguistic gap between
> the Hebrew language and the Greek language, a gap
> appears to have been important to the author(s) of
> Fourth Gospel as is evidenced by the use of the
> rather than the Hebrew or Aramaic language (though
> clearly some of the thoughts included in the Gospel
> originated in Hebrew and/or Aramaic minds.)
> My point is that the use of the Logos Hymn as the
> Prolog of the Fourth Gospel is not an afterthought
> a gloss. It is essential to the mind set of the
> reader who is tasked with the challenge of finding
> interpreting the signs woven into what follows.
> Finding and interpreting signs is the first step
> toward "doing theology," that is, explaining what
> Jesus tradition means.
> This leads me to a second point. You have done an
> excellent job of pointing out a likely use of the
> Gospel of Mark as a source for the Fourth Gospel. A
> similar case can be made for the use of the Gospel
> Luke as a source (the use of the name Lazarus found
> only in Luke 16:20f for example, or references to
> women named Mary and Martha found only in Luke 10:
> 38-42) for Johannine material.
> The fact that material from these sources was used
> describe the Jesus tradition does not necessarily
> that a redactor inserted that material into a
> proto-John text. Indeed, how else would we expect a
> school to identify the Jesus tradition other than by
> reference to existing accounts, especially written
> accounts, of that tradition?
> Before this message gets too long, let me just
> to the specific points that you made.
> --- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:
> > There is a redaction at John 19:38 which begins in
> > the same manner as John 21:1 suggesting, to me,
> that the same copyist/redactor did both. I think
> > the original beginning of John was at 1:19. Going
> > with my theory that ch 21 was originally the
> > of Mark and then redacted and appended to John, I
> > also look at the Prologue and see no certain
> > origin. I do see Mark's use of PROS HMAS and this
> is, as Burney points out, confined to Mark and
> > John. Mark is missing a conclusion. John has an
> > extra conclusion. Mark anticipates a first
> resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21 >
> without the "third appearance" editorial insert at >
> 21:14 is that first appearance.
> Is the redaction to which you are referring (Jn.
> 19:38; 21:1) the phrase translated "After these
> things..." META OUTOS? If so, do you consider that
> wherever that phrase is used, it is an indication of
> the work of a redactor?
> For example it is also used in Matt 6: 32, Mark
> Luke 12:30 and in the Torah at Gn. 15:1; 21:1; 22:20
> and in Ezra 9:1. Are all of these passages
> because the phrase "After these things..." was used?
> > In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times. In John
> > (21:15-17) Peter affirms his love three times.
> That completed another Markan bracket.
> > In Mark, the shepherd is struck down and the sheep
> scattered. In John 21 Peter becomes the new >
> shepherd..another Markan bracket.
> > In Mark, the first words spoken to a disciple are
> "follow me." In John 21 the LAST words spoken >
> are "follow me" (Jm 21:22) another completed Markan
> Don't these three passages suggest that the
> of the Fourth Gospel is (are) (1) aware of Mark's
> gospel and (2) is (are) expounding upon it? Yes, I
> see a connection too, but the consequence of seeing
> the connection is not that we should delete the
> because it appears to have been drawn from a source.
> Why not consider why it was drawn from that source
> recognize the meaning that is being drawn from that
> source or expanded within the Johannine text?
> > If John 21 was originally the first resurrection
> > appearance account of the ending of Mark, Mark
> > would become unified literarily if the appendage
> > restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases.
> > does.
> Are you arguing that the author(s)/ redactor(s) of
> Fourth Gospel was (were) somehow in communication
> the author(s) of the Gospel of Mark? (It sounds
> you are suggesting that the author or authors of
> literally took Mark's ending out of Mark's text and
> added it to the Gospel of John.) How does that
> with the theory that the Gospel of Mark was
> about 50 years before the Gospel of John? Do you
> subscribe to the idea that parts of the Gospel of
> were written at a time as early or even earlier than
> the Synoptic Gospels?
> > As an Aramaicist, I am the "follow the Aramaic"
> > and also find support in this supported by Burney.
> > If John 21 was removed from Mark, edited with a
> > Johannine signature phrases, we should see
> typically Markan Aramaisms noted in Mark and John >
> with none or little in Matthew and Luke. I find >
> this in Mark's frequent use of the historic present
> resulting from Aramaic narrative participle also >
> frequent in John and John 21.
> > There is also a connection between John and Mark's
> use of imperfects, the rare use of de and frequent
> > use of kai, the partitive APO in 21:10 used by
> > at 5:35, 6:43, 7:4 and 12:2.
> > My reconstruction of Aramaic "proto-John" is an
> > ongoing project but I see the pen..er..reed..of
> Mark in John 21 and believe this was appended to
> > soften or remove the anti-Petrine theme.
> There is clearly an anti-Petrine theme in the Gospel
> According to John. Jn. 21 does soften that theme,
> it does not remove it.
> Note that most of the anti-Petrine theme occurs in
> situations where Peter is compared with the Beloved
> Disciple (AKA "the other disciple," "the disciple
> Jesus loved.") The last word to Peter from Jesus
> regarding the BD in Jn. 21:21 and again in 21:23 is
> "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what
> that to you? Follow me!" This is hardly a removal
> an anti-Petrine theme, but a repetition of a rebuke
> Peter already found in the Synoptics (Mark 8:33,
> 16:23), and it is the last word in the extant
> Why, if a redactor was trying to soften or remove
> theme, would the last word included in the redaction
> be a rebuke of Peter by Jesus?
> I fear that this response to your comments is
> already too long. I will reserve my comments for
> remainder of your well written article for another
> submission to the list.
> Yours in Christ's service,
> Tom Butler
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>