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

Fwd: Re: [John_Lit] 4G redactions

Expand Messages
  • Tom Butler
    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 1 of 1 , Nov 25, 2006
      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
      this one.

      Tom Butler

      --- Tom Butler <pastor_t@...> wrote:

      > Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:56:04 -0800 (PST)
      > From: Tom Butler <pastor_t@...>
      > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G redactions
      > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      > Jack,
      > Thank you for your explanation of why you think
      > that
      > the Gospel According to John as we have it today is
      > a
      > heavily redacted version of an older ("proto-John")
      > gospel, written to "soften or remove the
      > anti-Petrine
      > theme" of the proto-John Gospel.
      > I like your theory as to the purpose of the
      > Prologue
      > 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
      > of
      > 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
      > the
      > 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
      > signs
      > contained in Jn. 1:19 - 13:20.
      > By "sign" (semeia) I mean language intended to
      > convey
      > a meaning greater than at first is apparent, as do
      > methaphors, oracles and symbols. The "cypher" for
      > the
      > sacred signs woven into the Fourth Gospel is the
      > Greek
      > version of the Torah, the Septuagint.
      > In other words, I believe that in the Johannine
      > community (probably a school - with Culpepper) of
      > the
      > late first and early second century the readers of
      > the
      > 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
      > the
      > term derived from that LXX context to explain what
      > it
      > 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
      > call
      > theology or at least an early branch of Christian
      > theology, now called Christology.
      > "In the beginning" clearly points the reader(s) to
      > the
      > opening of the Torah. For Greek readers, it points
      > especially clearly to the Septuagint version of the
      > Torah.
      > There is a clearly theological rationale for linking
      > this phrase (a sign) with the logos (O LOGOS), a
      > Greek
      > term used to describe the world in Stoic and
      > Neo-platonic philosophy and thus a UIOS TOU THEO
      > (son
      > of god - but not as a name)(see Kleinknecht TDNT
      > vol.
      > 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
      > things
      > 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
      > that
      > appears to have been important to the author(s) of
      > the
      > Fourth Gospel as is evidenced by the use of the
      > Greek,
      > 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
      > or
      > a gloss. It is essential to the mind set of the
      > reader who is tasked with the challenge of finding
      > and
      > interpreting the signs woven into what follows.
      > Finding and interpreting signs is the first step
      > toward "doing theology," that is, explaining what
      > the
      > 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
      > of
      > Luke as a source (the use of the name Lazarus found
      > only in Luke 16:20f for example, or references to
      > two
      > women named Mary and Martha found only in Luke 10:
      > 38-42) for Johannine material.
      > The fact that material from these sources was used
      > to
      > describe the Jesus tradition does not necessarily
      > mean
      > 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
      > respond
      > 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
      > ending
      > > of Mark and then redacted and appended to John, I
      > > also look at the Prologue and see no certain
      > Aramaic
      > > 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
      > 16:12,
      > 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
      > redactions
      > 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
      > >
      > bracket.
      > Don't these three passages suggest that the
      > writer(s)
      > 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
      > verse
      > because it appears to have been drawn from a source.
      > Why not consider why it was drawn from that source
      > and
      > 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
      > is
      > > restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases.
      > It
      > > does.
      > Are you arguing that the author(s)/ redactor(s) of
      > the
      > Fourth Gospel was (were) somehow in communication
      > with
      > the author(s) of the Gospel of Mark? (It sounds
      > like
      > you are suggesting that the author or authors of
      > John
      > literally took Mark's ending out of Mark's text and
      > added it to the Gospel of John.) How does that
      > square
      > with the theory that the Gospel of Mark was
      > published
      > about 50 years before the Gospel of John? Do you
      > subscribe to the idea that parts of the Gospel of
      > John
      > were written at a time as early or even earlier than
      > the Synoptic Gospels?
      > > As an Aramaicist, I am the "follow the Aramaic"
      > guy
      > > and also find support in this supported by Burney.
      > > If John 21 was removed from Mark, edited with a
      > few
      > > 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
      > Mark
      > > 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,
      > but
      > 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
      > whom
      > 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
      > is
      > that to you? Follow me!" This is hardly a removal
      > of
      > an anti-Petrine theme, but a repetition of a rebuke
      > to
      > Peter already found in the Synoptics (Mark 8:33,
      > Matt
      > 16:23), and it is the last word in the extant
      > Gospel.
      > Why, if a redactor was trying to soften or remove
      > this
      > 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
      > the
      > 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>Yours in Christ's service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
      <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.