Fwd: Unable to deliver your message
- Dear J-Lit Listers,
Once again I have received a message indicating that
this message bounced from the group. I have followed
the instructions to reactivate my membership in the
group and am re-sending this message. I hope it goes
through this time.
Jack, I'm leaving all of the messages attached this
time. I hope this helps determine what is going on
with the computer system.
--- Yahoo! Groups <email@example.com> wrote:
> Date: 28 Nov 2006 00:23:33 -0000<firstname.lastname@example.org<johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: pastor_t@...
> From: Yahoo! Groups <email@example.com>
> Subject: Unable to deliver your message
> We are unable to deliver the message from
> to <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
> Your email account has been bouncing mails. This
> means that emails
> sent to your account over several days have been
> returned to us.
> This is sometimes because mail boxes are filled up,
> or because of
> configuration problems. To reset your Yahoo! Groups
> account, please go
> to http://groups.yahoo.com/myprefs?edit=2
> For further assistance, please visit
> > Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:09:36 -0800 (PST)
> From: Tom Butler <pastor_t@...>
> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G redactions
> To: email@example.com
> Thank you for sharing your reasons for agreeing
> "Jack's inclination to think that John 21 is not
> written by the same person that wrote John 1-20."
> I suspect that Jack might describe his position a
> bit differently than you do. He has set forth a
> theory that a redactor's work can be detected
> throughout the gospel and has suggested that the
> prologue, the passage dealing with a woman caught in
> adulter (Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11) and chapter 21 are the
> of that redactor. (It will be interesting to see if
> he agrees with my summary of his theory.)
> I contend, however, that the premise (assumption?)
> that both of you (and many if not most Johannine
> scholars) make - that Jn. 1:19 - 20:31 is written,
> except for what can be identified as redactions made
> by one or more editors, by a single hand - is
> If approached from the point of view that the
> is the work of a community of scholars guided by the
> leader of that community (the Beloved Disciple),
> one would not expect to find a consistent vocabulary
> or writing style throughout the text (other than, as
> have suggested, that there is a consistent reliance
> semeiotic language taken from the Septuagint version
> of the Pentateuch).
> To the extent that a consistency exists, one might
> consider whether the work of that whole community of
> scholars has been thoroughly re-written by one or
> collaborating hands. In that case, the
> evidence of a redactor or redactors might well be in
> the text as a result of the same hand or hands that
> produced the consistency, and therefore should not
> removed from the text for the purposes of study. It
> could also be possible that the materials that don't
> reflect the redactor(s) hand may simply be
> that have yet to receive the benefit of that final
> edit, but which had been selected to be included in
> the text as a whole.
> The Prologue is a good case in point for this
> consideration. What value would there have been for
> the editor (even the editing hand of the Beloved
> Disciple) to changing a well-known and much loved
> hymn? It would seem to be more important to include
> it in the text without editing it than the other way
> I find myself in agreement with both CK Barrett
> RE Brown that we must accept the Gospel as it comes
> us, rather than by trying to detect editorial
> before studying it's content and structure.
> My reasons for taking this position, however, are
> somewhat different from Barrett's and Brown's. As I
> have mentioned briefly before in this thread, I see
> consistency in the signs woven into the text, a
> consistency that is disturbed when either the
> or chapter 21 is removed.
> I am hoping to make a case, and I hope others on
> list will join me in this, for the idea that
> uncovering the structure and thematic content of the
> Fourth Gospel AS IT IS must be the first step in
> mining its wealth of meaning. Only after that step
> has been satisfactorily completed are we free to
> determine if any of the material that seems not to
> fall into the discerned structure or patterns of
> meaning might have been added by a later redactor.
> Even then, I would expect to learn not only why a
> scholar comes to the conclusion that part of the
> gospel is an un-necessary addition (a gloss) or an
> editorial change (a redaction), but why that scholar
> believes that such a change would have been made by
> the hand of a redactor.
> I assume that the author(s) of the Fourth Gospel
> were intentionally writing scripture. If that was
> known and understood by a supposed redactor, then I
> would expect to be able to discern a reason for
> gloss and redactions to the text, a reason that
> make it more likely to be accepted as scripture in
> first century Christian community than it would have
> been without the changes. Why else would such
> be made?
> I have found significant meaning even in what is
> often described as "transitional material" in this
> gospel (with special thanks to Barrett's careful
> analysis). I fear that loosing such parts of the
> may well prevent us from seeing its whole message.
> I may be in a minority on this. Perhaps those
> favoring the redaction theory can convince me of the
> error in my rationale before we begin dealing with
> detailed evidence they have amassed in support of
> their theory/ theories.
> I will do my best (still working on Jack's
> list of redactions and your observations, Fabbri) to
> point out why removal of the material identified as
> redactions does more damage to the text and to our
> ability to study its structure or meaning than helps
> to clarify its structure or meaning.
> That appears to be, from my perspective, how our
> debate/ discussion of 4G redactions is shaping up.
> there another, a better way to describe where we are
> on this thread?
> Yours in Christ's service,
> Tom Butler
> --- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@...> wrote:
> > Tom,
> > I share Jack's inclination to think that John 21
> > not written by the same
> > person that wrote John 1-20.
> > I find the following reasons:
> > 1. Chapter 20 ends in vv. 30-31 with a
> > conclusion, that refers
> > back to the SHMEIA (signs), that can be found in
> > John 2-12. Therefore,
> > unless the contrary is proved, I understand John
> > 20,30-31 as the conclusion
> > of John 1-20 (whether you include the Prologue or
> > not).
> > 2. John 21,24 says the the beloved disciple wrote
> > TAUTA. It is reasonable to
> > think that TAUTA refers to what comes before, that
> > is to the Gospel as a
> > whole down to the first conclusion in John
> > 3. I find six reasons to think that Chapter 21 is
> > not written by the beloved
> > disciple who wrote John 1-20. I list them so:
> > 3.1. John 21,24 says that "we know that his
> > is true". The verb is in
> > first plural, so that whoever is speaking can be
> > easily distinguished from
> > the beloved disciple, that is referred to in third
> > person: "he".
> > 3.2. If the person speaking were the same as the
> > author of John 1-20, he
> > would be a person who testifies on his own behalf.
> > As John 5,31 says: "If I
> > testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be
> > verified".
> > 3.3. John 21,20-23 says that Jesus didn't say that
> > the beloved disciple
> > wouldn't die, contrary to the word spread among
> > brothers. These verses
> > make sense if they were written after the death of
> > the beloved disciple: the
> > author seems worried that some brothers might
> > that Jesus was wrong.
> > Therefore the beloved disciple didn't wrote these
> > verses.
> > 3.4. The fact that we find a conclusion in John
> > 20,30-31 make it plausible
> > the once the Gospel ended there, and chapter 21
> > added subesequently. The
> > fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not
> > when chapter 21 is
> > added leads to think that the author of John 21
> > didn't think he could change
> > what was already written. This doens't happen in
> > John 1-20, whenever the
> > test is modified. For instance, in chapter 4,2 a
> > correction is inserted
> > within the text. The author of John 21 doesn't
> > the same liberty.
> > 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are
> > named before: that is,
> > the sons of Zebedee. It is striking that they are
> > never named in John 1-20.
> > Whatever the reason, it no longer stands when John
> > 21 was written.
> > 3.6. Chapter 21 uses 174 different words. 27 of
> > are not existent in
> > John 1-20. For instance, in chapter 6 fish is
> > OPSARION. ICQUS is never
> > used. Chapter 21 uses ICQUS. It is unlikely that
> > the auothr of John 21 is
> > the same as the author of John 1-20.
> > I thin that 3.1-2 are the strongest reasons, that
> > give me certainty. I
> > recognis that the following reasons are indiciary.
> > If consiered separately,
> > they make it more likely that the author is
> > different. All together, they
> > make a strong case against identity of author.
> > If would be very interested to read a refutation
> > any of the given
> > reasons.
> > Marco
> > On 11/22/06, Tom Butler <pastor_t@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Jack,
> > > I understand that you are suggesting that the
> > > Prologue, Chapter 21 and "The Pericope de
> > Adultera"
> > > are contributions to the text of the Fourth
> > > made by a redactor or redactors. If my
> > understanding
> > > of what I take as your suggestion (or theory
> > commonly
> > > supported by most Johannine scholars) is
> > it
> > > seems to me that this would make a good thread
> > > discussion on this list.
> > > Why do you think these are indications of the
> > > of a redactor or redactors? Why, for example, is
> > it
> > > more likely that these three units of scripture
> > were
> > > added to the text by a redactor or redactors
> > by
> > > the "original author or authors"?
> > > As you may recall, my theory is that the Fourth
> > > Gospel is a careful compilation of Midrashic
> > > commentaries on the Jesus tradition. These
> > > commentaries use the language of the Septuagint
> > > version of the Torah to expound upon the meaning
> > of
> > > various elements of the Jesus tradition. The
> > purpose
> > > of the compilation (perhaps the very purpose of
> > the
> > > community from which these commentaries came)
> > appears
> > > to be the creation a new Torah for the new age.
> > > In other words I think these writers were
> > > intentionally writing scripture as they
> > upon
> > > the meaning of the Jesus tradition. They were
> > "doing
> > > theology" or "reflecting Christologically"
> > > those terms had meaning in most Christian
> > communities.
> > > Consistent with my theory is what I discern as
> > > evidence that there is a second story line
> > throughout
> > > the gospel, discernable when the Greek terms
> > borrowed
> > > from the Septuagint are identified as "signs"
> > (semeia)
> > > and which tell how Jesus systematically replaced
> > > ("recycled?" "redefined?" "transformed?") every
> > > element of the Mosaic tradition: the temple, the
> > > festivals of sacrifice and the priesthood.
> > > Consideration of the Prologue and Chapter 21 is
> > > important to this theory (or method of study),
> > which I
> > > have set forth in part in this space before. For
> > that
> > > reason, I would be willing to argue against the
> > idea
> > > that they are evidence of a redactor or
> > > (that is, some one or some group other than
> > > responsible for creating and shaping the rest of
> > the
> > > text.)
> > > Would you or other listers be interested in a
> > > dialogue or debate on this issue [Redactor(s) or
> > No
> > > Redactor(s)]?
> > > (I confess that I do not recognize the other
> > > you are using, "the Pericope de Adultura." Do
> > > mean Jn. 7:53 - 8:11 entitled "The Woman Caught
> > > Adultery" by the editors of the NRSV? If so, I
> > would
> > > be glad to include this pericope in our dialogue
> > > debate along with any other pericopes, should
> > or
> > > others seeking to support or reject the idea
> > this
> > > and/or other passages reflect or do not reflect
> > the
> > > work of one or more redactors.)
> > >
> > > Yours in Christ's service,
> > > Tom Butler
> > >
> > > --- Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...
> > <jkilmon%40historian.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Tom Butler" <pastor_t@...
> > <pastor_t%40pacbell.net>>
> > > > To:
> > > ><DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:22 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] bouncing?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Jack,
> > > > > I trust that your test, at least with
> > reference
> > > > > to my e-mail address, proved that you are
> > > > > bouncing.
> > > > > I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit
> > > > > Are we all so busy that discussion of the
> > Gospel >
> > > > has been placed on hold or has a different
> > > >
> > > been created where the discussion continues?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Butler
> > > > > Sparks, Nevada
> > > >
> > > > I think it may be everyone waiting for someone
> > else
> > > > to start a thread combined with busy times. I,
> > for
> > > > one, would like to hear..er..read...some text
> > > > critical opinions concerning the redactors of
> > > > 4G and opinions on the addition of the
> > > > chapter 21 and the Pericope de Adultera.
> > > > some of our members have studied these.
> > > >
> > > > Jack Kilmon
> > > > San Antonio, Texas
> > >
> > >
> > > <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>
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > _______________________________________
> > Marco V. Fabbri
> > Roma
> > Italy
> > e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
> > fax: ++39-06-68164400
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=system
> color=#0000ff>Yours in Christ's
> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>