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

Fwd: Unable to deliver your message

Expand Messages
  • Tom Butler
    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
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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.

      Tom Butler

      --- Yahoo! Groups <notify@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

      > Date: 28 Nov 2006 00:23:33 -0000
      > To: pastor_t@...
      > From: Yahoo! Groups <notify@yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: Unable to deliver your message
      >
      >
      > We are unable to deliver the message from
      > <pastor_t@...>
      > to <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>.
      >
      > 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
      > http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/
      > > Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:09:36 -0800 (PST)
      > From: Tom Butler <pastor_t@...>
      > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G redactions
      > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Fabbri,
      >
      > Thank you for sharing your reasons for agreeing
      > with
      > "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
      > work
      > 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
      > refutable.
      >
      > If approached from the point of view that the
      > Gospel
      > is the work of a community of scholars guided by the
      > leader of that community (the Beloved Disciple),
      > then
      > one would not expect to find a consistent vocabulary
      > or writing style throughout the text (other than, as
      > I
      > have suggested, that there is a consistent reliance
      > on
      > 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
      > more
      > collaborating hands. In that case, the
      > aforementioned
      > 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
      > be
      > 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
      > components
      > 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
      > around.
      >
      > I find myself in agreement with both CK Barrett
      > and
      > RE Brown that we must accept the Gospel as it comes
      > to
      > us, rather than by trying to detect editorial
      > changes
      > 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
      > a
      > consistency in the signs woven into the text, a
      > consistency that is disturbed when either the
      > prologue
      > or chapter 21 is removed.
      >
      > I am hoping to make a case, and I hope others on
      > the
      > 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
      > adding
      > gloss and redactions to the text, a reason that
      > would
      > make it more likely to be accepted as scripture in
      > the
      > first century Christian community than it would have
      > been without the changes. Why else would such
      > changes
      > 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
      > text
      > 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
      > the
      > detailed evidence they have amassed in support of
      > their theory/ theories.
      >
      > I will do my best (still working on Jack's
      > detailed
      > 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.
      > Is
      > 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
      > is
      > > 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
      > fully-fledged
      > > 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
      > 20,30-31.
      > >
      > > 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
      > witness
      > > 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
      > the
      > > brothers. These verses
      > > make sense if they were written after the death of
      > > the beloved disciple: the
      > > author seems worried that some brothers might
      > think
      > > 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
      > was
      > > added subesequently. The
      > > fact that the conclusion in 20,30-31 is not
      > modified
      > > 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
      > take
      > > the same liberty.
      > >
      > > 3.5. Chapter 21 names some disciples that are
      > never
      > > 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
      > them
      > > 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
      > of
      > > 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
      > Gospel
      > > > 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
      > correct,
      > > it
      > > > seems to me that this would make a good thread
      > for
      > > > discussion on this list.
      > > > Why do you think these are indications of the
      > work
      > > > 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
      > than
      > > 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
      > expounded
      > > upon
      > > > the meaning of the Jesus tradition. They were
      > > "doing
      > > > theology" or "reflecting Christologically"
      > before
      > > > 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
      > redactors
      > > > (that is, some one or some group other than
      > those
      > > > 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
      > term
      > > > you are using, "the Pericope de Adultura." Do
      > you
      > > > mean Jn. 7:53 - 8:11 entitled "The Woman Caught
      > in
      > > > 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
      > you
      > > or
      > > > others seeking to support or reject the idea
      > that
      > > 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:
      > >
      >
      <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > >
      > > > > 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
      > not
      > > > > > bouncing.
      > > > > > I wonder about the silence on the J-Lit
      > list.
      > > > > > Are we all so busy that discussion of the
      > > Gospel >
      > > > > has been placed on hold or has a different
      > list
      > > > >
      > > > 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
      > prologue,
      > > > > chapter 21 and the Pericope de Adultera.
      > Perhaps
      > > > > 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
      > service,</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
      > <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT face=System color=#0000ff>Tom
      > Butler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
      >


      <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.