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

Re: [John_Lit] 4G Redactors

Expand Messages
  • Fabbri Marco
    Tom, I will start answering your detailed e-mail. I share your interest for the text as it is. That is the text that was received by the Church as a sacred
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 1, 2006
      Tom,

      I will start answering your detailed e-mail.

      I share your interest for the text as it is. That is the text that was
      received by the Church as a sacred text, and all of it has the same valure
      for the faith of the Church. In this sense, I am not suggesting that the
      original text is more important than later additions.

      This doesn't prevent me to investigate into the story of the text. If
      evidence is provided that the text underwent a development, I am ready to
      accept that. It will become part of my understanding of the history of the
      text: the history of its redaction, and the history of its trasmission. I
      will value the original layers and the later layers, too.

      I share with Jack the idea that a redactor adds some passages to John.

      I don't agree that the same redactor added Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 and chapter 21.
      Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 is a passage that we single out for text critical reasons.
      It is not in the oldest and best manuscripts. It first appears in Codex
      Bezae. It also has a lot of hapax legomena (if you are interested, I can
      submit a list). The conclusion that text criticism draws is that, for both
      external and internal reasons, the text doesn't belong to the original.

      Interestingly, some manuscripts have the same text in other locations: at
      the end of the Gospel of John, or at the end of Luke. It has been suggested
      that this can be explained if Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 was a piece of tradition that
      was written down on its own, and added later to the Gospel. If so, Jn. 7: 53
      - 8:11 has its own value, but is not part of the structure of John. It
      becomes part of John only in the fifth century. Either John had no structure
      until the fifth century, or Jn. 7: 53 - 8:11 doesn't belong to that
      structure.

      As for the idea of a group of authors that writes the Gospel, I am skeptic.
      I don't think that a group of people can write a text. We have no news that
      this happened at the beginning of C.E. We know of texts that developed
      orally with the contribution of many authors, but don't know of text that
      were written by several hands at once. When an author wrote, he was alone or
      he enjoyed the help of a secretary, but no more than that. The author could
      dictate the text, and the secretary could be granted some freedom to add
      something, as Tertius does in Romans. In this case, Tertius says that he is
      adding a line of his own. Or Paul sometimes says that he is personally
      penning a sentence, when he is no longer dictating. The author could also
      ask his secretary to shape his ideas into a written text. In this case, the
      literary author is the secretary, who writes in his own words. Cooperation
      could go no further than that. The bottom line is that no more that one hand
      could hold the calamus at the same time.

      If so, than whenever I suggest that a different hand is writing, the burden
      of proof lies upon me. This is why I took pains to prove that John 21 is
      wrote by a different person than the beloved disciple.

      You can point to the fact that John 21 says that "we know that his witness
      his true". It looks like more than one person is speaking. If you are ready
      to accept that, because you take the author's word, then you should also
      accept that, according to the author of John 21, what comes before is
      written by the beloved disciple. This doesn't mean that we should refuse to
      admit that other hands wrote this part or that. It means that we can't
      assume that as a general rule, but rather that whenever we say that a person
      different from the beloved disciple is writing, the burden of proof is upon
      us. As you see, I am not taking John 21 lightly. I accept it as part of the
      Gospel, and I take it very seriously.

      As for the author, or authors, of John 21. I still think that no more than
      one person at once can hold the pen and write. If the person that writes
      John 21 writes that "we know", then I draw the conclusion that he has the
      authority to speak for a group. The author of John 21 would be in a
      condition similar to that of the author of 2-3 John, that often speaks in
      first person plural, even if he is one man, that is the PRESBUTEROS of 2
      John 1 and 3 John 1. The same PRESBUTEROS says in 3 John 12: hHMEIS
      MARTUROUMEN. It looks like he can speak for a group of brothers. This can be
      explained, if the PRESBUTEROS plays a part in the leadership of a Christian
      community. The letters to Timothy and Titus, along with the Letters of
      Ignace of Antioch, show that this could happen around the end of the first
      century and around the beginning of the second century.

      I believe that also the beloved disciple was such a leader. This is why he
      could also speak for others.

      Marco

      On 11/28/06, Tom Butler <pastor_t@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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
      >
      > P.S. Since first writing this, I've become aware that
      > all of the messages sent to the list have not been
      > arriving at my computer. I hope to catch up to the
      > conversation soon. It is not my intention to ignore
      > anyone else's contributions.
      >
      > --- Fabbri Marco <mv.fabbri@... <mv.fabbri%40gmail.com>> 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
      > >
      >
      > <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>TomButler</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>
      >
      >



      --
      _______________________________________
      Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
      Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
      Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
      Piazza S. Apollinare 49
      I-00186 Roma
      Italy

      e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
      fax: ++39-06-68164400


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Kym Smith
      Dear Marco, Just one lttle snippet from your letter.
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 1, 2006
        Dear Marco,

        Just one lttle snippet from your letter.

        <<<As for the idea of a group of authors that writes the Gospel, I am
        skeptic. I don't think that a group of people can write a text. We
        have no news that this happened at the beginning of C.E. >>>

        It may not be a gospel but the very process you deny must have
        happened with the letter from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:22-29).
        There is no reason why a group could not have shared thoughts and
        worked coopreatively on a gospel like happens every day with all
        manner of books, reports, etc.

        Kym Smith
        Adelaide
        South Australia
        khs@...
      • Fabbri Marco
        Dear Kym: your quotation of Acts is appropriate. We have a letter, written by somebody, possibly under dication, to reflect the agreement of the Council, that
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 1, 2006
          Dear Kym:

          your quotation of Acts is appropriate.

          We have a letter, written by somebody, possibly under dication, to reflect
          the agreement of the Council, that is quoted as a document in the book of
          the Acts, that is not written by a council.

          I don't deny that people can work cooperatively. They can do this in various
          ways. But in the antiquity this was done orally. Written texts are written
          by individuals, that can take full advantage of the work of the group.

          Today we have wikis, that allow cooperative writing. In the antiquity
          writing was a very slow process, that lead to a single manuscript. The
          manuscript then had to be copied, and this is slow, too. Modifications could
          be done, but other people woulnd't know about them until the modified text
          was copied and distributed. There was no multiple access to the same text.

          Printed texts were a revolution. Digital text are a revolution. We should be
          careful not to bring our habits back to the time when a book was written and
          copied by hand.

          At least, this is my view. I am open to change my mind, if evidence from
          ancient texts requires that.

          Marco

          On 12/1/06, Kym Smith <khs@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Marco,
          >
          > Just one lttle snippet from your letter.
          >
          > <<<As for the idea of a group of authors that writes the Gospel, I am
          > skeptic. I don't think that a group of people can write a text. We
          > have no news that this happened at the beginning of C.E. >>>
          >
          > It may not be a gospel but the very process you deny must have
          > happened with the letter from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:22-29).
          > There is no reason why a group could not have shared thoughts and
          > worked coopreatively on a gospel like happens every day with all
          > manner of books, reports, etc.
          >
          > Kym Smith
          > Adelaide
          > South Australia
          > khs@... <khs%40picknowl.com.au>
          >
          >
          >



          --
          _______________________________________
          Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
          Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
          Pontificia Università della Santa Croce
          Piazza S. Apollinare 49
          I-00186 Roma
          Italy

          e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
          fax: ++39-06-68164400


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Kym Smith
          Dear Marco, An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the many have undertaken to compile a (single) narrative . The common view of this is that many
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 1, 2006
            Dear Marco,

            An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
            undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
            is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
            grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
            single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
            produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.
            I include below a much-ammended portion from a book I am about to
            publish (on teh Synoptic Problem) which deals with this. I have taken
            this piece from a section on Luke's prologue.

            ------------------------------------

            `Have undertaken' (EPECHEIRHSAN) is in the aorist tense; it would read
            better as `undertook', in the sense that the `many', in one corporate
            act at one point of time, `undertook' to compile a gospel. The
            imperfect tense would have more accurately indicated the gradual
            production of various narratives over time, if that were the case.
            Though the root of EPECHEIRHSAN means `to put hand to', Luke has not
            used it in the sense of `taking up a pen' or `writing'. On the other
            two occasions where he has used this verb, Acts 9:29 and 19:13, there
            is no sense of writing at all; rather, it conveys an act in which a
            group of men, at one point of time, acted in unison. The former refers
            to a group of Hellenists who had resolved together to kill Paul.

            '(Paul was) preaching boldly in the name of the Lord . And he spoke
            and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking
            (EPECHEIROUN – had undertaken) to kill him.'

            The latter is exactly the same case as that in the prologue and
            relates to the group of Jewish exorcists who called on the name of
            `Jesus whom Paul preaches'.

            Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook (EPECHEIRHSAN)
            to pronounce the name of Jesus over those who had evil spirits...

            `To compile' is also important here. Luke's ANATAXASTHAI, means `to
            compile' or `to arrange'. Luke may have used this term so as not to
            repeat himself, but the term GRAPSAI, `to write', which he uses in
            verse 3, or something similar, would have been more suitable if the
            actual writing of other gospels was what he meant. ANATAXASTHAI is
            only used here in the New Testament. On every other occasion in the
            gospel and Acts, apart from two, Luke uses a derivative of GRAPSW if
            someone was writing (e.g. Luke 1:3,63; 16:6-7; Acts 15:23; 25:26) or
            if something had been written, whether or not it had been written in
            the Scriptures (e.g. Luke 2:23; 10:20,26; 23:38; Acts 7:42; 24:14).
            The two exceptions are Acts 15:20 and 21:25 where he uses forms of
            EPISTELLW and both of these refer to the letter (the epistle) sent to
            encourage the Gentile believers after the Jerusalem council.

            ------------------------------

            What I would put on the table for consideration, however, is that that
            single narrative was actually the Gospel of John, but I won't defend
            that for a month or two.

            Kym Smith
            Adelaide
            South Australia
            khs@...
          • Fabbri Marco
            Dear Kym, thank you for pointing to this text. I would contend that: 1) Luke 1:1 does not say that the narrative is a written narrative 2) even if he did, this
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 2, 2006
              Dear Kym,

              thank you for pointing to this text.

              I would contend that:
              1) Luke 1:1 does not say that the narrative is a written narrative
              2) even if he did, this cannot be the same narrative as the Gospel of John
              1-20.

              1) DIHGHSIS is certainly a narrative. And this narrative has been arranged
              according to a TAXIS, that is, an order that can be recognized.

              My point is that a narrative can be arranged in a written form, but also in
              an oral form. On its part, a written narrative can be arranged according to
              an order that a reader can recognize, or it can be written in such a way
              that the reader doesn't perceive a TAXIS.

              I will refer to a famous fragment by Papias, quoted by Eusebius in his
              Ecclesiastical History:

              MARKOS MEN hERMENEUTHS PETROU GENOMENOS, hOSA EMNHMONEUSEN, AKRIBWS
              EGRAPSEN, OU MENTOI TAXEI, TA hUPO TOU CRISTOU H LECQENTA H PRACQENTA. OUTE
              GAR HKOUSE TOU KURIOU, OUTE PARHKOLOUQHSEN AUTWi, HUSTERON DE, hWS EFHN,
              PETRWi, hWS PROS TAS CREIAS EPOIEITO TAS DIDASKALIAS, ALL' OUC hWSPER
              SUNTAXIN TWN KURIAKWN POIOUMENOS LOGIWN.

              Here we have Peter that arranges his teachings according to need, and Mark
              that listens to Peter and writes down what he heard from him. Mark writes
              OU... TAXEI. He does not impress into his narrative an order that is
              perceived by Papias.

              I am not asking that you agree that Mark reflects the preaching of Peter,
              nor that Mark's narrative has no TAXIS at all. Rather, my point is that the
              Greek ANATAXASQAI, when used to speak of a narrative, does not mean "write
              down" a narrative, but rather "impress an order" to a narrative. This can be
              done orally or in a written form.

              The same frragment by Papias shows that Peter 's teching included accounts
              of Jesus' words, but also of his actions (PRACQENTA). An account of actions
              is a narrative. Here we have oral narratives by Peter, that are the source
              for Mark's written narrative.

              Again, I am not asking that such accounts by Peter were available to Mark.
              Rather, I am suggesting that our text allows for narrations to be organized
              and told even before anything was written.

              In other words, we should distinguish between "composition" of a narrative,
              that can be either oral or written, and "redaction", which is written.

              In my opinion, there is no prove that Luke's ANATAXASQAI DIHGHSIN refers to
              written composition. It may as well refer to oral composition. The Greek
              allows for that.

              Luke 1:3 says that he is going to write (GRAPSAI) a narrative, not that
              "many" wrote narratives. If you contend that "many" wrote, you should prove
              that. ANATAXASQAI DIHGHSIN is no proof.

              You seem to agree with that, when you write in the excerpt of your book: "On
              every other occasion in the gospel and Acts, apart from two, Luke uses a
              derivative of GRAPSW if
              someone was writing". It appears that Luke uses the verb GRAFW when he
              refers to a written account.

              2) Even if Luke 1:1 referred to written accounts (and I disagree with that),
              those accounts could not be the fourth Gospel as we know it. John 21:23 says
              that the beloved disciple is the one "who bears witness and wrote these
              things (hO GRAPSAS TAUTA)". Even if we knew nothing else about the beloved
              disciple, this text says that he is one person and that he wrote: the third
              singular is used. He could be one of the "many" that Luke 1:1 speaks about,
              he can't be all of them.

              Of course, you can deny that the picture of John 21 is not accurate. But, if
              so, why should Luke 1:1 be more accurate? Why should the picture of Luke 1:1
              provide a better understanding of John that the picture provided by John 21?
              I would rather use John 21 to form a picture of John 1-20, and use Luke
              1:1-4 to form a picture of Luke 1-24. At least, we are sure that John 21
              speaks of the Gospel of John, while it is yet to be proved that Luke 1:1
              speaks of the Fourth Gospel.

              So much for now. I thank you for providing a chance for discussion on this.
              It is wonderful to be able to hear from Nevada and from Australia, as if we
              are were all living in the same city.

              Marco




              On 12/1/06, Kym Smith <khs@...> wrote:
              >
              > Dear Marco,
              >
              > An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
              > undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
              > is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
              > grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
              > single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
              > produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.
              > I include below a much-ammended portion from a book I am about to
              > publish (on teh Synoptic Problem) which deals with this. I have taken
              > this piece from a section on Luke's prologue.
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > `Have undertaken' (EPECHEIRHSAN) is in the aorist tense; it would read
              > better as `undertook', in the sense that the `many', in one corporate
              > act at one point of time, `undertook' to compile a gospel. The
              > imperfect tense would have more accurately indicated the gradual
              > production of various narratives over time, if that were the case.
              > Though the root of EPECHEIRHSAN means `to put hand to', Luke has not
              > used it in the sense of `taking up a pen' or `writing'. On the other
              > two occasions where he has used this verb, Acts 9:29 and 19:13, there
              > is no sense of writing at all; rather, it conveys an act in which a
              > group of men, at one point of time, acted in unison. The former refers
              > to a group of Hellenists who had resolved together to kill Paul.
              >
              > '(Paul was) preaching boldly in the name of the Lord . And he spoke
              > and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking
              > (EPECHEIROUN � had undertaken) to kill him.'
              >
              > The latter is exactly the same case as that in the prologue and
              > relates to the group of Jewish exorcists who called on the name of
              > `Jesus whom Paul preaches'.
              >
              > Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook (EPECHEIRHSAN)
              > to pronounce the name of Jesus over those who had evil spirits...
              >
              > `To compile' is also important here. Luke's ANATAXASTHAI, means `to
              > compile' or `to arrange'. Luke may have used this term so as not to
              > repeat himself, but the term GRAPSAI, `to write', which he uses in
              > verse 3, or something similar, would have been more suitable if the
              > actual writing of other gospels was what he meant. ANATAXASTHAI is
              > only used here in the New Testament. On every other occasion in the
              > gospel and Acts, apart from two, Luke uses a derivative of GRAPSW if
              > someone was writing (e.g. Luke 1:3,63; 16:6-7; Acts 15:23; 25:26) or
              > if something had been written, whether or not it had been written in
              > the Scriptures (e.g. Luke 2:23; 10:20,26; 23:38; Acts 7:42; 24:14).
              > The two exceptions are Acts 15:20 and 21:25 where he uses forms of
              > EPISTELLW and both of these refer to the letter (the epistle) sent to
              > encourage the Gentile believers after the Jerusalem council.
              >
              > ------------------------------
              >
              > What I would put on the table for consideration, however, is that that
              > single narrative was actually the Gospel of John, but I won't defend
              > that for a month or two.
              >
              > Kym Smith
              > Adelaide
              > South Australia
              > khs@... <khs%40picknowl.com.au>
              >
              >

              --
              _______________________________________
              Prof. Marco V. Fabbri
              Dipartimento di Sacra Scrittura
              Pontificia Universit� della Santa Croce
              Piazza S. Apollinare 49
              I-00186 Roma
              Italy

              e-mail: mv.fabbri@...
              fax: ++39-06-68164400


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... Yes, for example, William R. Farmer, THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (2d ed.; Dilsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1976), 222. However, this may be an
              Message 6 of 10 , Dec 4, 2006
                At 09:51 PM 12/1/2006 +0000, Kym Smith wrote:
                >An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
                >undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
                >is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
                >grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
                >single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
                >produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.

                Yes, for example, William R. Farmer, THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (2d ed.;
                Dilsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1976), 222. However,
                this may be an instance of a "distributive singular," which occurs
                in Luke-Acts with some frequency (see BDF § 140), so I would not
                press this grammatical point too hard.

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re:
                Message 7 of 10 , Dec 4, 2006
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
                  To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:31 PM
                  Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 4G Redactors


                  > At 09:51 PM 12/1/2006 +0000, Kym Smith wrote:
                  >>An even more appropriate text is Luke 1:1. There the 'many have
                  >>undertaken to compile a (single) narrative'. The common view of this
                  >>is that many attempts to write gospels had preceded Luke's but the
                  >>grammar - and Luke is known for his excellent Greek - only indicates a
                  >>single narrative. It is my view that the 'many' did cooperate to
                  >>produce a single narrative - I would not be the first to suggest this.
                  >
                  > Yes, for example, William R. Farmer, THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM (2d ed.;
                  > Dilsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina Press, 1976), 222. However,
                  > this may be an instance of a "distributive singular," which occurs
                  > in Luke-Acts with some frequency (see BDF § 140), so I would not
                  > press this grammatical point too hard.
                  >
                  > Stephen Carlson


                  I am certain you are correct, Stephen. In about three weeks many will
                  undertake to decorate a tree.

                  Jack

                  Jack Kilmon
                  San Antonio, Texas
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.