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

Re: [John_Lit] 4G Redactors

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.