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

Re(2): [John_Lit] John 6:4 The Jewish Passover Feast was near.

Expand Messages
  • panderso@georgefox.edu
    ... Thanks, Frank, and also for your provocative contribution! I think EGGUS TO PASCHA has been wrongly interpreted as a theological detail, and while it has
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 12 11:30 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      >Hi everyone
      >
      >I am surprised Paul A has not come in on this ... John 6!

      Thanks, Frank, and also for your provocative contribution! I think EGGUS
      TO PASCHA has been wrongly interpreted as a theological detail, and while
      it has come to serve chronological interests, I believe its original
      function was kairological rather than chronological. Further, it casts
      historical light on the issues developed by Montefiori and others (see my
      book, pp.183ff. exp note 4) where I develop "the revolt in the desert"
      more fully (also to be considered in the light of Jn. 6:14f. and 66,
      passim).

      I know I need to write an independent essay on this matter as well, but
      here's what I say on verse 4 (pp. 172f.):

      The mention of eggus to pascha is neither chronological nor theological
      in its purpose, but it is used to describe the religio-political situation
      in which the feeding and the misperception of Jesus’ messiahship by the
      crowd (vs. 14f.) were to have taken place. To ‘read into’ the paschal
      reference the Pauline notion of a sacrificial lamb christology, or a
      cultic reference to eucharist, is deflective. The primary function of the
      eggus to pascha theme in John is to increase the nationalistic intensity
      of the narrative in order to make an emphatic distinction between the kind
      of Messiah Jesus was anticipated as, and the kind of Messiah Jesus
      intended to be. Thus, when the three eggus to pascha passages in John
      are considered jointly (2:13; 6:4; 11:55) several matters become clear: a)
      his ‘zeal’ for his Father’s ‘house’ is not the zealotry of the Zionist,
      who would rebuild the Temple in Zion in defiance of Roman occupation, but
      the power of Jesus’ kingship (18:37), which is finally revealed in the
      resurrection (Jn. 2:13-22); b) the Jewish leaders are obviously afraid of
      the Roman backlash, which would follow a paschal messianic revolt (Jn.
      11:45-55) and decide to offer Jesus up as a ‘religio-political sacrifice’
      to the Romans; and c) in Jn. 6:4-69 Jesus is misperceived as an
      army-feeder like Elisha (vss. 9ff., an implicit connection with 2 Kings
      4:42-44), the prophet-king, like Moses (vs. 14, explicit), and even the
      Holy One of God (vs. 69) who restores the Kingdom by means of spiritual
      acts of power (cf. Mk. 1:24). In each of these cases, a reference is made
      to the disciples’ misunderstanding, which later reinterpreted Jesus’
      salvation as spiritual, rather than political, after his death and
      resurrection (2:21 f.; 6:60-66; 12:16): an indication of a Stage 5,
      Conjunctive reinterpretation of Jesus’ messiahship in the light of later
      events.
      The historicity of such religio-political tensions associated with the
      feeding event is corroborated by the primary interpretive comment within
      the Marcan tradition (Mk. 6:34), where Jesus has compassion upon the
      multitude because they are like ‘sheep without a shepherd’. The
      traditional associations of this phase go back to the installation of
      Joshua as the successor of Moses (Nu. 27:15-17) and the vision of Micaiah
      ben Imlah upon the eve of the tragic battle of Ramoth Gilead (1 Ki. 22:17;
      cf. Jer. 8:22) -- scenes which later contribute to a primary image of the
      Zion restoration as described in Zech. 10:2ff. This ‘Zionist’ motif was
      inherent only to the Marcan tradition, as both Matthew and Luke omit such
      interpretive comments in the post-70 CE redactions of Mark. In the
      Johannine tradition, however, earlier and later interpretations co-exist
      together, and it may reasonably be assumed that vs. 4 was an integral part
      of the arlier oral tradition, as was Mk. 6:34 within the pre-Marcan
      tradition, rather than a later interpolation added to an extant text.

      Thanks!

      PA

      Paul N. Anderson
      Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
      George Fox University
      Newberg, OR 97132
      503-554-2651
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.